Technically speaking

[Mr Tickle]

From the perspective of a Court of law, is it fair to say that it is impossible to prove that the Koran we read today is exactly the same as the first Koran that was collated by Uthman?

[Jeff]

I think there are all kinds of interesting questions about Quranic integrity that Muslims don't know about or avoid.

But I think it's true to say that all the evidence we have points to a VERY SUBSTANTIAL identity between the Quran of Uthman's day and the one we have now.

So I think it depends on what you mean. But putting aside questions like Shia variation on a few verses or differences between the four basic (and other) ways of READING the Quran (pointing the vowels in the text), the answer would be that you would get a Yes, by any reasonable historical standard of judgment.

You know that the standard of evidence in a civil question like this is "more likely than not", right? More than 50%?

But even by the "clear and convincing" standard I think it would pass.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" as used in criminal cases? I don't know if very much in the historical realm could meet that standard....

[wudjab]

Which also raises the question about the similarity between what was revealed to Mohammed and the version that Utham collated.

[STING]

How would you want to prove that it is true or untrue? In such matter, we use historic references and contemporary facts.

If you ready Islamic history, everything is quite clear with no ambitious ages. Also, the following facts should end any doubt:

1. There is only a single version of the Qur'an, as it has been since its sequential revelation over 23 years and subsequent compilation.
2. There are no inconsistencies within the Qur'an.
3. Reliable records of time of revelation of verses in a sequential manner exit, with detailed explanations and accounts.

We can go on, but if you think logically, these seem more then enough.

I've said this before, Muslims are the only group who are lucky enough to have their revelation protected and kept consistent even after 1500 years.

Compare this with Christianity, about 2010 years old, and you will realize how lucky Muslims truly are.

But then again, in the Qur'an god says that he revealed the Qur'an and he is its protector.

[wudjab]

If you read Mr. T's initial post "From the perspective of a Court of law, is it fair to say that it is impossible to prove that the Koran we read today is exactly the same as the first Koran that was collated by Uthman?" you will notice you failed to address the question.

Once again, circular logic cannot be used to answer this question.

[Mr Tickle]

Hi Sting,

In a court of law, I would imagine that your points (1-3) are 'faith' related - rather than 'fact' related?

For example

Technically speaking, if I was to absolutely prove that the Koran we read today is exactly the same as the 1st Koran that was put into a book, surely I would need to show this first book?

Otherwise, surely it is (technically) faith?

[ChezChez]

But there's this possibility that it has been changed. By the time the Quran was written it has been 500 years since god sent it. :os

[BrAiKi]

Get your facts straight ChezChez :XD:

I think, technically speaking, one can't prove that the Holy Quraan is the same.
Just the same way you a book copy can't be proved to be the same as the original version, once the original version was lost!

[ChezChez]

Get your facts straight ChezChez :XD:

I think, technically speaking, one can't prove that the Holy Quraan is the same.
Just the same way you a book copy can't be proved to be the same as the original version, once the original version was lost!

Inzain* 20 years? Still. :inno:

*Alright? xD

[wudjab]

I think it's important to find out why the original no longer exist.

[Jeff]

Hi Sting,

In a court of law, I would imagine that your points (1-3) are 'faith' related - rather than 'fact' related?

For example

Technically speaking, if I was to absolutely prove that the Koran we read today is exactly the same as the 1st Koran that was put into a book, surely I would need to show this first book?

Otherwise, surely it is (technically) faith?

The problem, Pino, is that this is almost always true for ancient written historical documents.

Almost all of them are copies of copies that exist hundreds of years after the fact.

There are standards of evidence that are proper to each discipline. For historical facts, in a court of law, HISTORICAL standards are applied.

If something in a court of law--say a property issue going back to ancient times--rested on a historical point about Julius Caesar, then the court would ask experts in history to offer their opinions about the reliability of the evidence involved. But the STANDARDS they would use--and the court--would be HISTORICAL standards.

You seem to be saying: Our first Quran manuscripts come from a long time after Uthman. How can we know that his Quran is the one we have today?

The answer would be: A consistent manuscript tradition dating back to time X plus 100 is strong evidence of the originality of that tradition at time X, all other things being equal.

We have no complaints, for example, of tampering coming from dissenters in later years. We have no alternative manuscript tradition or secondary evidence of the suppression of such traditions in later times.

This is strong historical evidence. Very strong.

Now, that does NOT address the problem of Uthman's collation of manuscripts itself...and his DESTRUCTION of all original source material. That's an entirely different question.

And it does NOT address the whole religious question of the reliability of a single manuscript tradition versus one with variants. There I think the Muslims are all wrong.

But you asked about Uthman. And fair is fair.

[ChezChez]

The first Quran was written or rocks and tree leaves la?

(Right)

[BrAiKi]

I suggest u go to wikipedia and read about it ChezChez. There is no need to go off topic.

[wudjab]

If I remember correctly, there are Hadith that refer to a missing Ayat al Rajm (the verse on stoning for adultery).

[BrAiKi]

Really? I never heard of it. It would be interesting to read about it.
Maybe it's just like that "satanic verses" made up story.

[ChezChez]

Really? I never heard of it. It would be interesting to read about it.
Maybe it's just like that "satanic verses" made up story.

Well, that's what it said in the Islamic Studies book. :angel:

[Jeff]

This is going off course.

The question is NOT whether Uthman's version is problematic.

The question is whether what we have is Uthman's version.

And the answer to that is: Substantially, YES.

There is some evidence of minor variation. But the manuscript tradition is SUPER STRONG since then.

[wudjab]

Really? I never heard of it. It would be interesting to read about it.
Maybe it's just like that "satanic verses" made up story.

It's here in Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html

[Mr Tickle]

The question is NOT whether Uthman's version is problematic.

The question is whether what we have is Uthman's version.

Correct

(I guess as long as we all believe that Uthman's version was the 1st time it was collated into one book/document - i.e. it was/is the 1st Koran)

[wudjab]

^^

Mr. T,

Your point would be valid IF the general consensus was that the Quran is unchanged from the time Utham collated the official version.

But, what is said is that the Quran is UNCHANGED from the time Mohammed is supposed to have received it from the Angel Gabriel.

Therefore, my opinion is that we need to look even before Uthman.

But this is your thread, so I'll let you decide which direction you want to steer it in.

[BrAiKi]

It's here in Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html


The hadith says that people might stop stoning to death of those who commit adultery because it doesn't say so in the Holy Quraan, and it confirms that stoning to death did take place in the time of prophet Mohammed although that it is not mentioned in the Holy Quraan.

It doesn't say that the verses went missing.

[Mr Tickle]

Hi Wuddy,

You certainly have a point

I am very happy for the thread to take two strands

1) Can we say for 100% that the Koran we read today is the exact same version as the one that was put together under Uthman?

2) Can we say for 100% that the Koran that was collated by Uthman contained Mohammed's exact words?

[Jeff]

Correct

(I guess as long as we all believe that Uthman's version was the 1st time it was collated into one book/document - i.e. it was/is the 1st Koran)

Well, either there were no other collations or they were destroyed. In which case they would have been very few.

Remember, Uthman is pretty darned early. He's Mohammed's son-in-law and one of the Rashidun caliphs.

However, the so-called "Uthman" Qurans we have today are questioned by manuscript scholars.

The Sana'a manuscripts appear even earlier and do have some variations from the common tradition. And they have palimpsests--places where texts have been scraped out and new ones put on top.

But they cannot be freely studied anymore. Once the Yemeni government saw what the scholars were saying, they clamped down on access.

Fortunately, they were pressed and photographed before that happened. But to study the palimpsests, you need the original documents and laser technology.

[wudjab]

Braiki,

I'm not sure we're reading the same thing.

The Hadith expresses fears that people might go astray by NOT stoning adulterers to death BECAUSE such instructions do not appear in the Quran LEAVING AN OBLIGATION THAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED.... which means that there was a verse that required such a punishment.... it also says that Sufyan "memorized the narration this way".

What am I not getting right here ?

[Jeff]

The hadith says that people might stop stoning to death of those who commit adultery because it doesn't say so in the Holy Quraan, and it confirms that stoning to death did take place in the time of prophet Mohammed although that it is not mentioned in the Holy Quraan.

It doesn't say that the verses went missing.

That's POSSIBLE. But if the word "ayat" is used for the English word "verses" in the translation, I think the most probable meaning would be "there were some well known verses which were recited about stoning. But we don't find them in your collection."

It seems to refer to "THE verses" a particular set of known ayats with an identity of their own and even a name, "the verses of Rajam".

[Jeff]

Braiki,

I'm not sure we're reading the same thing.

The Hadith expresses fears that people might go astray by NOT stoning adulterers to death BECAUSE such instructions do not appear in the Quran LEAVING AN OBLIGATION THAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED.... which means that there was a verse that required such a punishment.... it also says that Sufyan "memorized the narration this way".

What am I not getting right here ?

I think that's right.

But I suppose it all depends on the Arabic words corresponding to "verses" and "narration".

But it DOES seem to indicate that a Quran narrator is saying, "We used to have verses X, Y, and Z and we recited them by memory this way..."

What would the alternative meaning be?

That there was a tradition of a hadith like command that was missed somehow?

[BrAiKi]

I stand corrected.

There was an ayah but it was changed, that was is known as the naskh in Islam. Changing of rules by revelation from God. Just like the drinking of alchohol rule which was eventually changed to forbidden. All that happened in the time of Prophet Mohammed.

And the "Hadith" was not said by the Prophet PBUH, it was said by Omar, the second Khalifa.

[wudjab]

Actually this is also covered in more detail in number 817.


Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among .......

In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.' (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.....

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817

[Jeff]

I'll have to look for the arabic hadith then.
But I'm sure that is what's meant by the hadith.

Yeah, when I read it in English it occurs to me that there are two possible ways to read it.

One is:

"Umar said, 'I am afraid people may say, There is nothing in the Quran about stoning', but we know it's a divine command. And I confirm it."

Another is:

"Umar said, 'I am afraid people may say, How come those verses on stoning that we remember being chanted aren't in the Book?'. Since we know it's a command of God, I, Uthman, confirm that."

You're going for the first reading; Wudjab for the second.

I think the second reading is stronger because of the phrase "THE verses" but also because of what comes after.

Umar says, "I confirm the FACT of the stoning being a divine command even though the verses aren't in the Book." And then Sufyan says in response, "And that's how I MEMORIZED THE NARRATION."

What else can he mean?

It might be possible that he is saying, "I memorized the narration the way you have it in the Book."

But that's not the best reading I don't think because of the world "this" or "that" which seems to refer to Uthman's principle about stoning, which immediately precedes it: "I learned to narrate the Quran including what you just said about stoning."

I guess you have a POSSIBLE reading of the hadith, Braiki, I'll grant you that. But it seems much more likely from the way the words are structured that it means what Wudjab says.

At least to a non-Muslim.

[Jeff]

Actually this is also covered in more detail in number 817.


Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among .......

In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.' (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.....

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817

That does seem to strengthen your case, Wudjab.

I guess it all revolves around the possible meanings of "verse" and "reveal". "Reveal" seems to indicate a Quranic revelation.

I wonder what Quranic scholars have to say about it?

There is also this part which you didn't bold for some reason:

"And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.'"

Seems like the Quran reciters are saying that they used to recite certain words in the Quran EVEN IN THE TIME OF MOHAMMED, which are not in the Book as presently constituted...

[wudjab]

I stand corrected.

There was an ayah but it was changed, that was is known as the naskh in Islam. Changing of rules by revelation from God. Just like the drinking of alchohol rule which was eventually changed to forbidden. All that happened in the time of Prophet Mohammed.

And the "Hadith" was not said by the Prophet PBUH, it was said by Omar, the second Khalifa.

When you use the term 'naksh' I assume you are referring to abrogation - where a latter verse supercedes a previous verse ?

[Jeff]

I guess one way to solve it would just be for Muslims to say that in the end, everyone agreed that the Book was as Allah wanted, but there were some traditions of revelation that were not quite on the same level and had got mixed in.

What are those special ahadith called, the ones in which Allah speaks to Mohammed but he didn't get the exact words?

[BrAiKi]

Yes, wudjab. That is one type of naskh. Another type would be by changing the whole verse. While the rule remains as it is.
And that's the case with that verse and what Omar was saying.

[Jeff]

I stand corrected.

There was an ayah but it was changed, that was is known as the naskh in Islam. Changing of rules by revelation from God. Just like the drinking of alchohol rule which was eventually changed to forbidden. All that happened in the time of Prophet Mohammed.

And the "Hadith" was not said by the Prophet PBUH, it was said by Omar, the second Khalifa.

Now that's a VERY interesting idea and possible...

But if so, Why doesn't the hadith simply say so?

And isn't an abrogation when a rule is CHANGED? In this case, the rule is NOT changed...that's the point of the hadith. The obligation still stands.

Why would an obligation that still stands have an ayat that supports it taken away?

[BrAiKi]

Now that's a VERY interesting idea and possible...

But if so, Why doesn't the hadith simply say so?

And isn't an abrogation when a rule is CHANGED? In this case, the rule is NOT changed...that's the point of the hadith. The obligation still stands.

Why would an obligation that still stands have an ayat that supports it taken away?

It would make me a prophet if I told you why, right Jeff :p
"Why" is not a question that you'd always find answers for in Islam. Some things are done for a wisdom that is known, some were done for a wisdom that is unknown.

[wudjab]

But if abrogation refers to a newer verse replacing an older verse, where is the older verse anyway ?

Can abrogation refer to a practice rather than a specific verse ?

[BrAiKi]

I knew that you were going to ask this next, wudjab. Therefore I have included it in my post number 33 ;)

[Jeff]

Yes, Braiki is right:

"naskh al-tilāwa dūna al-hukm: abrogation of the wording but not the ruling. Again, applicable only to the Qur'ān. The text of a still-functional ruling is omitted from the mushaf. Proof of the verse's existence is preserved within tradition (i.e through a hadith report) as well as in the Fiqh."

Then it says that the most famous example of this is the so-called stoning verse.

But it ALSO says that the majority of scholars reject the whole idea of this kind of naskh

'The third mode, naskh al-tilāwa dūna al-hukm, was accepted by only a minority of scholars''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

And one can see why.

If a verse is revealed, you have EVIDENCE of its being abrogated later BY ANOTHER REVELATION.

But if there is no REVELATION OF ABROGATION, where is your evidence it was abrogated?

I guess a Muslim must come up with some theory about the meaning of this hadith. And this might be a possible interpretation.

But non-Muslims looking at it are going to say: "No, the best and simplest way to understand these ahadith is that the Quran was standardized and was missing some well known verses. When it was realized that this had happened, it was a problem. They got around the problem by simply creating a ruling to take its place."

[Jeff]

It would make me a prophet if I told you why, right Jeff :p
"Why" is not a question that you'd always find answers for in Islam. Some things are done for a wisdom that is known, some were done for a wisdom that is unknown.

:p You are right, you are right. We have such whys in my religion too! :p

But my why was a special kind of why.

It was a 'what is a good reason for believing this' kind of why.

Like if the wife comes home and says, "I am late because I was at work doing a report" and the husband says, "Then why are your underwears missing?"

The wife can't say, "Ah, why, why, why...there is no answer to all the whys of life."

We are looking for EVIDENCE of abrogation.

For that, I think we need something, not nothing.

Evidence of abrogation could be:

1. A new rule revealed,
2. A statement from someone that it was abrogated.
3. At least some new rule introduced that would give you a reason to suppose it was abrogated.

Here the problem is there is no clear evidence of abrogation.

The only reason to believe in abrogation is: The verse is not in the Book as we have it.

Yes, I see that might be enough for a Muslim. But for a non-Muslim, it's kind of thin...

[Jeff]

I guess after some prayerful consideration, what I would say is this:

Braiki's observation is a very good one.

All of us Believers have certain puzzles or cruxes or disagreements within our religions. Christians have them; Jews have them; Muslims have them...

All of us begin with a kind of "reasonable faith" which we cannot prove but which we think we have good evidence to trust in.

A Muslim beginning with the principle of "reasonable faith" is not going to have the core of his faith challenged by such questions as are presented here.

And I think that's sensible.

Because the non-Believers have far larger puzzles and problems than any of the Believers do.

So I think Braiki's solution is a reasonable one for a Muslim.

As he says, We are still left with a Why, but there's no getting around that.

[wudjab]

I guess we could expect an end to the endless 'corrupted Bible' argument,eh ?

:D

[Jeff]

I guess we could expect an end to the endless 'corrupted Bible' argument,eh ?

:D

I doubt it! :p

The Bible's manuscript tradition is much more tangled and complex than for the Quran....

To me that's evidence FOR the Bible, not against it. For Muslims, it's the opposite.

[STING]

Hi Sting,

In a court of law, I would imagine that your points (1-3) are 'faith' related - rather than 'fact' related?

For example

Technically speaking, if I was to absolutely prove that the Koran we read today is exactly the same as the 1st Koran that was put into a book, surely I would need to show this first book?

Otherwise, surely it is (technically) faith?

Well, I don't agree it is faith related, not at all. You see, for me to be convinced logically today, I had to investigate the matter and compare it with previous revelations like the Bible.

I understand why you feel my points were purely faith related, perhaps because you know for a fact using facts, logic and any other type of testing that Bible is in fact not the word/teachings of God, Jesus or his disciples in its whole.

In fact, it is not even in the language they spoke.

The point is, many people from other religions blindly follow their books based completely on faith. So I understand.

As for court of law, I am not a lawyer and I strongly do not believe that courts of law provide a perfect ruling. That is another topic, so I will stop here :)

[Russo_turisto]

Well, I don't agree it is faith related, not at all. You see, for me to be convinced logically today, I had to investigate the matter and compare it with previous revelations like the Bible.

I understand why you feel my points were purely faith related, perhaps because you know for a fact using facts, logic and any other type of testing that Bible is in fact not the word/teachings of God, Jesus or his disciples in its whole.

In fact, it is not even in the language they spoke.

The point is, many people from other religions blindly follow their books based completely on faith. So I understand.

As for court of law, I am not a lawyer and I strongly do not believe that courts of law provide a perfect ruling. That is another topic, so I will stop here :)

I agree that a scripture seems to be lacking logic to a certain believer, depending on what religion he/she preaches. For a Muslim, the Bible seems corrupt. For a Christian, the Qur'an seems inconsistent. I guess this is obvious. Like some members said, Islam must be studied from within the Islamic paradigm and not from outside, not form the purely scientific point of view.

However, I doubt if circular logic is an attribute of either Islamic or conventional scientific studies.

I think our judgements depend a lot on our faith and we can't do anything about them.

As for the argument on what language the Apostles spoke, they necessarily spoke Aramaic, a language which is extinct now, and some other languages too, such as Koine Greek. The Bible, written in Aramaic and Greek, was translated via Latin to many languages. I'm sure you're very well aware of it.

God willing, translation of sense of the Qur'an will be made for many languages too and the transaltions will preserve the authenticity of the original.

So I don't see what's the big deal about the Bible having been written in another language.

[wudjab]

That was beautifully done Sting, some of your finest work yet.

Completely dodging the issue and bringing in completely unrelated material just to confuse the average reader.

You seem to have forgotten that this topic is discussing the Quran - not the Bible, Torah or the latest Harry Potter extravaganza.

But then, we expected nothing better from you so that didn't come as a surprise.

[Jeff]

I think Russo is touching on a good point, STING.

I think to Christians, when Muslims talk about these things, it seems like they are measuring by Quranic standards. In other words, they don't really understand what the Bible IS.

I think I understand the Muslim arguments well and I respect them. ANd yo even saw me on this thread defending some aspects of them.

But I always feel like somebody is pointing to a guy with a motorcycle and saying, "Your bicycle is smelly and it puts out smoke! And it makes a terrible noise! Mine is quiet and shiny and no smell at all!"

The problem is: A motorcycle is not a bicycle.

[Near]

Very interesting. I can't really argue with you guys in this matter Technically, but I think Jeff said it all.