Perfect Preservation of the Quran

[seekinheart]

Christians pray to their view of God, as do Muslims. Just because you think that you're superior doesn't actually make you. You both have personal practices and salvation theologies. Muslims are usually far more devoted to God than you Christians usually are, who are scared of devotion and only pray speaking in monotone usually sitting on your couch or bed. Do you actually go into altered states or anything? or do you just "feel" Jesus-emotions?

As for me, no I think your question is deeply flawed. We are the personal, that's why we exist.

its not about superiority its about truth, there is one truth, muslims and christians cannot both be right, they can both be wrong, but we arent wrong, ive felt the holy spirit its probably one of the only things that keeps me being a christian it was like an electrical charge running through my body, never felt anything like it, ive took alot of drugs in my time, and it was unparalelled. I think when ur a muslim, deist whatever u are, u kind of think uve had a taste of that spirit but u havent, u can feel a burning in ur chest, a goosebumpy feeling, but i tell u what that electricity and zooming up into ur head and the peace and joy, and ecstacy of it, u know whats true after u feel that.

so when u talk about "altereed states" come back to me when u get a peice of that.

 

[Resistor]

its not about superiority its about truth, there is one truth, muslims and christians cannot both be right, they can both be wrong, but we arent wrong, ive felt the holy spirit its probably one of the only things that keeps me being a christian it was like an electrical charge running through my body, never felt anything like it, ive took alot of drugs in my time, and it was unparalelled. I think when ur a muslim, deist whatever u are, u kind of think uve had a taste of that spirit but u havent, u can feel a burning in ur chest, a goosebumpy feeling, but i tell u what that electricity and zooming up into ur head and the peace and joy, and ecstacy of it, u know whats true after u feel that.

so when u talk about "altereed states" come back to me when u get a peice of that.

What you're talking about isn't exclusive thing to Christianity and is a thing that many of us experience. Most religions speak of what you've said on some level, some more central and direct and other more vaguely, but it's there.

Holy Spirit - the Inner Divine Power

The nature and Power of the Divine Holy Spirit in all of its forms and Manifestations.

www.anunda.com

Learn About the 5 Layers of Energy Surrounding Your Physical Body

Learn about the five layers of energy on and around your body and discover how each one functions in relation to the others.

www.learnreligions.com

The Flow of Kundalini Energy throughout the Body | MaryShutan.com

maryshutan.com

http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id1222-the-silver-cord.html

Islamic Meditation and Islamic Spiritual Cultivation Methods

www.meditationexpert.com

The Qur'an on Spiritual Perception

Prepared by Kabir Helminski, August 2007 Signs for Those Who Use Their Intelligence Truly, in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and the succession of night and day: and in the ships that speed through the sea with what is useful

sufism.org

 

[seekinheart]

What you're talking about isn't exclusive thing to Christianity and is a thing that many of us experience. Most religions speak of what you've said on some level, some more central and direct and other more vaguely, but it's there.

Holy Spirit - the Inner Divine Power

The nature and Power of the Divine Holy Spirit in all of its forms and Manifestations.

www.anunda.com

Learn About the 5 Layers of Energy Surrounding Your Physical Body

Learn about the five layers of energy on and around your body and discover how each one functions in relation to the others.

www.learnreligions.com

The Flow of Kundalini Energy throughout the Body | MaryShutan.com

maryshutan.com

http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id1222-the-silver-cord.html

Islamic Meditation and Islamic Spiritual Cultivation Methods

www.meditationexpert.com

The Qur'an on Spiritual Perception

Prepared by Kabir Helminski, August 2007 Signs for Those Who Use Their Intelligence Truly, in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and the succession of night and day: and in the ships that speed through the sea with what is useful

sufism.org

theres that and then theres real thing, its like eating, a rump and comparing it to filet, there are similarities but like I said, its beyond that, I used to meditate ive felt the "kundalini energy" it doesnt feel pure, its almost orgasmic, but its not the holy spirit 2 very different things, like I said here u are comparing apples and oranges with no first hand experience.

 

[Resistor]

theres that and then theres real thing, its like eating, a rump and comparing it to filet, there are similarities but like I said, its beyond that, I used to meditate ive felt the "kundalini energy" it doesnt feel pure, its almost orgasmic, but its not the holy spirit 2 very different things, like I said here u are comparing apples and oranges with no first hand experience.

Maybe you should try more practices till you come across the "holy spirit" again. What you describe is not special or unique as I've said.

 

[seekinheart]

Maybe you should try more practices till you come across the "holy spirit" again. What you describe is not special or unique as I've said.

it is u just dont want to believe it is, how can u know, if u never experienced it? U cant experience the holy spirit other than following Jesus, praising and believing, because even if ur argument is true, which its not, its entirely possible under ur thinking that THAT particular feeling is unique to christianity. So how can u possibly know what it feels like? Unless ur a believer?

Why does the word Jesus put a stop to alien abductions?

No other word btw, from research. Look into it.

One truth, not relativism.

 

[Resistor]

U cant experience the holy spirit other than following Jesus

Even in the Bible itself you're telling lies. The Holy Spirit occurs all throughout the Old Testament narratives way before Jesus came along.

its entirely possible under ur thinking that THAT particular feeling is unique to christianity. So how can u possibly know what it feels like? Unless ur a believer?

Your thinking: I have an experience, I believe that Christianity is true, therefore only Christians have my experience.

Why does the word Jesus put a stop to alien abductions?

You tell me, Jesus is a far cry away from the Hebrew word Yeshua.

 

[seekinheart]

Even in the Bible itself you're telling lies. The Holy Spirit occurs all throughout the Old Testament narratives way before Jesus came along.



Your thinking: I have an experience, I believe that Christianity is true, therefore only Christians have my experience.



You tell me, Jesus is a far cry away from the Hebrew word Yeshua.

lots of pedanticism here, ur operating in a completely different spirit to the truth.

Holy spirit like Jesus in the OT, is present but is not something that was dwelling with us so much in the OT, in my humble opinion. Ur comparing 2 different times, after the period of which Gods plan unfolded to the age of grace, they also did animal sacrifice, does that mean we should be doing that?

No, my belief is not solely based on my experience but very difficult to get away from. Its my personal experience I dont expect u to understand but theres a consistency like all things with truth, that christians experience.

If u think God doesnt know ur heart and that Jesus is Yeshua, ur being pedantic. It doesnt matter that u didnt use his hebrew name, why would it? if I call out to my dad, and I called him a nickname we know I know and someone whos watched my life with any interest would know who I mean, God sees ur heart. Thats such a poor argument. And one u think im not aware of I guess? Im totally aware of it, but u know what it doesnt matter because movements like the sacred name etc, is no different to the new age and many others its about YOUR enlightenment and how much more spiritually developed and the next phases to grant u all the things, u want to get for ur self to make u a more enlightened being, and a sacred name means u have the truth, while there is an element of this in christianity, the fundamental basis of which that is twisted is different, its not supposed to be viewed that way it is grace unto all. Enlightenment is all about the focus of urself, and illuminating urself, Christianity is about freely accepting a gift u cannot earn urself.

Can Christians be christians for the wrong reasons sure, but ur more likely to fall into that trap as a new ager, or whatever else. Its like peace isnt a practice, it makes me wonder, all these people trying to detach, trying to get better at being peaceful, so they sit or meditate, but the peace that passes all understanding is something that comes upon you, you cant actively seek it, its granted by God, here is where secularists and others twist this to be reduced to, well in theory its the same practice and while it may be, the motivations are different its not about grounding urself, its about taking refuge in the Lord, because if he actually exists and ur secure with him based on his promise and that gives u FAITH, how can u know ur secure if u dont know him? he never told u who he was what he truly was about his instructions etc

Its abit like forgiving someone, it just happens to you, you can say the words but is it really so? Hard to think of an analogy for this, but ultimately theres a difference in the practices of those religions and the actual real deal, and that peace that people are working so hard to get can ALWAYS be taken away, when u know ur ultimately going to die, and u have no assurance, self reliance of ur own importance is flawed in that u are always GOING TO DIE, so when u know that, ur always going to NOT WANT TO DIE, without assurance that there is a plan greater than urself, this is why so many will be transhuman with the promise of not dying. I know because when im in flesh thats exactly how I feel.

Crazy eh.

I think u need to learn more on what the holy spirit does, and its testimony its not just some wacky experience u have, btw its a consistent theme. See this is where its all about ur heart, is ur heart open to the truth? is it actively seeking the truth, if it is trust me u will arrive at Jesus, do some more studying, with an OPEN MIND AND HEART. All about the heart, not what u intellectually think, its deeper than that.

 

[Artful Revealer]

When you talk about so-called "variants"/changing of dots, you are referring to the different qira'at. As other posts have described, the qira'at are all legitimate readings of the Quran spoken of in hadeeth. They do not diverge from the morpho-skeletal structure of words, and are all legitimate readings as long as they have a 'mutawaatir' reported chain of transmission back to the Prophet himself, and the correct vocalisation. Here is a reddit post from r/Islam that explains concisely what the qira'aat are:
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/2nnma0/_/cmf7eq3

FaridResponds also talks about it in a video already posted in this thread (perhaps you have already watched it):

And here are two pages from the book 'the History of the Qur'anic Text' that I had already posted before (perhaps you have already read it):


This is from an entire book that examines the argument, and provides evidence for the qira'at, it is free to download from the 'kalamullah' website:
https://www.kalamullah.com/history-of-the-quranic-text.html


Further information about variant readings, the 'qira'at':

Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

www.islamic-awareness.org

In these classical sources, the variant readings are well documented and they were discussed extensively from the point of view of grammar and their origin. Hence more than 1000 years ago, even before the Biblical criticism was conceived, Muslims knew what the variant readings of the Qur'an were and from where they originated. And it is the Christian missionaries who really had the "advantage" and have used the Qirâ'at dishonestly to assert that the Qur'an is corrupted.

It is clear from the sources quoted above that Muslims were neither scared nor uncomfortable with dealing with the variant readings. They were rather professional in their approach towards dealing with the variant readings and also developed an elaborate science called "cUlûm al-Qirâ'at". Bernard Lewis in his book Islam in History writes:


So, long before the textual criticism of the Bible originated, Muslims already went through the process of textual criticism. The Qirâ'at were well-known among the Muslims. It is also worthwhile to point out that even to this day Muslims recite the Qur'an in various Qirâ'at. Moreover, these are also available in printed editions.

Adrian Brockett after studying the Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'at says ( See his article "The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur'an"):


In conclusion it can be said that the Muslims had the 'critical text' right from the time of the Prophet(P).


From: http://www.al-mawrid.org/index.php/articles/view/collection-and-transmission-of-the-quran-part-1-3
Once the Qur'an was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet (sws) and memorised by many of his companions, it was transmitted to the next generations both verbally and in script form. In fact, the verbal transmission superseded the written one. For it is this transmission that has actually safeguarded the Qur'anic text which can be read variously if the actual vocalization is not known. Hundreds and thousands of the Prophet's companions learnt it by heart and then passed it on verbally to the next generation, which in turn memorised the text in great numbers and this process is still continuing. This generation to generation transmission is so overwhelming and all-embracing that the transmitted text has been rendered safe and secure from any alteration. Consequently, such is the prodigious nature of this transmission that solitary reports which convey even a slight difference are of no value. In other words, like established historical events which are also conveyed through such generation to generation transfer and which as result cannot be challenged, the text of the Qur'an we have with us, on similar grounds, is also established beyond any doubt. For example, the facts that Napolean was defeated at Waterloo by the Duke of Wellington or that Genghiz Khan ravaged Baghdad are reports that have been transmitted from the generations that saw and witnessed these events to the next to the extent that no one can challenge the established nature of these reports. Similar is the case of the mechanism of the transmission of the Qur'an. The Qur'an we have with us today has been transferred by thousands of the companions of the Prophet (sws) with a consensus on the report that this was the very Qur'an revealed to Muhammad (sws). In turn, this generation transferred this Qur'an and this report to the next generation. So, just as the contentions that Napolean never met his fate at Waterloo or that Baghdad was never devastated by Genghis Khan cannot be entertained in the world of reason and rationality since they belie established history, the contention that the Qur'an we have today is not the same as what was revealed to Muhammad can in no way be accepted.11

Also, in this regard, the following points need to be appreciated:

(i) All written texts of the Qur'an are actually compiled and written on the basis of the oral transmission. In other words, written texts are not the real source of the transmission of the Qur'an. They are totally dependent on the oral tradition of transmission, which is the real mode of transmission of the Qur'anic text. Even today, each written text must be attested by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz who has learnt the Qur'an.

(ii) It is the oral transmission which was used later on by the Ummah to write the vowel sounds on the Qur'anic text for the benefit of non-Arab readers.

(iii) The often undertook quest for the oldest written codex of the Qur'an has academic importance only since this has no role in determining the original text of the Qur'an, which, as pointed out, is not dependent on written texts.12


Here is another article from the Yaqeen Institute on this:

The Origins of the Variant Readings of the Qur'an

This publication explores the diverse modes of recitating the Quran, the history and the 'why' behind these different readings.

yaqeeninstitute.org

The different modes of recitation are named after the most famous early reciter known for teaching that mode, and individuals who master a mode and receive ijāzah (license to teach) in it become part of an unbroken chain of transmission of that mode back to the Prophet ﷺ. While the majority of the Muslim world is accustomed to hearing the Qur’an recited in the mode of ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd (d. 127 AH) according to his student Ḥafs ibn Sulaymān (d. 180 AH) (frequently referred to simply as Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim), other modes continue to be recited such as that of the Medinan Nāfiʿ (d. 169 AH) (transmitted by his students Qālūn (d. 220 AH) and Warsh (d. 197 AH)), which remains the dominant mode in many regions of North Africa. Specialists in Qur’anic recitation will be familiar with seven or ten canonical modes of recitation.[2] All of these modes of recitation adhere to the muṣḥaf (codex) of the Qur’an compiled under the supervision of the Caliph ʿUthmān (d. 35 AH) in the year 30 AH (650 CE), which was written without diacritics, thus accommodating the variations. The vast majority of these differences are quite subtle, although in certain cases they add nuances in meaning, complementing one another.

Some other of Farid's reponses, e.g. on the Sanaa manuscript

These textual variants aren't about qira'at. This is about consonantal changes, coverings, the missing of 3 or more entire words, addendums, etc.

 

[pescatarian09]

These textual variants aren't about qira'at. This is about consonantal changes, coverings, the missing of 3 or more entire words, addendums, etc.

Your claim: "The Qur'an is not preserved as a result of changes, coverings, addendums."
The only thing a Muslim would need to prove to dismiss your (David Wood & Daniel Brubaker's) contention: The same Quran revealed to Prophet Muhammad is the same Quran that I have in my hand today.
-- If one scribe in the history of Islam made a single mistake in the copying of the Quran, is that evidence that the Quran was not preserved and transmitted? No.
-- If a manuscript is found where the scribe, subject to dittography and haplography, omitted, or substituted a word, mistaking it for a similar passage, does that mean the Quran was not preserved? No.
-- How do we know that a manuscript in which the copyist made such a mistake, was not taken to be part of the Qur'anic text? Because manuscripts written before the erroneous manuscript would not include the same error. The Quran is a living text, i.e. it is known by memorisers, to the extent that a single mistake, however small, would be recognised and corrected. What about all the other manuscripts written at the same time do not include that mistake. Do we then pay attention to the erroneous script, and ignore all the correct ones?
-- By the above logic you would have to accept that a 1631 reprint of the King James Bible, that by mistake, inscribed the words 'thou shalt commit adultery', in Exodus 20:14, was in fact, legitimate. But guess what your counter argument would be: this misprint goes against the other manuscripts, the word 'not' is supposed to be there. If such a 'consonantal change, covering, the missing of 3 or more entire words' happened in the Quran do you not think that there would be a clear grammatical error, and the sentence would not make sense anymore? Forget "perfect preservation", the sentence itself would not even make sense in the Arabic language. Do you think an Qur'anic linguist and grammarian would accept this poor copy as correct in face of the all the other evidence?
-- Why would a variant script be accepted in the face of the available tafseer, textual criticisms, and agreed collective consensus of the learned scholars and companions of the Prophets himself? Scholars have always been very careful about this: there is an entire science dedicated to the reliability of hadeeth, and the judgement of whether hadeeth are reliable or not. This same academic rigour is applied to such manuscripts. If the transmitter is not a reliable, known character, and the details of the transmission of his evidence are not proven, what reason would the scholars have to trust him?
-- I recommend you read: The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation, it is free download from the kalamullah website, it might give you a greater insight into the matter. https://www.kalamullah.com/history-of-the-quranic-text.html

Wicked Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dittography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Haplography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

parablepsis - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

 

[seekinheart]

no ones watching all those videos man

 

[pescatarian09]

no ones watching all those videos man

I was gonna watch the video you posted on the differences between Islamic and Christian eschatology. Its an interesting topic.

 

[seekinheart]

I was gonna watch the video you posted on the differences between Islamic and Christian eschatology. Its an interesting topic.

yeh thats one vid u posted 3 or 4, its alot is all im sayng for one reply

 

[pescatarian09]

yeh thats one vid u posted 3 or 4, its alot is all im sayng for one reply

You don't have to watch them if you don't want. But I would recommend out of all of them, Qur'an mistakes or your mistakes. Its only 6 minutes.

 

[pescatarian09]

This is also a brilliant video to watch, you won't regret watching it, it's really good:

It does touch on the Quran preservation stuff a bit, but its mostly about the purpose of life, and arguing for God based on first principles.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Your claim: "The Qur'an is not preserved as a result of changes, coverings, addendums."
The only thing a Muslim would need to prove to dismiss your (David Wood & Daniel Brubaker's) contention: The same Quran revealed to Prophet Muhammad is the same Quran that I have in my hand today.
-- If one scribe in the history of Islam made a single mistake in the copying of the Quran, is that evidence that the Quran was not preserved and transmitted? No.
-- If a manuscript is found where the scribe, subject to dittography and haplography, omitted, or substituted a word, mistaking it for a similar passage, does that mean the Quran was not preserved? No.
-- How do we know that a manuscript in which the copyist made such a mistake, was not taken to be part of the Qur'anic text? Because manuscripts written before the erroneous manuscript would not include the same error. The Quran is a living text, i.e. it is known by memorisers, to the extent that a single mistake, however small, would be recognised and corrected. What about all the other manuscripts written at the same time do not include that mistake. Do we then pay attention to the erroneous script, and ignore all the correct ones?
-- By the above logic you would have to accept that a 1631 reprint of the King James Bible, that by mistake, inscribed the words 'thou shalt commit adultery', in Exodus 20:14, was in fact, legitimate. But guess what your counter argument would be: this misprint goes against the other manuscripts, the word 'not' is supposed to be there. If such a 'consonantal change, covering, the missing of 3 or more entire words' happened in the Quran do you not think that there would be a clear grammatical error, and the sentence would not make sense anymore? Forget "perfect preservation", the sentence itself would not even make sense in the Arabic language. Do you think an Qur'anic linguist and grammarian would accept this poor copy as correct in face of the all the other evidence?
-- Why would a variant script be accepted in the face of the available tafseer, textual criticisms, and agreed collective consensus of the learned scholars and companions of the Prophets himself? Scholars have always been very careful about this: there is an entire science dedicated to the reliability of hadeeth, and the judgement of whether hadeeth are reliable or not. This same academic rigour is applied to such manuscripts. If the transmitter is not a reliable, known character, and the details of the transmission of his evidence are not proven, what reason would the scholars have to trust him?
-- I recommend you read: The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation, it is free download from the kalamullah website, it might give you a greater insight into the matter. https://www.kalamullah.com/history-of-the-quranic-text.html

View attachment 38819View attachment 38820

Wicked Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dittography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Haplography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

parablepsis - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

It's not that I don't appreciate the work you put in your arguments, but I think we can make it more simple. It is your and many other muslims' claim that the 1924 Cairo edition of the Quran we have now is identical to the eternal Quran as originally revealed to Muhammad. The existence of erroneous manuscripts doesn't disprove that claim, I agree. But to support your claim that the entire Quran has remained unchanged in almost 1,400 years, the oldest manuscripts would have to corroborate that, but such manuscripts do not exist, only manuscripts with textual - not just dialectical - variants exist, therefore this claim is unsupported.

I see that muslims seem to be putting their money on Farid as the Islamic apologist on textual criticism, so I'll be awaiting his full review of Brubaker's book and take it from there.

 

[pescatarian09]

It's not that I don't appreciate the work you put in your arguments, but I think we can make it more simple. It is your and many other muslims' claim that the 1924 Cairo edition of the Quran we have now is identical to the eternal Quran as originally revealed to Muhammad. The existence of erroneous manuscripts doesn't disprove that claim, I agree. But to support your claim that the entire Quran has remained unchanged in almost 1,400 years, the oldest manuscripts would have to corroborate that, but such manuscripts do not exist, only manuscripts with textual - not just dialectical - variants exist, therefore this claim is unsupported.

I see that muslims seem to be putting their money on Farid as the Islamic apologist on textual criticism, so I'll be awaiting his full review of Brubaker's book and take it from there.

Are you looking to be convinced at all if given the evidence, or do you only want to disprove preservation?

 

[pescatarian09]

Again, the 1924 Quran is a matter of qira'at. It establishes the general use of the 'Hafs' qira'at, and increases the number of vowel signs, which are important for the use of non-Arab speakers.

Quora gives a good answer, and also goes further in depth:

How was the Cairo Quran (1924) compiled and canonized?

Answer (1 of 4): The Qur'an of 1924 was compiled like all other Qur'an readings. It is called the 1924 Qur'an simply because this specific Qur'an was discovered in that year. To understand how the Qur'an was compiled and preserved is a lengthy subject and found in looking at the narrations in ma...

www.quora.com

Second, there is no such a thing as the 1924 Qur’an.

It is only one Qur’an Karim, revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). 1924 refers to the date of the establishment of the printing house in Egypt. The Qur’an Karim used to be printed in the capital of Caliphate, in Istanbul. But after the fall down of the Caliphate, Egypt established a printing press.

The printing press has been so punctual and prudent that it kept revising the versions it prints for nearly 30 years. It is drawn with the same basics on which it was drawn during the era of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Plus, there are other printing houses and there is no one single dispute between any of them.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Are you looking to be convinced at all if given the evidence, or do you only want to disprove preservation?

You seem insecure about Quranic preservation. If this OP has an intention, it is to free you from that insecurity and make you realise that the validity of your religion doesn't stand or fall with the perfect preservation argument.

I'm willing to hear Farid's full review when it comes out. Considering the context, that's the most generous offer I can give.

 

[pescatarian09]

You seem insecure about Quranic preservation. If this OP has an intention, it is to free you from that insecurity and make you realise that the validity of your religion doesn't stand or fall with the perfect preservation argument.

I'm willing to hear Farid's full review when it comes out. Considering the context, that's the most generous offer I can give.

I am satisfied by God when He says that the He will preserve His book (Q 15:9). That's enough for me as a Muslim.

However, I see that for someone who isn't Muslim, what is written in the Quran is not enough, because they do not believe it is God's word in the first place. Saying that the validity of Islam is not affected by the Quran couldn't be further from the truth. Its like saying that Judaism/Christianity remain unchanged in the absence of the Old and New Testament. In many ways, religions are their books.

 

[seekinheart]

I am satisfied by God when He says that the He will preserve His book (Q 15:9). That's enough for me as a Muslim.

However, I see that for someone who isn't Muslim, what is written in the Quran is not enough, because they do not believe it is God's word in the first place. Saying that the validity of Islam is not affected by the Quran couldn't be further from the truth. Its like saying that Judaism/Christianity remain unchanged in the absence of the Old and New Testament. In many ways, religions are their books.

were u born a muslim?