By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk on 02 March 2011
Edit Thread
dib8rman said:
Booh! said:

To cut a long story short: both those Qur'an are not Uthmans Qur'an or copy of that Qur'an (if it ever existed). None of them was ever scientifically examined (wonder why). However the one in Turkey is at least from the 8th century ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html ), the same goes for the one in Tashkent ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html ).

The oldest Qur'an known is the one (very incomplete) in Sana'a, which is from ~710/720 CE.


Very good post, the Sana'a is also not recognized as a version of the Qur'an and the person who made it popular (I honestly forgot his name) was not the best person to be once he translated it. From what I understand parts of it were missing and it is written in a very simple form of Arabic making it very hard to interpret.


This reply is actually to both of you...

I think I'm done in this thread as its getting no where and each party is simply reverberating the same general comments over and over.

I quoted the above as it best fits my final thoughts.

Everything I posted fits into one of two categories, imo.

1. My personal beliefs and interpretations of the great number of Holy Books in this world based on reading and studying them, personally and university level.

2. My studies, personally and university level, of history in the Middle East and the Western world.

Could I be entirely wrong in everything I've posted, including my synopsis of the two Qur'ans mentioned? of course. However, that would also mean that the many books, classes, teachers, and more recently websites are also all wrong. In fact, it means that sources from both west and east are essentially lying at some point. Obviously this only refers to #2 as #1 is entirely based on my perceptions of God and the way God has sent out message after message to the people of the world. However, part of that is based in #2 as well.

Alternatively, I could be at least largly accurate and that would mean that you two are either lying or reading false material in your own right. After all, any given religious topic will have tons of pro and con sources.

Based on the previous posts, it seems Booh! probably bases his knowledge on personal acquaintances and Google.  dib8rman seems to be based on a number of previous study, philosophy, general religious debates where he is atheist, and the web.

I kinda get the feeling that both of you only accept the writings of things that already fit your preconceived notions of Islam. You both think Islam is evil/violent by nature and that the current Islamic state is just doing what is ordained. With that, anything else that demonizes Islam and the Qur'an fits your logic and is good.

The Qur'an discussion quoted is a perfect example of this. While I have read sources that attack the credibility of these Qur'ans and others that are also ancient, I have read many more sources that agree with what I pulled from the Wikipedia article.

I still hold firm that present Islamic nations are to Islam as Medieval Europe was to Christianity and that by tossing out the Hadiths, Islam could reform to what is taught in the Qur'an and be the community it is supposed to be.

Either way, right or wrong.. see ya in the more pertinent gaming discussions.