The Instigator
LAZARUS77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Preservation of the Qur"an

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,416 times Debate No: 45195
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

LAZARUS77

Pro

Hello to everybody.
Before arguing about other subjects i would like to start to debate about the Preservation of the Qur"an (book of the muslims)... My position is Quran is indeed Preserved. please no insult no personal offense.

R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Arguments
R3 - Rebuttals
R4 - Rebuttals + Conclusions

Good luck
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
LAZARUS77

Pro

Before i starting off talking about the historical method & others, i will begin with the mathematical method that has been discovered, shows us the Quran is compossed of letters, words forming vesers and exceperts with mathematical system writing. if it was changed, this system would be non-existence.i Now lets begin...

- Mathematical Symmetry:
(you can watch this mathematical symmetry - https://www.youtube.com...) anyway i will exmpain it briefly...
In the Quran, there are 114 chapters, 6236 verses. if we add all the numbers of the chapters (1+2+3+4 ....+114) = 6555.
the same we do for the verses (chapter 1 has 7 verses, C2 has 286, C3 has 200...) So the sum of the verses -
(7+286+200...+6) = 6236.

chapter 1 has 7 verses. what we do is : 1+7 = 8 (even number). C2 has 286 : 2+286 = 288 !even number). so we doing the same for all the chapters (chapter nubmer + its verses.) and we have total of 57 even numbers and 57 odd numbers (exactly half of number chapters 114). Now here what is amazing. if we adding all even numbers (8+288+180...+120) = 6236. doing same thing to odd numbers, adding all of them (203+125+...+113) = 6555. lets look closer:

Sum of chapters: 6555
Sum of verses: 6236
Sum of odds: 6555
Sum of evens: 6236
(there are 57 even numbers and 57 odd numbers).

furthermore there are 114 chapers, 60 of them their nubmer verses are even numbers (like chapter 2 its verses are 286.) , and 54 are odd. half of the group of "evens" are consisting of 30 even chapters and 30 odds. the same goes to the group of "odds" - half of 57 (27) consisting of even chapters and other 27 of odd numbers.
This discovery shows us that even 1 verse or chapter removed or added, this system will not work, its connecting all chapters all verses and positioning them in same total of 57 odds & evens (30,30) (27,27) and the sums 6555 & 6236.


- Words system:
One way to talk about "words" is the repetitions of certain words, or connection between them, that all scattered through out the Quran from begining to end, so again if there were some changes in these words, it wouldnt exist. here some of them:

Repetitions
PARADISE=77 HELL=77
ZAKAAH (charity)=32 BLESSING=32
WINE=6 INTOXICATION=6
MIND=49 LIGHT=49
BENEFIT=50 CORRUPT=50
REWARD=107 ACTION=107
LOVE=83 OBEDIENCE=83
DESTINATION=28 FORVER=28
DISASTER=75 THANKS=75
ANNOYANCE=79 REJOICE=79
TREE=26 PLANT=26
SAY=332 THEY SAID=332
THIS WORLD=115, HEREAFTER=115
DAY (IN SINGULAR FORM)=365
MONTH(SINGULAR FORM)=12
NAME OF SATAN=11 REFUGE FROM=11
*the list goes on so i think you got it...

Now see this beautiful connection with others words.
Sum of all names of the prophets (Adam=25 + Ibrahim=69...) = 513. Now the root Word prophet occurs 513 times.
In chapter 18; 309 Words from the begining of the story to the Word 309.
the words night+nights mentioned 92 times exactly as number of the chapter Night wich is also 92.
the word "human" appears 65 times, as the same number of parts humans were created - dust,sperm,emryo,flesh,bones and feutos =17+12+6+3+12+15 =65.

Numerical analogy between Adam and Jesus:
Quran (3-59) Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He (Allah) created him (Jesus) from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

-Occurrences of the word "Jesus" in the whole Quran = 25 times = Occurrences of the word "Adam" = 25 times.
-This likeness occurs in the verse 59 of chapter 3: and it is the only verse where the two names comes together.
-The two names occurs together in sura 3:59 in the 19th place if we count from the end of the table (the 7th place if we count from the beginning of the table).
-The 19th word "Adam" and the 19th word "Jesus" occurs both one time in the 19th Chapter (Sura Maria). In comparison of above we can note that it is also the 7th place counting from the end of the table.
-The 19th word "Jesus" occurs in sura 19, verse 34.
The 19th word "Adam" occurs in sura 19, verse 58.

And from the verse 34 to verse 34 there are 25 verses, and as we know the number 25 is the occurrence of the two names in the Quran.

-the verse 34 of sura 19 says:

The 19th word Jesus occurs with the name of Mary in verse 34 which end the true statement about Jesus.
Note: in the verse 34 the word Mary is for the 24th time reiterated.
The parallel are amazing when we know that the word Mary occurs 34 times in the whole Quran.
This verse has also 34 letters.
19th occurrence of the word Jesus + 24 time the word Mary = 43. And 43 is the reverse image of the number 34.
This verse has 9 words and it is the difference between the total occurrence of the words of Jesus and Mary.
34 - 25 = 9.

There are many other math relations in the Quran, my porpuse is not to fill this page with so many examples of this kind but to show its very unlike that the Quran is curropt, so if i need to continue in this way in the next round i will...

- Memorization method:
This method goes back to the Prophet of Islam Mohamed (peace be upon him) and his many of his Companions, until today there are millions of Hafzs (Memorizers of the Quran) all over the world continuing this practice. his motivation come from many things like in the Hathid (saying of the Prophet {saw}) encourge us to memorize it like:

-"'The most superior among you (Muslims) are those who learn the Qur'an and teach it'.
-“It will be said to the companion of the Qur’aan (i.e., the one who memorized and studied it): ‘Read, advance in status and recite as you used to do in the world, for your status will be commensurate with the last aayah that you recite.’”
-“The likeness of the one who reads Qur’aan and memorizes it is that he is with the righteous honourable scribes. The likeness of the one who reads it and tries hard to memorize it even though it is difficult for him, he will have two rewards.”

other ways that help us to remmember it are:
Muslims recite Quran from their memory in all of their five daily prayers.
Once a year, during the month of Fasting (Ramadan), Muslims listen to the complete recitation of the Quran by a Hafiz (memorizer of the entire Quran)
It's a tradition among Muslims that before any speech or presentation, marriages, sermons, Quran is recited
Quran is the only book, religious or secular, on the face of this planet that has been completely memorized by millions. These memorizers range from ages 6 and up, both Arabic and non-Arabic speakers, blacks, whites, Orientals, poor and wealthy.

- Written Text:
The Prophet (saw) himself was unlettered, so he numerous scribes to write the revelation for him.the written material of the Quran in the Prophet's life were not bounded complete book, because the period of revelation continued until just a few days before the prophet (saw) death. this task undertaken by Abu Bakr, the first successor and Prophet (saw) companions.

The compilers in this committee, in examining written material submitted to them, insisted on very stringent criteria as a safeguard against any errors:

1.The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted.

2. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question.


This copy of the Quran was unanimous approved by the whole Muslim world. If they committee would have made a error even of a single alphabet in transcribing the Quran, the Qurra (memorizers of the Quran) which totaled in the tens of hundreds would have caught it right away and correct it. After that some problems emerged the Official written copy by Uthman.

i showed first starting in the mathemtical method, the structure of the Quran and just presenting a very brief of this 2 methods, i will elaborate more about the historical method in detail in the next round and respond to my opponent as well.

Your turn.














NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

Pro has stipulated in his first round that I shall only use this round for my arguments, and hence although I have many rebuttals for what was provided above, I'm going to only use this round to present my case, although I reject all (if not most) of Pro's conclusions.

I would like to make a preemption that I'm going to use some academic sources which are generally despised by Muslim believers. Nonetheless, I expect a reasonable discussion that gives empirical evidence on why such scholars and historians are mistaken on a particular matter (if they actually are), as opposed to personal attacks on such scholars based on religious prejudice.

DEFINITIONS

Original Qur'an: What was supposedly revealed to Mohammad in 23 years(technically, about 22.5).

Uthman's codex: This is a collection which Pro argues is identical to the original Qur'an.

Preserved: Maintained in its original state[1].

MY CASE

A- Problems with the collection of the Qur'an

For any collection to be accurate, it must at least satisfy basic criteria. That is to say, we should at least know the collectors, reliable methods of collection, accurate methods of verification and particularly, in the case of ancient books, a detailed comparison between the original copy and the modern-day copy. The Qur'an, as a book, fails to satisfy all of that criteria.

A1- Controversy over who actually collected the Qur'an.

We don't really know who actually collected the Qur'an, but instead we have different accounts found in Islamic narratives. Although I don't subscribe to the Islamically-ordained, subjective rulings on the authencity of such narratives(or hadeeths), those hadeeths happen to be from a source, Saheeh al-Bukhari, which is generally respected and followed by mainstream Islam:

Narrated by Qatada: "I asked Anas bin Malik: Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet? He replied, Four, all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubai bin Ka'b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid."[Sahih Bukhari 6:61:525]

Narrated by Masriq: `Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.' " [Sahih al-Bukhari 6:61:521]

Narrated by Anas bin Malik: "When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons: Abu Ad Darda, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring."[Sahih Bukhari 6:61:526]

In summary, we have three different, conflicting accounts. The Islamic scholar Al-Tabarani even throws in another name, Ibn Jariyah[2], which means that there is no actual confirmation of the identity of the collectors of the Qur'an.

A2- Zaid Ibn Thabet's inaccurate measures to collect the Qur'an

Narrated by Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari: "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an... So I started locating Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else..." [Sahih Bukhari 6:60:201]

We can deduce that Zaid found it extremely difficult to collect the Qur'an, and that he used unreliable methods to collect the Qur'an such as collecting scapula, leaf-stalks, data palms and the memories of "some men." We also notice that he could not find every verse with each reciter, but had to consult different reciters("some men"), and could find two verses of Surat-Al-Tuaba with only one of those reciters.

In conclusion, it is false to assume that Mohammad's reciters had all the Qur'an memorized, when at that time it was not written down as a whole but carried out orally by the Prophet in a partial manner to different people on seperate occasions extending for almost twenty three years.

A3- Corruption of the Reciter's political class

Uthman's collection of the Qur'an was actually collected when Muslims were colonizing areas and conflicts were occurring between Muslims from different states. Reciters in those colonized areas assumed a higher status than other normal Muslims because they can use Qur'anic verses to affect the political situation, even if those verses were false, and so they are described as a political class by many scholars such as Patricia Crone[3] and Leone Caetani[4], who explain how those reciters abused authority and received bribery from the state.

Moreover, the criterion to determine if a Qur'anic verse is authentic is itself problematic. It only requires that two reciters agree that a particular verse is authentic, knowing that two reciters can conspire together to add an unknown verse which serves their political interest, provided that most reciters at that time did not have access to the whole Qur'an, but had limited chunks of some verses.


B- Evidence that the Qur'an was not preserved.

B1- Uthman's confession that he modified the Qur'an.

Uthman said:"...Anfal was from among the early revelations at Madina, and Bara’ah was from what was revealed last. Their contents were similar, so I presumed that they belonged to each other. The Prophet (‘s) never clarified this in his lifetime, so I joined them, without Basmalah in between and placed them among the seven long Surahs..."[2].

In other words, Uthman confesses that he found verses similar to each other, so he removed the word "Basmalah" which means "In the name of God" and joined them together and added them among the long chapters of the Qur'an, where he presumed they would belong.

B2- Zuhri's reports many lost chapters and verses

The hadeeth scholar and geographer, Al Zuhri reports: "We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yamamah fighting. Those passages had not been written down and, following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor Umar nor Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an . Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them.[5]"

B3- Early Muslim accounts of the Qur'an not being preserved

A’isha(Prophet's wife): "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded[6].

Uba ibn Ka’b(Prophet's companion) asked one of the Muslims, "How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said, "Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning[6]".

B4- Lack of diacritical marks in Uthman's codex

It could be deduced from early Qur'ans (which all happen to come after Uthman's era) that they did not contain diacritical marks(as the Arabic language at that time did not have those), which means that the Uthman's codex (which was never found in its original form), most definitely did not use any, even when changing diacritical marks, say, for the word "wa-taqu" which means "feared Allah," would change the word into many renditions such as "wa-anfaqu" which means "spent money." It is understandable that some words can be determined from their context, but that does not apply on many vague verses with words only known by one or two dead reciters.

CITATIONS

[1] oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/preserve
[2] Muntakhab Kanz al Ummal, v2, p.48
[3] Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Crone, Patricia & Cook, Michael, p. 3.
[4] Leone Caetani, ‘F3;Uthman and the Recension of the Koran’.
[5] Ibn Warraq Virgins? What Virgins? And Other Essays.
[6] qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter 3 Religion/Koran-Origins.htm

Debate Round No. 2
LAZARUS77

Pro

Sorry for the delay im busy nowdays, anyway this subject preservation of the quran is new to me, so for the muslims if i wrong about something just correct... nevertheless lets examine what con gave us.

con - B4- Lack of diacritical marks in Uthman's codex


its true that the quran not contain diacritical marks and it can change the meaing of it (for the same word). but provide some examples that i can elaborate and explain from verses of the Quran.

con - B3- Early Muslim accounts of the Qur'an not being preserved

theses two hadiths of A’isha(Prophet's wife) and Uba ibn Ka’b(Prophet's companion) are Da’if (weak). its
Authenticity of the narrations (the same source) are not reliable. for the second hadith - Ubayy (RA) only one person, Zirr is reporting this narration. This fact itself makes the case doubdtful and from there two people narrate this (sources). One is Aasim b. Bahdala [Abi al-Najud] and other is Yazid b. Abi Ziyad. From them onwards there are multiple narrators but the point to note here is that scholars who has termed the narration as weak have criticized these two narrators.
for the first hadith - ‘Aisha (RA) is reported in al-Ittiqan (cf. Abu ‘Ubaid’s Fadhail al-Qur’an H. 700) but it is also extremely Da’if (weak)for in its chain is the narrator Ibn Lihiya who is well known to be unreliable.

con - B2- Zuhri's reports many lost chapters and verses

The fact is this narration is not valid according to the rules of narration as Zuhri was not the eye witness nor has he mentioned as to what is his source of information. He rather narrates with the word بلغنا i.e. ‘it has reached us’ and a narration this way is not acceptable. Even if he had actually related it on the authority of someone who was the eyewitness and had not listened from personally the narration would still have been unauthentic while in this case nothing is known about his source the narration is totally unreliable. Moreover it also goes against other more rigorous narrations about the people who had memorized the whole of the Qur’an and did not die in the Battle.

con - B1- Uthman's confession that he modified the Qur'an.
I cant find any refrences to this "uthman confession". maybe its from shia source?

con - A3- Corruption of the Reciter's political class
i dont know where this one came from. you giving here names of scholars.my question is how this connect " eciters abused authority and received bribery from the state" with the preservation?if its true and what verses you talking about? "even if those verses were false".

you gave us names so what? here from german Prof Angelika Neuwirth she is a scholar on text of the quran and she clearly stated that what we have (quran) today is the same of the quran of the prophet peace be upon him:

book 'The Cambridge Companion to the Quran' pg 100:
"New findings of the qur'anic text fragments , moreover can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur'an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Qur'an as we know it."

So she is a scholar. im just going to sites and bringing here some information...

con writes - "knowing that two reciters can conspire together to add an unknown verse which serves their political interest"
well as i said beside the written texts, there were bunch of men who memorized the Quran so if there were some errors or something they would corrected it.

con - A2- Zaid Ibn Thabet's inaccurate measures to collect the Qur'an

Zaid found it extremely difficult to collect the quran becuase it involved the Word of God, so he had to be very clear and careful about what he was to do.

‘So I started locating Qur’anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men.’

Al-Zarkashi responds to this;

“This statement has lead few to suppose that no one had memorized the Qur’an in its entirety during Prophet’s lifetime, and that claims of Zaid and Ubayy bin K’ab having done so are unfounded. But his is erroneous. What Zaid means in fact is that he sought out verses from scattered sources, to collate them against the recollections of the huffaz. In this way everyone participated in the collection process. No one possessing any portion of it was left out, and so one had any reason to express concern about the verses collected, nor could anyone complain that the text had been gathered from only a select few.” (Al-Burhan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an 1/238 pub. Darul Ahya al-Kutb al-Arabiyya, Cairo 1957)

Further Hafiz Ibn Hajr comments;

“Abu Bakr had not authorized him to record except what was already available [in written]. For this reason Zaid refrained from including the last verse of Surah Bara’a until he came upon it in written form

these "some men" who memoriesed the quran were the nearests companians of the Prophet peace be upon him, not just "some men".

con- A1- Controversy over who actually collected the Qur'an.

The apparent meaning of the narration cannot be true as many companions had memorized the Qur’an in full while the Prophet (PBUH) was alive. The fact is Anas (RA) said this in a particular context and it relates to Ansar only. The following narration, referred to by Ibn Hajr as well, clarifies this;

‘Two families of Aws and Khazrij boasted about their superiority over the other. The Aws said, four of us have been of great esteem. One for whom Allah’s throne trembled, he was Sa’d bin M’az. Second, whose testimony was considered equal to two, he is Khuzaima bin Thabit. Third whom the angels gave the (funeral) bath, he is Hanzala bin Abi Aamir. And fourth whose body was saved by the bees from being taken by the infidels, he is Asim bin Thabit. The Khazrij said four of us memorized the whole of Qur’an and no one except them memorized the whole of it. Then Anas (RA) named the four.’ (Al-Ittiqan 1/171 Section 20)

As per this, it was only a comparison between two tribes of Ansar and thus it ought to be considered with respect to them only and not the Muhajireen (Emigrants).

Moreover we also ought to consider what Al-Maziri argued about this narration for he made really a valid point when he said;

‘The saying of Anas (RA) does not prove that except these four no other companion had memorized the whole of Qur’an and that his saying is the ultimate truth because here his words merely imply that Anas (RA) did not know anyone except these four to have memorized the whole of the Qur’an. And while the companions had spread in different cities how could it have been possible for Anas (RA) to know (about each one of them)? It would be possible only if Anas (RA) had met each of them individually and asked him if he had collected the whole of Qur’an during the Prophet’s (PBUH) lifetime and if each of them had replied in negative. This is obviously out of question and if this statement is taken only to be according to the knowledge of Anas (RA) then it does not mean his statement is actually true.’ (Al-Ittiqan 1/170 Section 20)





NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

In the previous round, I clarified that I don't follow the Islamic-ordained rulings on the authenticity of hadeeths and that I request empirical evidence that a particular scholar is mistaken. Pro instead used personal attacks against scholars and Hadeeth narrators without any empirical evidence but following Sunnah mainstream beliefs.

Furthermore, Pro has plagiarized most of his responses(mostly off-point contentions) from non-trusted, Islamic websites. For instance, he copied/pasted a whole paragraph from this website(http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...) without any citation.

From "The fact is this narration is not valid according to the rules of narration as Zuhri was not the eye witness...."

To "... memorized the whole of the Qur’an and did not die in the Battle."

REBUTTAL

Pro's argument from mathematical symmetry:

"Sum of chapters: 6555
Sum of verses: 6236
Sum of odds: 6555
Sum of evens: 6236."

Rebuttal: In the past, the Qur'an was split into 6000, 6204 and other number of verses, before the standardization of the Kufah System (6236 verses) became the most popular. In conclusion, the Qur'an was not released to Mohammad split into verses, but many numbering systems emerged (Kufah and Basrah, for example) and the Kufah became the most popular, and hence any symmetry found in the Kufah is not from Allah but from whoever split the Qur'an into verses at a later historic stage.

Pro offered many mathematical relations to speak of other aspects of symmetry in the Qur'an. I used a local copy of a Qur'an e-book released by Oxford, and double-checked using Qur'an.com word-by-word search[1].

"PARADISE=77 HELL=77"

[Paradise is mentioned 52 times as "Jannah" and 44 times as "Sama2", total = 96 times. Hell is mentioned 83 times as Jahanam]

"ZAKAAH (charity)=32 BLESSING=32"

[Zakaah is mentioned 47 times, while blessings* is mentioned 10 times]

"WINE=6 INTOXICATION=6"

[Wine is mentioned 4 times (sometimes as Ra7eeq and sometimes as Khamr), intoxication is mentioned 8 times]

"Occurrences of the word "Jesus" in the whole Quran = 25 times = Occurrences of the word "Adam" = 25 times."

[Adam is mentioned by his exact name 28 times, which is more than 25]

...

Because the number of falsehoods is overwhelming, I'm going to stop here...


Pro's argument from memorization: "This method goes back to the Prophet of Islam Mohamed (peace be upon him) and his many of his Companions, until today there are millions of Hafzs (Memorizers of the Quran) all over the world continuing this practice."

Rebuttal: This is nothing but a fallacy of equivocation between modern-day Hafizes and those at the times of Mohammad. As proven by Zaid Ibn Thabet's account, the Qur'an was known by few people who had limited chunks of it revealed to them in different times and separate occasions by Mohammad, supposedly, so such an argument is inherently incompatible with the times of Mohammad, as nobody had access to the whole Qur'an or memorized the whole Qur'an. As Ziad Ibn Thabet confesses, he could find some verses only with one reciter.

---

In summary, Pro used a mathematical hoax with many false numbers, and gave arguments which are disproved by accounts of Early Muslims who played major roles in collecting the Qur'an.

MY CASE

A1- Controversy over who actually collected the Qur'an.

Pro ignored the actual argument and simply responded on why one of the hadeeths said "just four," and not the fact that we don't actually know who exactly collected the Qur'an.

A2 - Zaid Ibn Thabet's inaccurate measures to collect the Qur'an

Pro quote-mined Zaid by saying: ‘So I started locating Qur’anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men.’

Ziad Ibn Thabet's actual quote: So I started locating Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else..." [Sahih Bukhari 6:60:201]

In summary, Pro argues that the Qur'an was fully memorized by the Prophet's companions, while quote-mining Zaid Ibn Thabet, although Zaid's "full account" proves that the original Qur'an was not fully memorized by the Prophet's companions, as he found verses "not found with anybody else."

A3- Corruption of the Reciter's political class

As Leone Caetani puts it, "The qurra[Reciters] who were the custodians and also, of course, the readers and interpreters of the sacred text, by their very position held enormous power over the masses, and this in a sense placed them outside the scope of the central authorities. These in turn had no way of checking whether the Qur'anic passages used by the qurra were authentic or not[2]."

Pro argues, "you gave us names so what? here from german Prof Angelika Neuwirth she is a scholar on text of the quran and she clearly stated that what we have (quran) today is the same of the quran of the prophet peace be upon him"

Rebuttal: Patricia Crone and Leone Caetani have written academic and peer-reviewed books about that historic stage. Moreover, Neuwirth's does not claim that the whole Qur'an was preserved, but only says that some parchments affirm that some parts of the Qur'an were preserved and clearly states that she is simply studying the Qur'an from a Muslim perspective and treating the Qur'an being preserved as an assumption in exactly the beginning of the chapter Pro quoted,

"The presentation of qur'anic developments in this chapter presupposes the reliability of the basic data of traditional accounts about the emergence of the Qur'an, assuming the transmitted Qur'anic text to be the genuine collection of the communications of the Prophet...


In summary, Pro both quote-minted and misrepresented the chapter written by Angelike Neuwirth, and gave an off-point contention, not an actual refutation to the argument presented.

B1- Uthman's confession that he modified the Qur'an.

Pro remarks, "I cant find any references to this "uthman confession". maybe its from shia source? "

Rebuttal: I already gave the citation Muntakhab Kanz al Ummal, v2, p.48. This is an Islamic Hadith Collection, collected by the Scholar Ali al-Hindi. If it was a Shiah source, I don't see how that would make it lose any credibility if I'm not given any empirical evidence on why the Islamic scholar Al-Hindi is mistaken.

B2- Zuhri's reports many lost chapters and verses

Pro plagiarized someone arguing, "Zuhri was not the eye witness nor has he mentioned as to what is his source of information."

Rebuttal: Al-Zuhri is an expert Hadeeth scholar with reliable sources of information on how verses were lost. An example of such sources is Abi Dawud's account of an eye witness testimony: "'Umar b. al-Khattab enquired about a verse of the Book of God. On being informed that it had been in the possession of so-and-so who had been killed in the Yemama wars, 'Umar exclaimed the formula expressing loss, 'We are God's and unto Him is our return.'".

B3- Early Muslim accounts of the Qur'an not being preserved

Pro responded that the Hadeeths are "Daif" without giving any empirical evidence, but following Sunni conventions that attack Ibn Lahya by saying that he is "well-known to be non-trusted."

B4- Lack of diacritical marks in Uthman's codex

Pro asked for examples...

Surah 2:259: "And look at the bones [of this donkey] - how We raise them and then We cover them with flesh."

The current word is "we raise" or Nunshizha, although in the Warsh codex(which came after the Uthman codex) the verse uses the word Nunshiriha which stands for "we spread". Judging from the context, the two words would work as bones could be raised or spread in forming that Donkey, but we can never know which word was intended to be used, originally.


CITATIONS

[1] http://corpus.quran.com...
[2] Ibn Warraq, The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book (Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1998), pp.72-74.


Debate Round No. 3
LAZARUS77

Pro

Con claim that he "dont follow the Islamic-ordained rulings on the authenticity of hadeeths and that I request empirical evidence that a particular scholar is mistaken." and i attacked againt scholars and hadith without empirical evidence. i showed you why we dont trust them and i gave you evidences, from one narrator to weak hadiths. so you take weak narretions and you picking and choosing whatever you like to prove your case.

i "plagiarized from non-trusted websites", its giving you the reason why we rejecting some hadith. so you picking weak hadiths to confirm you ideas.

mathematical symmetry:
con claims that the quran was split into some numbers of verses. and "hence any symmetry found in the Kufah is not from Allah but from whoever split the Qur'an into verses at a later historic stage."
this is the most absurd answer i have seen becuase HE cant find an answer to this mathematical symmetry. its proves that the others are not complete or less from the integrity that the quran should to be. " later historic stage" - without any evidence or proof for that. the mathematical symmetry was unknown UNTELL we discover it todays era, not only that there are many many mathimatics people wrote entire books.

as for the words, in the quran there are many words with similair meaning so you picking all the words togather. many sites of seaching (in the quran) deffers, because its sometime including some words more or less,so now lets exposes your lies go to few sites becuase its gives you some time more refrences. now go to http://search-the-quran.com... count the word in the arabic to the specific words (in its root).

i counted one by one
the word isa (jesus) = 25 and adam =25.
zakah (in this root is mentioned 32 not 47 you pick words similair to zakah. blessings (root of tabarka) is mentioned 32.
zakah = 32 tabarka = 32
so yeah you lied again. you picking other words and you know arabic so you should know what word you picking there are many similar word for blessing (fadl,rahma,sali (its in context sometimes) etc...)

for the word hell "jhanam" its apperas 77, not 83, with the "sqr" its 83. you problem is you count other words. for the word "paradise" there are many words i dont know which they picked.


now con trying to be clever. you mixing similar words to another one. its your problem not mine.


A1:
I simply stated that "collected" deffers sometime in 2 ways - the momery method and the written texts. the word "igma'" reffers to these two ways. and i dont understand why you take the narretion of Sahih al-Bukhari 6:61:521. "taking the quran" can be from oral and text.

A2:
bout zaid narration: Zaid didnt accept the written text unless the same verse had been memorized. the written text only found with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari. but many companians heard this verses from the prophet s.a.w. so what the big deal?

A3:
New findings of the qur'anic text fragments , moreover can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur'an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Qur'an as we know it."

B1:
sorry cant find any respond i will send some allegations here to a scholar...

B2:
this narration is not valid according to the rules of narration as Zuhri was not the eye witness nor has he mentioned as to what is his source of information... Moreover it also goes against other more rigorous narrations about the people who had memorized the whole of the Qur’an and did not die in the Battle.

B3:
Now con trying to decieve here. i already gave you evidence why its weak - its sources came from one person and untrusted one... go to this "untrusted" website its shows you the sources: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...; so picking weak hadiths.

b4:
for this word in 2:259 i know dont why they picked "nunshizuha" but the 2 words are indicating the same idea and the 2 are correct, for example in surah 1 the word malek can be "King or Owner" but these 2 are correct in context and dont cause a problem.

Anyway there are some points that i dont know the must admit. con gave us some weak narrations, and interpreted some hadith to his undertanding... the hadiths are dont representing in black and white. some dont mention time, context, where and in what situation in stated and some have weak chain of trasmition. this causing "contradiction and such..." im not a scholar hadith. for more research you can watch debates on preservation of the Quran such
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
...

Nevertheless the mathematical method is really overwhelming because is only has been discovered in todays era. the Mathematical Symmetry (from the first round) not just some system. its showing how its very complicated and for 1 little change (from all the 6236 verses and 114) it will be collapse - the odd & even system, the half of 57 and 2 halfs of 27s and 30s. for the words system con didnt count it properly adding or taking away some words in its root. for the hadith method its not my position and its better to go to another persons... but i think i answered must cons allegations from weak hadiths (weak narrations) or some misinterpretings.

before i leavving here here more math system that proves further that its mathmaticly preserved.

1 - Golden ratio (1.618..)

If you dividing the chapters and verses in to value of "repetitive and non-repetitive". the ratio between them is 1.618

taking chapter + its verses = its value number
repetitive: for instance the value number of chapter "human" and chapter "al burug" is the same value number wihich is 107.
non repetitive: taking chapter 1 has a 7 verses, so its value number is 1+7 = 8. there is no another value number equals this number.

So we calculating all the chapters+verses:

the sum of repetitive numbers: 7906
the sum of non repetitive numbers: 4885

the ratio: 7906/4885 = 1.618...

for another golden ratio is mentioned in hint in chapter 16 verse 18 (1.618):
"and if you would count the graces of Allah, never could you be able to count them. Truly! Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

as we know there is no end to the number of golden ratio digits...

sources :
www.letmeturnthetables.com and sometime from www.islamawareness.net/

some good site:
http://www.quranwonders.com...;


NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro's performance in this debate was disappointing. Pro plagiarized most of his responses, used non-academic blogs as his sources and gave inadequate responses which he repeated (after being refuted), while using all sorts of numerological tricks which are based on fabrications to argue for a mathematical symmetry in the Qur'an.

Pro's plagiarism in the third round involved using paragraphs written by Muslim bloggers without giving any citations.

After being exposed for plagiarism, Pro gave out his non-trusted sources, which were non-trusted, Islam-biased blogs such as "LetMeTurnTheTables.com" and "IslamicAwarness.com", which have no academic accreditation whatsoever.


Pro's arguments were either quote-mining scholars, misunderstandings of the history of the Qur'an or numerological tricks. I shall try and address each falsehood in the form of a general myth used in this debate.

MYTHS

Myth #1 - The Qur'an was revealed to Mohammad split into verses

According to the book "The Religion of Islam" co-written by the Islamic scholar Muhammad Ali and the Non-Muslim, Western scholar Christopher Gallegos, there are five different verse-numbering systems: Basra, Kufa, Madina, Meccah and Sham with different number of verses. The Basra had 6204 verses, the Madinah had 6211 verses, the Makkah had 6219 verses and so on[1]. This difference is explained by the two scholars as "a difference of computation only, some readers marking the end of a verse where others do not[1]."

The Muslim academic Mahmoud Ayoub in his book, "The Qur'an and its Interpretors," explains that the Kufa numbering was a human-made convention followed under the authority of the Islamic Caliph Ali, who came after Mohammad: "Surat Al Bakarah is divided into 286 verses, according to the school of Kufah; 287 according to that of Basrah; 285 according to the scholars of Mecca and Medina; and 284 according to the school of Syria. The Kufan numbering, however, is the one most widely accepted and is also related on the authority of 'Ali, the first Shi'i imam[2]."

In conclusion, any argument for mathematical symmetry in the original Qur'an that relies on the number of verses show ignorance of the history of the Qur'an, as the original Qur'an revealed to Mohammad had no verses.

Furthermore, the odd-even property is not something that implies outstanding symmetry. If you have X number of buckets, and you split them into even and odds, it is predictable that you are going to have +1, 0, -1 differences if you compare the number of the even buckets and the odd buckets. This could be done to any book, including the verse-numbering in the Bible, as there is no uniform number of sentences in the Qur'an and the Bible for the verses.

Myth #2 - Mathematical relations exist in the Qur'an

Pro provided many false numbers one of which is... "zakah (in this root is mentioned 32 not 47 you pick words similair[sic] to zakah. blessings (root of tabarka) is mentioned 32."

Rebuttal: Tabarka means "To be blessed", it doesn't stand for blessings. Blessings in Arabic is translated as "بَرَكَاتٍ" which is mentioned twice according to Search-the-qur'an.com. Moreover, Search-the-Qur'an.com, gives 8 instanes of Tabarka(تَبَارَك), not 32 as Pro claims. Please check out the page for yourself(http://search-the-quran.com...) and CTRL+F "تَبَارَك".

In summary, Pro's numbers are mostly false and sometimes based on false definitions. We have not been given any proof or direct citations for the numbers he presented.

Myth #3 - Islamic-ordained rulings on Hadeehs are empirical evidence

Pro argues, "i already gave you evidence why its weak - its sources came from one person and untrusted one.."

Rebuttal: This is not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence should have consisted of:

1- Contradictions such a chain narrator makes.

2- Historic evidence that this narrator is lying.

3- Further accounts that show many discrepancies in what that narrator narrated.

I made a preemption that personal attacks against chain narrators(such as he is "well-known to be not reliable") are not accepted by me as I don't subscribe to the Islamic rulings on the authenticity of hadeeths for many reasons such as:

1- Every Islamic sect have different rulings on the authenticity of Hadeeths(e.g Non-Wahabi Sunni, Wahabi Sunni, Shiah, Druze, Ahmadiyah).

2- Unreliable criteria such as personal attacks on chain narrators without any historic or empirical evidence such as "He was a drunkard, he forgets a lot, he hates the Prophet" and other personal attacks.

Therefore, the two hadeeths are valid evidence, provided that Pro failed in proving that the chain-narrator was wrong through empirical evidence, but based his response on personal attacks that are not based on one shred of historic evidence.

Those are the two hadeeths which I presented

A’isha(Prophet's wife): "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded.

Uba ibn Ka’b(Prophet's companion) asked one of the Muslims, "How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said, "Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning".

FURTHER EVIDENCE

1- Uthman confessing that he changed some verses in the Qur'an.

[Pro did not respond]

2- The Qur'an collected through inaccurate measures by Zaid Ibn Thabet.

Pro first quote-mined Zaid and then responded, "Zaid didnt accept the written text unless the same verse had been memorized. the written text only found with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari."

Rebuttal: This is another misrepresentation of the account of Ziad Ibn Thabet. Zaid did not find it with "anybody else", he did not claim that he only found it in written form with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari, as he could have easily stated that "only al-Ansari had it written down but other people knew it."

3- Al-Zuhri's expert testimony on lost verses

Pro repeated his same response which I have already refuted above. He claims that Al-Zuhri did not use any sources, when he did use many trusted sources(Abu Dawood) and eyewitness accounts(Umar's) which I provided in my refutation above.

Here is his expert's testimony:

"We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yamamah fighting. Those passages had not been written down and, following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor Umar nor Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an . Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them."

4- Lack of Diacritical marks in the early Qur'ans


Pro tried shifting the goal-posts and arguing that the Qur'an was preserved in meanings (although some words are probably wrong). Knowing that Pro originally said the Qur'an was preserved to the letter:

Pro had originally said, "If they committee would have made a error even of a single alphabet in transcribing the Quran, the Qurra (memorizers of the Quran)... would have caught it right away and correct it."
...

SUMMARY

Pro dropped many of his initial claims and ignored most of what I said by exactly repeating his responses. He did not offer any substantial arguments, and clearly argued like someone not familiar with the history of the Qur'an. Moreover, he shifted goal-posts and failed in satisfying his burden of proof that the Qur'an was preserved to the letter (or the alphabet).

I thank Pro for starting this debate.
It was at least interesting.

CITATIONS

[1] The Religion of Islam. By Muhammad Ali, Christopher Gallegos. Jul 25, 2011 - Body, Mind & Spirit.

[2] The Qur'an and Its Interpreters , Volume 1. Mahmoud Ayoub. P.55. Found online on: http://books.google.com.lb...



Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
indeed some how voters are right at some lvl.
Muslim always drops their guard.
and they always let it on ALLAH. and his punishment.
man no way u have truth and guidance why not use ur maximum effort. yet the other guy did.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
naqash ur luck is here mostly readers are not muslims.
other wise being a muslim i really laugh.
man what kind of resources are there man.
i am back by the way.
i see through it.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Dazz holds a common misconception that the authenticity of Hadeeths is objective, and so I'm ready to debate him on this if he is up for this, but it's an easy victory as there is no such thing as an official ruling, many people, for instance, reject some of the rulings of Albanee (who is usually supported by Wahabi Sunnis) and have different scholars with different rulings on the authenticity of hadeeths.

Following Albanee's ruling is kind of problematic(although he is the default on Hadeethscholar.com) given that sayings such as the prophet saying "Make anyone practicing Jahiliya funeral rights bite his father's pen!s" are considered authentic by Albanee, but rejected by many Muslim modern scholars such as Dr.Adnan Ibrahim. This is just one example. There are a few other conflicts like this one.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
yeah this debate was on hadiths... i have poor knowledge about it.. scholars cofirming the preservation of the quran made me to this deabte.. anyway if someone knowing ruling about hadith why not do a debate..
Posted by Dazz 3 years ago
Dazz
It was a poor debate. Mixed up a lot of arguments. Highly questionable thing that I've noticed is con's usage of citation without knowing the rule of how the Hadees narrations are taken collectively to produce an objective meaning (A1 and B1 are examples of it). And other thing is why Pro hasn't clarified to con that what role "Bismi-ALLAH" plays in between of two chapters. I can see huge flaws in the Cons arguments and rebuttals, those can easily be managed but that couldn't happen in this debate.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
@abraralam You have interesting points but no one wants to read those long paragraphs. I am different because what you say actually intrigues me but try spacing out your points or something
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Thanks for your sportsmanship.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
you know what? i mustnt take it to the negative side... thanks for the debate and you chose what you want me too...lol
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
If you want, we could debate whether all "Modern scholars" agree that the Qur'an was preserved, as you seem to claim that here in the comments after the debate is over, when that is false.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
I don't claim most of the Qur'an was not preserved. My claim is that some of Qur'an was lost, and little changes have been introduced by the compilers and the reciters(that's what Watt and Bell say). Hence, I argued against you because you claimed that the Qur'an was fully preserved to the alphabet by Uthman.

Watt & Bell: "The very fact that varying and even contradictory deliverances have been preserved is strong proof that, with perhaps minor exceptions, we have the whole of what was revealed to Muhammad."

That's their academic opinion, although other scholars such as Patricia Crone, Ibn Warraq and Micheal Cook are more extreme and say that most of the Qur'an was not preserved.

You can't cherry-pick academics, misrepresent them and ignore others.

We can have another debate on Modern Scholarship if you want. You clearly did not give "Watt and Bell" as examples within the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
LAZARUS77NiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON was better, he showed us several things which talks about diffrences between the people who collected quran, PRO didnt answer them, PRO said: "we dont accept them" but he hasnt shown an empirical evidence[s] which show taht taht Hadeeth is wrong, scholar has mistaken. COn had better conduct and decoration in his writings. his arguements were better and not refuted, I didnt check the sources, because sources used by CON was not proven wrong. about grammar: I dont care grammar but I always vote it for the side who made better arguements.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LAZARUS77NiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I am awarding all points to Con in this debate for the following reasons besides the obvious plagiarism. Plagiarism should automatically mean loss of all points not just conduct. Spelling and Grammar by Pro needs work. Also sources go to Con, as Pro did not proved reputable sources on the same level as Con. Regarding arguments I have two comments for Pro. 1) The main approach was an argument of I don't accept your source so its not true with no evidence given why, this is not the way debates work. Secondly, your arguments needs to flow more logically, I know this is not easy even I struggle with it. Good luck in future debates to both.