The Instigator
astraa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Moelogy
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Quran has indeed - changed, and/or altered.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Moelogy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 224 times Debate No: 104679
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

astraa

Pro

I will be debating whether Quran, has been altered - or changed in a way.
Con will argue otherwise.

Rules:
You are only allowed to use scientifical logic or phrases from the Quran,
Must have evidence to back up your claims.
No troll.

Round 1 : Acceptance only
Round 2 : Opening arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3 : Rebuttals/Counter arguments
Round 4 : Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments)
Moelogy

Con

Sure. I put the definitions since you have not.

Qu'ran - Muslim Holy text

Changed - altered beyond the Quranic framework of textual reliability such as the seven ahruf and ten Qira'at.
Debate Round No. 1
astraa

Pro

Thank you pro for the definition and the acceptance.

Alright, let's go back in time, way back in time.
As most of us know that the Quran is the word of God, or revelation from God (Allah). It was verbally revealed to Muhammad through Gibrael or Jibril. Remember the keyword, verbally.

definition of verbally is by means of words, orally, or spoken.

Now, I wouldn't even question if the Quran has ever been changed when it was revealed from God, through the angels. They're perfect beings. However, mans are not. Quran was first verbally revealed to Muhammad on 609CE, and the Quran was concluded on 632CE, which is the year of Muhammad's death.

The oldest Quran that is currently known, and (could) still exist up until now would be the Sana'a palimpsest, which radio carbon dating shows that it was written before 671CE with 99% accuracy. Now, that's a 39 years difference, and in that 39 years, Quran has been "VERBALLY" passed on and on and on for 39 years.

39 years, which makes up to 468 months, which is 1872 weeks, which is 56160 days, which is 1347840 hours, which is 80870400 minutes, which is 4852224000 seconds.

It has been verbally passed on DURING that time.
Mans aren't perfect, and what are the probabilities that no verse would be changed somewhere along the way?

10% - in my sense of logic perspective.

That's speaking off based on probabilities,

Now, remember Sana'a manuscript? Take a look at any picture of any page on it. You'd notice the lack of diacritical marks.
That makes it possible that one single word - can mean up to 5 to 20+ different meanings.

For example, let's take the very first verse of Al - Fatihah.

"Alhamdulillah irrabil 'alamin".

How the hell do you know that it's pronounced THAT way? Is there anyone that was alive since the "verbally passed on quran over and over" who can confirm the pronounciation?

For example, "الحمد".

Everywhere you go, you'd see people would pronounce that as "Alhamdu".
What if, it's "ilhamdu", "alhumad", "alhimud", "alhamad", and anything you could possibly pronounce WITHOUT the diacritical marks.

Exactly, that was our Quran a looooooooong time ago.

Does this still means that Quran has the "probability" of never being changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.quora.com...
Moelogy

Con

If I understood Pro's sole argument correctly, it was that we have no manuscripts prior to 671 CE and because it was only transmittedas orally by men and men are fallible then men probably made mistakes here or there during transmission which does not gurauntee 100% accuracy.

There are several problems here:

(1) We do have manuscripts prior to 671 CE such as the birmingham manuscript which is surprisngly dated to within the lifetime of the Prophet to maximum a decade after his death with 95.4% confidence [1a] and the manuscript has 100% accuracy to modern text.


David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham is quoted as saying:

The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed. [1a]



There are literally no differences whatsoever from this manuscript which dates within possibly the lifetime of the Prophet and the one we have now. [1b] This is a pretty significant piece of evidence and should be pretty obviously that it could just end this debate right now once and for all.

So we can establish the perfect textual preservation of the Quran to within the lifetime of the prophet (which would grant perfect preservation) to within maximum of 10 years after the death. You can not do that in ancient historiography with any document.

(2) The text prior to 671 CE was not transmitted verbally alone but was also written down. Recall that Abu Bakr ordered the compilation within two years of the death of the Prophet. [2] So there was a written codex at the time. Not to mention the written Codex that the birmingham manuscript came from.


(3) Pure conjecture. The conjecture brought up by Pro is a sheer "what if?" situation where he is merely asserting that maybe it is likely that the reciters altered the Text since men are fallible but he does not provide any actual evidence that the Qu'ran is corrupted.


I will now provide a small sliver of evidence for the preservation of the Qu'ran

We know that the the Quran was perfectly compiled due to eyewitness testimony and scribal authentication from contemporaries of the Propher such as those from Ibn Abbas and Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya. [3] So Now what we have established is that the Qu'ran Abu Bakr compiled from cover to cover is perfectly preserved according to testimony from eyewitness contemporary scribes of The Prophet Muhammad himself. So now comes the next era which is the transitionary from Abu Bakr to Uthman which we have good manuscript evidence from that period too which all align 100% with the Qu'ran we have today and have no differences. [4] [5] Now comes the next era which is Uthman to the present and we have the complete entire Quranic Codex from the time of Quran which is kept in Samarkand, Uzebakistan Radio-carbon dating showed a 95.4% probability of a date between 595 and 855. [6]. We have another that comes later [7] though Uthmanic yet with no changes outside the framework of the seven ahruf. [8]

Rebuttals:

- There were no diatrical marks

This is trivial and not of significant importance since it does not change the meaning at all. [9]

- Al-Hamd and different pronounciations.

Recall the seven ahruf. [8]


Notes:

I will have to ask Pro to refrain from using Wikipedia for obvious reasons and amateur forums like Quora.

I did not provide much evidence because the BOP is ultimately not on me anyways.


Sources:

[1a] - https://www.birmingham.ac.uk...;
[1b] - http://ilmfeed.com...;
[2] - Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Tafir, Hadith 4603
[3] - Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 537
[4] - http://www.historyofinformation.com...;
[5] - https://www.uni-tuebingen.de...;
[6] - http://www.worldlibrary.org...;
[7] - http://www.topkapisarayi.gov.tr...;(link to museum which contains the manuscript)
[8] - Sahih Bukhari, 3047; Sahih Muslim, 819
[9] - http://www.nbcnews.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
astraa

Pro

Thank you very much Con for the explanation of Birmingham manuscript and about the seven 'aruf.

Besides the part of the diacritical marks, I guess all your points were valid and I don't have anything to say against those.
This was more kind of like a question and not an actual debate, just something to clear my mind out of just because I feel uneasy without knowing the actual answer.

How do I forfeit?
Moelogy

Con

Glad I could help Pro! Hope you find the truth in your search and I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

Here are the sources once again because some did not work.

Sources for Round 2:

[1a] - (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk...)
[1b] - (http://ilmfeed.com...)
[2] - Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Tafir, Hadith 4603
[3] - Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 537
[4] - (http://www.historyofinformation.com...)
[5] - (https://www.uni-tuebingen.de...)
[6] - (http://www.worldlibrary.org...)
[7] - (http://topkapisarayi.gov.tr...)
[8] - Sahih Bukhari, 3047; Sahih Muslim, 819
[9] - (http://www.nbcnews.com...)


Pro you can forfeit a round by clicking the button "forfeit this round" or just click the button "Post my argument" and write in your round "extend" or "forfeit"
Debate Round No. 3
astraa

Pro

Thank you con for the sources.

forfeit
Moelogy

Con

You are welcome.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Moelogy 3 weeks ago
Moelogy
Sources because some did not work

Birmingham - (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk...)

Tubingen (https://www.uni-tuebingen.de...)

Topkapi codex - (http://www.topkapisarayi.gov.tr...)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 weeks ago
dtaylor971
astraaMoelogyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Topaet 3 weeks ago
Topaet
astraaMoelogyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 weeks ago
dsjpk5
astraaMoelogyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.