Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debate & Discussion on Qu'ran Preservation

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)
2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

Discuss.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
*Only vote if you are actually going to read the arguments and make an RFD based on the content of the arguments, I will report votes that do not explain their reasons for voting (e.g. "Pro had better arguments" is not an RFD, that's purely an opinion).
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:40:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Please stop wasting our time with these idiotic contests of who can get friends to vote for your side. It's an insult to real debates about core issues, such as why are we allowing debate at all about origins of hate speech in a book filled with hate speech urging believers to terrorize and kill non-believers? Why aren't you debating why the Quran shouldn't be exposed as hate speech inciting the worst sort of behavior in human beings?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:43:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

- ^_^

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)

- Not just speed, it's all in the details, not the titles.

2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

- The Qur'an is literally used in every Islamic book ever written, & they all share the same words. There are thousands of Exegesis of the Qur'an, & they all depict it the same way. There are thousands of books of Fiqh/Aqeedah. . ; (Jurisprudence/Theology . . .) & they all use the same Qur'an.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

- The Qur'an itself is transmitted perfectly, but not everything associated with it, such as: al-Adaa: Performance of the Qur'an.

Discuss.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 6:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:40:37 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Please stop wasting our time with these idiotic contests of who can get friends to vote for your side.

.... Because I have friends in these forums? I can count my "friends" in these forums on two hands, and most will not bother to read this debate. Besides, the debate it about the content, and there is content there regardless of whether you are voting or not, which is why this topic isn't exclusively about getting feedback on the debate, but to show them the content.

Did you read the debate's content?

Obviously not.

It's an insult to real debates about core issues, such as why are we allowing debate at all about origins of hate speech in a book filled with hate speech urging believers to terrorize and kill non-believers?

Nice personal opinion.

Why aren't you debating why the Quran shouldn't be exposed as hate speech inciting the worst sort of behavior in human beings?

Because I don't really care about it. Preventing hate speech doesn't motivate me, scholarship does, so I debate in scholarship and history, and in other cases, philosophy.

Besides, if I was going to debate for the sake of preventing hate speech,mother I would address the Bible/Torah first, since I am more familiar with it, the consequences are more immediate to me, and it's just as easy to highlight the abhorrent portions.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:13:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry I couldn't vote. But I favoured the Pro position on all but the conduct checklist which I left it as tied.
Here are my reasons.

I got the impression Con just recited his position just like the illiterate prophet did in the creation of the Quran. Con was also guilty of padding his arguments with definitions rather than refutations.
The scribes who wrote the recitations by the illiterate prophet had every opportunity and reason to interpret and revise the prophets recitations to make it comprehensible and appropriate for scholarly scrutiny. Preserving the recitations of an illiterate prophet in its original form would have a dereliction of duty by the scribes because it would have reflected the uneducated rantings of an illiterate Arab on such an important matter as submission to God.
Pro presented his case based on the proper methodology that should be applied to ancient texts for authentication. Pro reminds the readers no textual criticism was dared. So no attempt was made to challenge the veracity of the Quran.
The prophet being illiterate could not even verify what he recited was what was written.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 2:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think all Muhammadan idol worshipers need to have their heads examined if they actually swallow Muhammad's claim to being illiterate. The man was engaged in business where a minimum of writing is required for making inventories and receipts. Plus as a caravan robber it is highly likely that books, scrolls and other religious texts were sometimes part of the booty and no doubt somebody was reading those borrowed texts as Muhammad's book contains several examples of Gnostic Christian gospels ideas being preserved and transmitted as Muhammad's ideas, such as the substitute crucifixion victim and the infancy gospel of Jesus.

The Quran's origins are still as much based on hearsay as either Judaism or Pauline Christianity's are as Muhammadans have no objective witnesses either to the beginning of their religion, all of them promoting Muhammad's claims and none of them trained in historical recording. So it's all an ego game of Muhammadans trying to best the older religions Muhammad copied and pasted into his book and said "It's all my ideas"..yeah, sure..but only to fools too lazy to find God on their own so they piggy-back on someone else who himself piggy-backed on my people's religious myths of origin.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:36:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)
2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

Discuss.

Response: I liked the debate. It looks as if you both gave good arguments and thoroughly researched what you spoke about in the debate. Both of you were respectable of each other as well, which is also appreciated. Of course, as a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was preserved word for word.

Without going into much detail, I would like to say that what you presented was from different sources, including Muslim sources and traditions. Yet the conclusion is different from what Muslims conclude, which is something I always like to point out. For you are basing your argument on the authority of Muslim tradition the regarding vowel points etc.., yet disregard them in the end when those same sources conclude that the Qur'an is preserved. This is a conflict of interest, as the logic or authority used is reliable and unreliable at the same time. So from the start, the conclusion that the Qur'an has or has not been preserved cannot be based on your own premise.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:44:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:36:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)
2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

Discuss.

Response: I liked the debate. It looks as if you both gave good arguments and thoroughly researched what you spoke about in the debate. Both of you were respectable of each other as well, which is also appreciated. Of course, as a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was preserved word for word.

Without going into much detail, I would like to say that what you presented was from different sources, including Muslim sources and traditions. Yet the conclusion is different from what Muslims conclude, which is something I always like to point out. For you are basing your argument on the authority of Muslim tradition the regarding vowel points etc.., yet disregard them in the end when those same sources conclude that the Qur'an is preserved. This is a conflict of interest, as the logic or authority used is reliable and unreliable at the same time. So from the start, the conclusion that the Qur'an has or has not been preserved cannot be based on your own premise.

There is a clear difference between facts and hypothesis however. Sure, I can agree to facts as they have been found, facts are irrefutable. What the facts mean however requires a logical progression, such as inference to best explanation. So to that end I will disagree with Islamic authorities on the best explanation of the facts. The conflict of interest doesn't really affect the credibility of the facts themselves.

E.g. A manuscript is a manuscript, regardless of whether a top western institution possesses it/discovers it or if some illuminati discovers it, the fact is never in dispute, what the fact means will be however.

As for the Hadith tradition etc. Those are just records, the muslim authorities interpret what these records (facts) mean and I interpret them. The facts are what they are, but the meaning isn't. But regarding the Hadith themselves, I was arguing against a best-case scenario. E.g. "Even if" we accept the traditional Islamic account, then my conclusion still follows.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:39:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But let's cut to the chase which is stopping bad religion from spreading evil doctrines that propel believers into violence against their neighbors. The facts are clear about the amount of hate speech contained in Muhammad's book, the Quran. It is literally filled with hate from Allah towards any and all who don't obey Allah/Muhammad commandments. Allah hates these people and orders Muhammadans to hate them too and go out of their way to show their hatred by persecuting, terrorizing, killing all who do not obey Allah/Muhammad commandments. As hate speech, the Quran shouldn't be proselytized whatsoever by anyone who cares about human rights. If you don't care, as most Muhammadans do not, then I don't want to hear from you, you're not decent human beings worthy of my attention. I am here only as a Warner that you Muhammadans must find other Ways to God than through a moral mistake who has hypnotized you with long traditions of cultural hypnotized people mesmerized into thinking man-made territorial battling behavior to establish Authority/Power = God. When just about the opposite is God's will for humanity.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:43:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:39:45 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
But let's cut to the chase which is stopping bad religion from spreading evil doctrines that propel believers into violence against their neighbors. The facts are clear about the amount of hate speech contained in Muhammad's book, the Quran. It is literally filled with hate from Allah towards any and all who don't obey Allah/Muhammad commandments. Allah hates these people and orders Muhammadans to hate them too and go out of their way to show their hatred by persecuting, terrorizing, killing all who do not obey Allah/Muhammad commandments. As hate speech, the Quran shouldn't be proselytized whatsoever by anyone who cares about human rights. If you don't care, as most Muhammadans do not, then I don't want to hear from you, you're not decent human beings worthy of my attention. I am here only as a Warner that you Muhammadans must find other Ways to God than through a moral mistake who has hypnotized you with long traditions of cultural hypnotized people mesmerized into thinking man-made territorial battling behavior to establish Authority/Power = God. When just about the opposite is God's will for humanity.

Stop derailing this thread. Go somewhere else if you want to criticise islam generally, this thread is about the preservation of the Qu'ran.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:46:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Muhammad idol worshipers point to the rapid spread of Islam as proof of Muhammad's claims as a prophet of God. They ridicule Jesus' non-violence and think turning the other cheek is unnatural. But here's the real miracle contained in the spread of Christianity which is that a tiny Jewish sect's theology managed to take control of the world's largest empire within 325 years while Muhammadans failed to establish any lasting Muhammadan empire other than Ottomans aided and kept in power by Europeans using them.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 3:44:23 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:36:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)
2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

Discuss.

Response: I liked the debate. It looks as if you both gave good arguments and thoroughly researched what you spoke about in the debate. Both of you were respectable of each other as well, which is also appreciated. Of course, as a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was preserved word for word.

Without going into much detail, I would like to say that what you presented was from different sources, including Muslim sources and traditions. Yet the conclusion is different from what Muslims conclude, which is something I always like to point out. For you are basing your argument on the authority of Muslim tradition the regarding vowel points etc.., yet disregard them in the end when those same sources conclude that the Qur'an is preserved. This is a conflict of interest, as the logic or authority used is reliable and unreliable at the same time. So from the start, the conclusion that the Qur'an has or has not been preserved cannot be based on your own premise.

There is a clear difference between facts and hypothesis however. Sure, I can agree to facts as they have been found, facts are irrefutable. What the facts mean however requires a logical progression, such as inference to best explanation. So to that end I will disagree with Islamic authorities on the best explanation of the facts. The conflict of interest doesn't really affect the credibility of the facts themselves.

E.g. A manuscript is a manuscript, regardless of whether a top western institution possesses it/discovers it or if some illuminati discovers it, the fact is never in dispute, what the fact means will be however.

As for the Hadith tradition etc. Those are just records, the muslim authorities interpret what these records (facts) mean and I interpret them. The facts are what they are, but the meaning isn't. But regarding the Hadith themselves, I was arguing against a best-case scenario. E.g. "Even if" we accept the traditional Islamic account, then my conclusion still follows.

Response: But you claimed what is factual based on their authority, which means they would have to be reliable. Then at the same time, you claim that their other claims are not factual, which makes them unreliable as authorities. Hence the contradiction in logic in your premise. So the conclusion does not follow.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 8:07:35 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 3:44:23 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:36:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/3/2015 6:30:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just finished my debate with Yassine on the topic "The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim". Feel free to read and vote* if you have the time and interest:

http://www.debate.org...

Given that I have virtually *never* seen in a year on this forums any discussion about the reliability of the Qu'ran, I think that this should be a good topic to discuss on these forums, especially given that I can name about 12 Islamic debaters on this forum, which while not as large as the Christian wing, it does make up a significant minority.

My personal view is that the Qu'ran is significantly better preserved than both the books of the New Testament and Old Testament in the Bible, owing to the extremely conservative nature in how it was transmitted, and comparison of the ancient manuscripts have much fewer variants than comparable manuscripts of the NT. Mostly due to:

1. Speed at which the *text* itself was canonised (rather than just the books being canonised in the NT)
2. Pretty uniform consonantal text that is attested independently in the numerous Hadith.

That being said, I don't believe it is perfect, much like I don't believe any transmission process regulated by humans at that time was, which runs into the common Islamic claim that the Qu'ran is perfectly free from corruption, down to the last dot and letter - my views to that end are expressed in the debate.

Discuss.

Response: I liked the debate. It looks as if you both gave good arguments and thoroughly researched what you spoke about in the debate. Both of you were respectable of each other as well, which is also appreciated. Of course, as a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was preserved word for word.

Without going into much detail, I would like to say that what you presented was from different sources, including Muslim sources and traditions. Yet the conclusion is different from what Muslims conclude, which is something I always like to point out. For you are basing your argument on the authority of Muslim tradition the regarding vowel points etc.., yet disregard them in the end when those same sources conclude that the Qur'an is preserved. This is a conflict of interest, as the logic or authority used is reliable and unreliable at the same time. So from the start, the conclusion that the Qur'an has or has not been preserved cannot be based on your own premise.

There is a clear difference between facts and hypothesis however. Sure, I can agree to facts as they have been found, facts are irrefutable. What the facts mean however requires a logical progression, such as inference to best explanation. So to that end I will disagree with Islamic authorities on the best explanation of the facts. The conflict of interest doesn't really affect the credibility of the facts themselves.

E.g. A manuscript is a manuscript, regardless of whether a top western institution possesses it/discovers it or if some illuminati discovers it, the fact is never in dispute, what the fact means will be however.

As for the Hadith tradition etc. Those are just records, the muslim authorities interpret what these records (facts) mean and I interpret them. The facts are what they are, but the meaning isn't. But regarding the Hadith themselves, I was arguing against a best-case scenario. E.g. "Even if" we accept the traditional Islamic account, then my conclusion still follows.

Response: But you claimed what is factual based on their authority, which means they would have to be reliable.

No I didn't.

Then at the same time, you claim that their other claims are not factual, which makes them unreliable as authorities. Hence the contradiction in logic in your premise. So the conclusion does not follow.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:36:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 11:20:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM, Envisage wrote:

No I didn't.

Response: Yes you did.

- No, he didn't. :)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 3:44:23 AM, Envisage wrote:
There is a clear difference between facts and hypothesis however. Sure, I can agree to facts as they have been found, facts are irrefutable. What the facts mean however requires a logical progression, such as inference to best explanation. So to that end I will disagree with Islamic authorities on the best explanation of the facts. The conflict of interest doesn't really affect the credibility of the facts themselves.

E.g. A manuscript is a manuscript, regardless of whether a top western institution possesses it/discovers it or if some illuminati discovers it, the fact is never in dispute, what the fact means will be however.

As for the Hadith tradition etc. Those are just records, the muslim authorities interpret what these records (facts) mean and I interpret them. The facts are what they are, but the meaning isn't. But regarding the Hadith themselves, I was arguing against a best-case scenario. E.g. "Even if" we accept the traditional Islamic account, then my conclusion still follows.

- I am sorting some stuff out these days, as soon as I finish (hopefully soon), I'll start discussion this topic, & then we can talk about it extensively. :)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:46:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Envisage and Yassine, thank you for debating the topic. Despite Islam being a major world religion with a huge impact on both secular and sectarian human thought, I can't tell you how few thoughtful, researched discussions I've seen on doctrinal fundamentals, and I'm grateful to you both for engaging it.

Unfortunately I'm not permitted to vote at this time, but I hope to see many more serious, thoughtful, low-rhetoric debates in future.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:40:37 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Why aren't you debating why the Quran shouldn't be exposed as hate speech inciting the worst sort of behavior in human beings?

We could do that right across the spectrum of religious supremacism CTT, commencing with the example set by Yhwh and his prophets in the Pentateuch, and its impact on Israelite nationalism that has carried through to Zionism today.

If there's a way to reliably not go from God is On Our Side to xenophobia, persecution, torture, murder, colonialism, ethnic cleansing and genocide, contaminating generation after generation with toxic levels of nationalism, I'd love to see it advocated.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 7:15:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 11:36:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:20:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM, Envisage wrote:

No I didn't.

Response: Yes you did.

- No, he didn't. :)
Response: Yes he did, or you admit you lost the debate. At least you are honest.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 8:49:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 7:15:34 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:36:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:20:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM, Envisage wrote:

No I didn't.

Response: Yes you did.

- No, he didn't. :)
Response: Yes he did, or you admit you lost the debate. At least you are honest.

- No no, you claimed he said the Hadiths are reliable, I said he didn't. Read what he wrote, & tell me where did he say that.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:07:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 8:49:06 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/5/2015 7:15:34 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:36:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:20:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM, Envisage wrote:

No I didn't.

Response: Yes you did.

- No, he didn't. :)
Response: Yes he did, or you admit you lost the debate. At least you are honest.

- No no, you claimed he said the Hadiths are reliable, I said he didn't. Read what he wrote, & tell me where did he say that.

Response: No. You claim that I claimed that he said the Hadith are reliable. Despite the fact that you cannot quote any such statement. So you read what I wrote and back your own claim.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:22:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:07:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/5/2015 8:49:06 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/5/2015 7:15:34 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:36:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:20:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:08:45 AM, Envisage wrote:

No I didn't.

Response: Yes you did.

- No, he didn't. :)
Response: Yes he did, or you admit you lost the debate. At least you are honest.

- No no, you claimed he said the Hadiths are reliable, I said he didn't. Read what he wrote, & tell me where did he say that.

Response: No. You claim that I claimed that he said the Hadith are reliable. Despite the fact that you cannot quote any such statement. So you read what I wrote and back your own claim.

- Touche.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 12:16:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:24:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
Bump.

Lovely. I was working over its bumping since last 2 days. But I wanted to absorb the crux of your debate, so as to come up with essentially the required missing idea instead of repeating the same.

Hope you'll find my work relevant, though I believe, it's not a holistic one (it can be explained much better way).

Q1. Today printing or preservation system is more secure for accurate transmission. Or oral transmission is more dangerous/susceptible to mistake?
Ans: Irony. Print out a letter of instruction for your family. Stamp it. Sign it. Store it in an electronic safe that demands your finger print. Okay your foe is unsuccessful in first attempt to hack your letter. Would any of your son bother "memorizing" every bit of your letter? Not even a single sentence they would memorize because they're in information/internet age, there is no need to do so. What your grandson would get is totally a fake letter replaced by foe fraud or by random mistake, and no one is aware of it. Possible?

Q2: What makes preservation of Quran different from other books?
Ans: Memorization in every generation A-Z by heart. That lacks in other books and that is why the previous Books were distorted and the proof is we don't have one agreed set/copy/text but a multiple of them. But in case of Quran, move from east to west, that is one. (In history you only discussed early era copies and Caliph Usman work, but as Yasmine stated that differences were not about wording, but the typing style)

Q3: If someone present or start believing a false text not the original one, that is going to multiply for generations?
Ans: You'd have to prove out the accumulation of distorted text. Like how many Quran do you have seen to be practiced or adhered by Muslims? A hoax or deceptive website can mislead you but that can easily be established as fraud via little research. That's possibly gonna multiply in future but always be known as fraud originated in history. Isn't it? (other way to explain tawatur concept).

Q4: How does the resolution establish that Quranic text is not distorted while transmission?
Ans: Because there is not a dispute over its content like other books.

Q5: Does the discussion of codices, pronunciation, recitation and ahruf etc, proposes that original text distortion occurred?
Ans: No. because if this variety (in typing style) must be considered as distortion in original text, why are we not having an example of distortion for a whole sentence (verse)? There is none of such example.

Q6: 100% 98% 96% 94%......?
Ans: Pardon my lack. I don't know what to call this fallacy. But here is mistake. Mistake to include the unauthentic or fraudulent (either intentional or unintentional) distortion as part of the whole 100% accurate Text. Means as the distorted-text transmission grows or multiply over generation, that doesn't necessarily going to be part of original 100% transmission. For example 100 people knows the original text. 2 people mistakenly distorted the text, and started to transmit that. Now we have 2 copies/variants either with major/minor distortion. One copy adhered by 2 people, other by 98. The percentage of people possessing the original text is still 100%. That's not going to be as 98%. Because one set/copy must be classified as original, other must be debunked. Hence the accuracy remains 100% in transmission. Something unauthentic that is growing at whatever speed must had been classified as unauthentic (the purpose of Tawatur).

Q7: According to your math, 42 distortion must have been made?
Ans: Though your opponent debunked your calculation. But anyway, there is another mistake. You considered the progression of mistakes, but neglected the original text transmission that is going alongside. So as that would not just accumulate the distortion of 42 words, but there must be proof of at least 42 "progressive (mistakes) variation in same words" (because you calculated that figure of 42 by assuming the multiplication of errors over generations. But we actually don't have that variance in real.

There is a lot more to say, but until next time take care. I'll try to be engaged as mush as I could find the time. Until then keep your energies high and try try again until you solve out at best.

Regards.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 12:46:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Q1. Today printing or preservation system is more secure for accurate transmission. Or oral transmission is more dangerous/susceptible to mistake?
Ans: Irony. Print out a letter of instruction for your family. Stamp it. Sign it. Store it in an electronic safe that demands your finger print. Okay your foe is unsuccessful in first attempt to hack your letter. Would any of your son bother "memorizing" every bit of your letter? Not even a single sentence they would memorize because they're in information/internet age, there is no need to do so. What your grandson would get is totally a fake letter replaced by foe fraud or by random mistake, and no one is aware of it. Possible?

Granted that memorisation today is very different in the past, since we do not depend on it as much. That's why I cited pre-dating or contemporary oral traditions and noted that these all necessarily are problematic as well. It's not an argument form intuition, it's an inductive argument. Albeit it could have been presented better.

Q2: What makes preservation of Quran different from other books?
Ans: Memorization in every generation A-Z by heart. That lacks in other books and that is why the previous Books were distorted and the proof is we don't have one agreed set/copy/text but a multiple of them. But in case of Quran, move from east to west, that is one. (In history you only discussed early era copies and Caliph Usman work, but as Yasmine stated that differences were not about wording, but the typing style)

Sure, that's a tradition that is oral, where the copies are stored in the minds. It's just another medium of carrying forward information from generation to generation. While the mechanisms are different to textual transmission, the problems of incorporated errors/changes are just as important. You can argue that the muslim oral tradition is more reliable than textual transmission of other sacred texts, I have no problem with that in principle, but that doesn't escape it faces the same issues of reliability. Each textual copy is only as good as it's predecessor, as is each "mental copy".

Q3: If someone present or start believing a false text not the original one, that is going to multiply for generations?
Ans: You'd have to prove out the accumulation of distorted text. Like how many Quran do you have seen to be practiced or adhered by Muslims? A hoax or deceptive website can mislead you but that can easily be established as fraud via little research. That's possibly gonna multiply in future but always be known as fraud originated in history. Isn't it? (other way to explain tawatur concept).

Not at all, especially in early Islam, since the fraud (and I use that word tentatively, since the vast majority of variants in both the Qu'ranic manusctipts, and other texts/traditions are unintentional/good willed). What we would have are two people with two variant traditions with no way of knowing which if any are genuine, since we do not have the Xaid's Codex, or a Codex written by Muhummad today to compare it to.

And I argued that it's not one or two large changes, but many small changes that will infiltrate the text, which I attempted to show show empirically in the manuscript variants.

Q4: How does the resolution establish that Quranic text is not distorted while transmission?
Ans: Because there is not a dispute over its content like other books.

That's not an argument. Also the resolution isn't bout the Qu'ran being "well preserved", it's about it being verbatim, i.e. 100% preserved from Muhammad to today. Short of drastic revisions in the account of composition of the Qu'ran then it probably stands that the Qu'ran is indeed well-preserved. It certainly is extremely conservative across all the manuscripts we do have so any major changes needs to predate these. Either the Hadith tradition needs to be challenged, or further textual criticism of early manuscripts is needed to come to a different conclusion tbh. The Sana'a manuscripts show much greater variation as a non-uthmanic tradition, although still very conservative, so the early rival codices are almost certainly going to contain much more variation than variation within the Uthmanic manuscripts, which is attested to somewhat in the Hadith tradition.

Whether that makes Xaid's/Uthman's codex reliable or unreliable is speculation though, inductively it would follow that Xaid's almost certainly deviated from what was dictated however.

Q5: Does the discussion of codices, pronunciation, recitation and ahruf etc, proposes that original text distortion occurred?
Ans: No. because if this variety (in typing style) must be considered as distortion in original text, why are we not having an example of distortion for a whole sentence (verse)? There is none of such example.

That's a non sequitir. And it ignores the point that the traditions even vary in the consonantal text (albeit rarely) when comparing the Hafs and Warsh traditions. We don't have access to the other traditions so one can only speculate on those. Although the early manuscripts contain large variations in vocalisation, which is clear evidence that there was large variety in modes of recitation in the early years. The Islamic claim that Muhummad authorised 7-10 I find as complete nonsense/ad hoc. It defies any reason why he would authorise that many, and the best explanation via. abductive reasoning is that the oral tradition was in dynamic flux in early years. We see many "corrections" made to the manuscripts which bring the vocalisation in line with the "standard" 7-10 vocalisations, thus it's pretty clear that significant effort was made to establish uniformity (and rather successfully so). It comes at the cost of being able to say much either way on how reliable these were.

Given that several vocalisations, voweling, discritics etc. do change the meaning (e.g. "Say" vs. "He said"), this isn't something to be glossed over.

Q6: 100% 98% 96% 94%......?
Ans: Pardon my lack. I don't know what to call this fallacy. But here is mistake. Mistake to include the unauthentic or fraudulent (either intentional or unintentional) distortion as part of the whole 100% accurate Text. Means as the distorted-text transmission grows or multiply over generation, that doesn't necessarily going to be part of original 100% transmission. For example 100 people knows the original text. 2 people mistakenly distorted the text, and started to transmit that. Now we have 2 copies/variants either with major/minor distortion. One copy adhered by 2 people, other by 98. The percentage of people possessing the original text is still 100%. That's not going to be as 98%. Because one set/copy must be classified as original, other must be debunked. Hence the accuracy remains 100% in transmission. Something unauthentic that is growing at whatever speed must had been classified as unauthentic (the purpose of Tawatur).

We have no reason to believe that happened in actuality. Those erroneous mental copies are going to circulate among non-erronious copies, and thus contaminate each generation. The proportion of correct copies will gradually decrease. There is no mechanism to determine if the transmission IS inauthentic, since we have nor eason to believe:
1. Scholarship is going to find all unjudicious/untrustworthy individuals
2. That all mistakes are only ever going to be made by unjudicious/untrustworthy people. I argued for exactly the opposite for this and cited the Uthmanic manuscripts as evidence of this. If all 22 ancient manuscripts differ from each other, then clearly the error rate is higher than Pro's (entirely speculative with no evidence to uphold his numbers) assertion.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 2:08:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 12:46:20 PM, Envisage wrote:

That's not an argument.
...and who don't know it. I was trying to talk to you lol
Also the resolution isn't bout the Qu'ran being "well preserved", it's about it being verbatim, i.e. 100% preserved from Muhammad to today.
yes yes sure. I've that in mind. Let's discuss more.
Whether that makes Xaid's/Uthman's codex reliable or unreliable is speculation though, inductively it would follow that Xaid's almost certainly deviated from what was dictated however.
Ignoring the fact that while compilation (a book format), it wasn't being written for the first time. Nor it was asserted by one person. There were thousands of people having both the mental copy and the written copy (on leaves and other material) from the very start, copied directly while listening. Hence any compilation can't be a deviated one because there is a check via majority (not only mental but written proof too). Alongside, compilation isn't a random event, but a system of follower-ship is working alongside. Any discrepancy in the writing has a check of known and practical tradition also.

That's a non sequitir.
And it ignores the point that the traditions even vary in the consonantal text (albeit rarely) when comparing the Hafs and Warsh traditions. We don't have access to the other traditions so one can only speculate on those. Although the early manuscripts contain large variations in vocalisation, which is clear evidence that there was large variety in modes of recitation in the early years. The Islamic claim that Muhummad authorised 7-10 I find as complete nonsense/ad hoc. It defies any reason why he would authorise that many, and the best explanation via. abductive reasoning is that the oral tradition was in dynamic flux in early years. We see many "corrections" made to the manuscripts which bring the vocalisation in line with the "standard" 7-10 vocalisations, thus it's pretty clear that significant effort was made to establish uniformity (and rather successfully so). It comes at the cost of being able to say much either way on how reliable these were.

Given that several vocalisations, voweling, discritics etc. do change the meaning (e.g. "Say" vs. "He said"), this isn't something to be glossed over.

We have no reason to believe that happened in actuality. Those erroneous mental copies are going to circulate among non-erronious copies, and thus contaminate each generation. The proportion of correct copies will gradually decrease. There is no mechanism to determine if the transmission IS inauthentic, since we have nor eason to believe:
1. Scholarship is going to find all unjudicious/untrustworthy individuals
Okay one man in any area( so as Scholarship is unaware) has abruptly started unauthentic transmission (injudiciously). How would proportion of correct copies gradually decrease? If false gonna multiply, true must also....? mechanism to judge the reliability of both, is the Tawatur or non-distorted tradition/transmission, that can easily be traced backed. Every one would know who made distortion for the first time. Thus (1) stands nullified.
2. That all mistakes are only ever going to be made by unjudicious/untrustworthy people. I argued for exactly the opposite for this
SO this is your focus and surely I knew it.
and cited the Uthmanic manuscripts as evidence of this. If all 22 ancient manuscripts differ from each other, then clearly the error rate is higher than Pro's (entirely speculative with no evidence to uphold his numbers) assertion.
What logic would you provide that could be barrier in the satisfactory and reliable transmission? I know I'm not touching the core subject of your point , but a more simple way to envision my argument would be: You set the default position for yourself, that's why I asked why any of the manuscript don't differ for a whole verse? Answer to your question (of vocalization etc _definitely have a separate answer) but you can't just assert one logic by denying the contrary.

In other words, what resisted your default position (of unreliable transmission) when it comes to verse?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 3:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 6:40:37 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Please stop wasting our time with these idiotic contests of who can get friends to vote for your side. It's an insult to real debates about core issues, such as why are we allowing debate at all about origins of hate speech in a book filled with hate speech urging believers to terrorize and kill non-believers? Why aren't you debating why the Quran shouldn't be exposed as hate speech inciting the worst sort of behavior in human beings?

I don't think discussing the Quran is a waste of time. Islam commands 1.6 billion muslim believers and is the fastest growing religion in the world. The very reason for its rapid growth is the consistency of its scriptures. The bible being older is full of developing thoughts about its message and mans relationship to a God. The final message culminated in Jesus Christ who was rejected by his own people creating a contradiction in divine expectations.

The Quran was created from a single mind and with the benefit of hindsight offered a more mature message. It was also written by scribes who organized the recitations of the prophet Mohammed(pbuh) and preserved the poetry and oratory in style and substance making it a beautiful inspiring peace of literary work for the academic intellectual as well as an uplifting spiritual experience for the religious consumer.

All scriptures should be discussed for its practical positive influences on society as well as the negatives. Just like scientists consider both the moral and ethical considerations their research raises.

Envisage is a grifted debater and we are all better for it when talented people share their worldviews through their debates and dialogue. It widens our own perspective on the broader issues in life besides our own egos and material servitude.

If you have to criticize then criticize those who only preach, criticize those who claim it is God who speaks through them and therefore you are challenging God and not them.

People who debate take intellectual responsibility for what they say and provide supporting explanations for why they maintain their position.

I would like to dislodge Envisage from his lofty position out of envy. But unless I can find a better reason he has my vote.