Huon

Many of the passages of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known by those who survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman by that time collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one person after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).

This loss of some of the Quran inspired Abu Bakr to begin collecting it.

Huon

The variant Qur'an of Salim existed before Yamama and before Abu Bakr's (Zaid's) version (Salim was killed in the battle) :

It is reported ... from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a book was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.135).

(This contradicts the claim that Abu Bakr collected the first Quran.)

Abdullah ibn Masud was considered the foremost authority on the Qur'an by Mohamed - his Qur'an was used in Kufa in Iraq.

The Qur'an of Abu Bakr (first Caliph) passed to Umar (2nd Caliph) then to Hafsah (daughter of Umar and "wife of the prophet"). Hafsah became a recluse and kept the Abu Bakr Qur'an hidden away. During this period there is no evidence that this version was considered more important or accurate than other versions such as Abdullah ibn Masud's or Salim's - on the contrary, it was kept away from public view.

The Qur'an of Ubayy ibn Ka'b was favoured in Syria.

Duvduv

I am not familiar with this history, but what I understand from what you have said is that there were several conflicting versions of the Quran though it is now unknown how they differed from each other. What is known about Salim and the others in terms of what they had, or wrote themselves and called it the Quran revealed to Mohammed by Gabriel?

Duvduv

I am sorry I missed this posting before. But is there anything known about the alleged collection of scraps and memories and their origins other than allegedly from Mohammed?

Duvduv

So where did the idea develop that the texts that came to be called the Quran were attributed to Mohammed rather than the works of assorted other people interested in religions and syncretism?? And were there different sources for what are called Meccan versus Medinan verses that may have even predated Islam??

mrsonic

this is a good place to show all of bc a h readers why according to the non-muslim danios, robert spencer should not be trusted.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/mor...s-scholarship/

Spencer is hawking his new book, which he is pushing as a “scholarly work” about how Muhammad didn’t exist. His home page boasts that Robert Spencer is “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam”, “[a] serious scholar”, and “a brilliant scholar.”

I have pointed out in the past that Spencer is not a scholar of any sort–especially not on anything related to Islam. He simply does not have the academic qualifications to claim this. What other “scholar” do you know of that doesn’t even have a master’s or PhD degree on the subject he claims to be a “scholar” of? He only has a one-year master’s degree in “the field of early Christianity”. How does that make him an “acclaimed scholar of Islam”?


http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/mor...s-scholarship/

the spencer guy has been exposed in the above article. he assumed that a hadith narration was in contradiction to another narration because he (spencer) was dependent on the english translation, if he had read the arabic of BOTH narrations he would have seen that the arabic is word for word IDENTICAL and that no contradiction exists.

what is funny is that "scholar" robert spencer did not consult the arabic. if he has done this with the hadeeth being discussed in the article above, then what to say about the hadeeths he discusses in his new book?

Huon

al-Bukhari (810-870) is the Eusebius of the Muslims, so to say ().
He collected several thousands "hadiths" (small stories), some of them were ascribed to parents, disciples, "eyewitnesses" (as could say our Adam).
If you google "sahihalbukhari download", you will find the book of Bukhari, and the hadiths.

Doug Shaver

And therefore, . . . what? Should we expect Christians or Jews to know something about the origins of Islam that Muslims would not be aware of?

We either do or do not have any factual evidence concerning who wrote the Quran. If we have evidence, then -- without any regard to who provides it -- we should believe what it tells us. If we have none, then we just don't know who wrote it, and it doesn't make a bit of difference which religious sect screams the loudest "But we know!"

Doug Shaver

That's exactly how I feel about the writing of the Old and New Testaments.

Doug Shaver

You inability to imagine such a thing says something about your imagination, but not much else.