Authenticity of the Koran

[Turbo]

It is widely percieved that the Koran is authentic because it is one document that can trace itself back to the prophet Muhammad himself. I did a bit of research on this and found that the Koran has as many authenticity problems as does the bible.

Historical background:

For the Koran, there was no single document collecting all the revelations, after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. Many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form. Soon there were the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Masud, Uba ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad, and others (fifteen primary codices, and a large number of secondary ones).

As Islam spread, there developed the metropolitan codices in the centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. Each were different so as to cause considerable unrest. A Step was taken by the Caliph Uthman (644-656) to prepare an official document. The caliph chose Zayd ibn Thabit to prepare the official text. Three noble families of Mecca assisted in revising the Koran. Copies of the new version were were sent to Kufa, Basra, Damascus, and perhaps Mecca, and one was, of course, kept in Medina. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed.

Conclusion:

You can see the same issues that confronted the Christian church in terms of multiple versions floating around and the similar actions being taken to define which documents were 'authentic'. Neither the Koran nor the Bible can be proved to be authentic based on original text.

[Kanaric]

They are authentic simply because they are the books that have existed for hundreds of years. You just have to ask, for the bible for example, why were things "removed" from it in the early years? Debating the authenticity of a book that has been around for so long is laughable. Debating the authenticity of the TRANSLATION though is another thing.

[Richard the Lionheart]

One thing I thought I should point out:

It is a belief in Islam, that after Muhammed had recieved all the revelations (Surahs) and after he had verbally preached them all, a final Koran, in book form, was brought down from Heaven by Gabriel and was given to Muhammed.

[Kanaric]

Also dont forget that the pope, and as a result the bible, is infallible. So how can you even debate the authenticity? If hes infallible its obviously the real book. Unless you bought a bootlegged bible from a hong kong book store.

The Bible:

"God Jesus SURPEMEEE Edition"

[Sher Khan]

And so, as Honor&Glory has pointed out, we believe in the Quran's authenticity because of the compiled version given to Muhammed (pbuh). We believe the authentic version was the same Uthman had popularized. After that point, the Holy Book remained virtually unchanged well into the new century.

[Turbo]

They are authentic simply because they are the books that have existed for hundreds of years. You just have to ask, for the bible for example, why were things "removed" from it in the early years? Debating the authenticity of a book that has been around for so long is laughable. Debating the authenticity of the TRANSLATION though is another thing.

I'm a Catholic and a Christian so based on my faith the Catholic Bible is the bible I rely on. However, I have been reading the apocrypha and while there are gnostic leanings in some of them, there is a considerable amount of clarification and truth about Christianity that I am learning about. You can't base authenticity on age or term of use. There were also at least 6 different councils that the church convened regarding which books to include and which not to, and the list is different between councils. Telling me that the bible is infallible because the Pope says so is dogmatism. Belief based on dogmatism is superstition. True belief is based on understanding.

The authenticity of the Koran and bible is unimportant to God's message as God is not limited to the bible or anything else. However, what I see through historical perspective is how dogmatism has played a part in determining which book survived. I don't doubt that God speaks through both books, but based on history, neither book can claim to be directly from God as in both cases with the Koran and the bible, man has made a decision on what content to include.

[Saint-Germain]

Good thread Turbo, I was wondering how long it would take for a Koran version to pop up.

Do you have some links or references for the info you've got here? Thanks

[Kanaric]

I'm a Catholic and a Christian so based on my faith the Catholic Bible is the bible I rely on. However, I have been reading the apocrypha and while there are gnostic leanings in some of them, there is a considerable amount of clarification and truth about Christianity that I am learning about. You can't base authenticity on age or term of use. There were also at least 6 different councils that the church convened regarding which books to include and which not to, and the list is different between councils. Telling me that the bible is infallible because the Pope says so is dogmatism. Belief based on dogmatism is superstition. True belief is based on understanding.

The authenticity of the Koran and bible is unimportant to God's message as God is not limited to the bible or anything else. However, what I see through historical perspective is how dogmatism has played a part in determining which book survived. I don't doubt that God speaks through both books, but based on history, neither book can claim to be directly from God as in both cases with the Koran and the bible, man has made a decision on what content to include.

Well its the book the religion follows, the exact book that has been used by them and approved by all major christian religions.

I'm not saying that its any better that they "cut things out" from it. I'm just saying that the book is by definition authentic and shoudn't be called otherwise. You wouldn't call another book, like Harry Potter for example, un-authentic simply because it was different in its rough draft would you? You shouldn't do the same with the Bible either.

[Turbo]

Good thread Turbo, I was wondering how long it would take for a Koran version to pop up.

Do you have some links or references for the info you've got here? Thanks

I didn't collect my info from just one source, however these links are helpful:

It entitled "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran" by Lenone Caetani.
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/engl...fthekoran.html
also, this is fairly objective as well:
http://www.answers.com/topic/qur-an

[Turbo]

Well its the book the religion follows, the exact book that has been used by them and approved by all major christian religions.

I'm not saying that its any better that they "cut things out" from it. I'm just saying that the book is by definition authentic and shoudn't be called otherwise. You wouldn't call another book, like Harry Potter for example, un-authentic simply because it was different in its rough draft would you? You shouldn't do the same with the Bible either.

You have a good point. The bible is what the contents are same as the Koran. Perhaps authentic is a poor choice of words. Original and unchanged might be more appropriate.