There are two points that drive my rejection of the tradtionalist paradigm. Be familiar with them as they will prove useful in the grave during Q&A's.
1 - No oral transmission can be READ.
2 - No human hand can compile a perfect scripture.
These are just stories. Even if I had an oral rendition (and I dont) , would you have believed?If no physical evidence, then at least provide us with oral evidence that the Prophet (Salla Alalhu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was provided with this written materials and no one else. There is a lot of oral material on the fact that the revelation came to Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) and no one else, so your suspicions about written materials should also have left some oral trail.
asked and answeredIf you have nothing, neither orally nor written, then you are just wildly guessing.
I doubt thats true. The evidence against such a hypothesis is the fact that Islamic empire was the fastest ever growing empire wherein literacy and sciences were spread in all the territories they held dominion. Furthermore, Greek philosophy comes to us from Arabs.The part about the Quran being used to teach the Arabs literacy is again wrong, as the Arabs are always referred to in the Quran as the illiterate people from the beginning to the very end of the revelation, and this would be impossible if the Quran was used to teach people litercy during the Prophet's own time. Even for many centuries after the Prophet's (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) demise the Arabs as a whole were still illiterate, as the written word was simply not part of their culture at all.
I have no idea what this means nor how you came to such a conclusion. Last time i checked, we are getting our butts whupped.The Ummah as a whole is perfect and protected from error, their consensus is just as good as divine revelation in determining what is right and wrong. Since they agreed on the scripting of the Quran and this agreement has remained within the Ummah, it is a matter of certainty in Islam.
As for the "certainty" that you speak, it still lacks the empirical evidence.
As Salamu Alaikum
READ "The History of Qur'anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation" by M.M Al- Azami
Then come back and discuss, otherwise what is happening here is Fitnah.
Abu Sa’id (ra) said that Rasullilah (salalahi alahi wasalam) said, “Whoever says:
Radeetu billahi rabban, wa bil-Islaami deenan, wa bi-Muhammadin rasoolan
Jannah becomes obligatory for him (to enter). [Abu-Dawud]
- Best said in Morning and Evening with "Nabiyan wa rasoolan"
Second of all, there is no evidence from the tafseers that meaning of the ayat (any ayat at random) was understood perfectly and this point can be amply demonstrated. So your "understanding it" point is quite moot and can be easily disproved.
See what challenges defending-islam is avoiding. Its not the fear of the unknown but fear of losing power over the mindless drones.
You have nothing. The most you said is that you have some feeling that the Prophet (SAW) should have been privy to something and this is all you have provided.If you have nothing, neither orally nor written, then you are just wildly guessing.
asked and answered
When the refutation is provided from the Quran then there is total avoidance of the matter and hypothetical questions bout how compilation could have been percetly done, about how the Ummah is not protected from error, and other matters that are signs of disbelief.
For those who reject the authoritative nature of the consensus of the Ummah like member lilayi are doing, I would like to ask them:
How do they know that the Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) mentioned in the Qur'an is in reality the Muhammad who all Muslims agree upon, who was born in Makkah in the Arabian Peninsula almost 15 centuries ago, migrated to Madinah, is buried there.
Since they do not accept mass narrations and consign them to fairytales and fables, how are they able to say anything for certain about this matter. For all we know (according to their corrupt methodology) "Muhammad" could be a Prophet born in Indonesia or Africa at any point in history, and the fact that the Quran is in Arabic could merely be a coincidence.
So our opponents have to answer this question of how their methodology accepts anything of substance. If they are so rabid about accepting only what the Quran has to say as the only source of knwoledge through and through, then (1) they cannot even know what are the meanings of the words in Arabic since this is knowledge outside of the Quran, (2) they cannot know for certain what are the locations the Quran refers to when it uses terms such as Makkah, Yathrib, etc. since this is also knowledge outside of the Quran. In fact they cannot ascertain anything, since they have thrown out (1) the sound mind and (2) reliably transmitted information through an uninterrupted chain of transmission as valid sources of knowledge, and the Quran presupposes that people will use their sound minds and rely on properly transmitted information while it is presenting the Ayats.