The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim.

It must be noted the Rules require that Pro must prove that the current Qur’an is in fact not what Muhammad dictated verbatim, & proving the existence of one wrong verse, or even one wrong word would suffice to uphold the BOP. On the other hand, the BOP on Con is simply to establish, to a reasonable degree, that the Qur’an is what Muhammad dictated verbatim. As for the sources, I’ll source all my points either in this Round or the next; time is right lately :) . Rebuttals: - Fancy statements like these: > neither edition(s) are likely to be the verbatim word of Muhammad because of the implications already mentioned. > We simply do not have all the facts that expand this chain through 1400 years. > no way to know how reliable that transmission was in an objective manner > I argue the situation is evidentially *much* worse than this in my opening round, > to be expected of a transmission process that is not infallible. > the vast majority of variants in any transmission tradition are unintentional ones. > Even assuming Con’s absurdly simplistic argument. > plugging extremely overly optimistic values in with no evidence to support any of them. Are inadmissible until proven, & so far NONE are: > An argument based on ‘the preservation of Qur’an is analogue to that of the Bible, therefore they must be subject to same problems” is inadmissible until the Analogy is established, & so far it is both unsupported by Pro & false. > An argument based on ‘we don’t have the facts, we don’t know, we can’t verify’, is an ignorance-based claim, & thus false, until proven. > An argument based on ‘maybe there is doubt’ is not admissible, Pro must prove there is definitely doubt, not just there might the doubt (about the authenticity of the Qur’an). > An argument based on ‘there are variants in the Qur’an’ is no argument at all, for there ARE indeed variants in the Qur’an. Pro must bring an example of a variant in the Qur’an that didn’t exist in its original form. > Bold claims in fancy words are no arguments. - False statements like these: > the first ~350 years, during the period in which the text became canonised. > Islamic law was in it’s infancy in the first few centuries. > With many different legal systems arising, which is evidenced by the large number of forged Hadith that we possess today. (seriously!!! NO correlation, LoL). Are simply inadmissible. Given we know scribes inevitably make errors in the copying of passages by hand. . . - Scribes of the Qur’an don’t copy it from other sources, but from memory, & thus errors can not cumulate. & they don’t do it solo either, & thus the likelihood of there being errors is even much smaller. Plus, the copies of the Qur’an are verified by others, other than the scribes themselves. [1] the fact that oral traditions inherently have no proof-checking process. - There is, it’s called Tawatur: Flawless Succession.[2] if Con is citing today’s traditions in reciting the Qu’ran, he needs to demonstrate this was the case for the entirety of the Qu’ranic history - I don’t need to demonstrate it, for that’s not my BOP. I need only to show that it’s known to be the case [3]. It’s on Pro to prove that it wasn’t the case to support his position. Con needs to assert everything he claims was true in that period of Islam (600-950AD). - I do not! I need just show that it was the case in a general sense. It’s on Pro to show that during that period there is reason to believe that my assertions are not True. Con extensively addresses intentional/deliberate changes to the Qu’ran over the course of its transmission. That at best only makes a decent case against deliberate changes to the Qu’ran. - That’s not true. The ‘Trustworthiness’ condition eliminates the eventual intentional changes, the Judiciousness condition eliminates the eventual unintentional changes. A judicious but not trustworthy person is liable to commit changes intentionally. &, a trustworthy non-judicious person is liable to commit changes unintentionally.[4] thus virtually all of Con’s argument is off-target. - I just proved that it’s Pro who is off-target. Islamic law was in it’s infancy in the first few centuries. - That’s an ignorant claim, & how is it even relevant! Islamic Law is founded by the Prophet himself, & was implemented fully by his successors, more than it was ever implemented after them [5], especially concerning penalty. The first three of the sources of Islamic Law are: the Qur’an, the Sunnah, & the Consensus, which originate almost entirely from the Prophet & his companions. & all that which concerns Penalty Jurisprudence is solely founded on these 3 sources, & thus Pro’s argument is not just ignorant, it’s also false. we have a 2% chance PER GENERATION of errors being incorporated in the chain of transmission. - False. - First, Pro considers only those liable to make intentional/unintentional changes, & does not account for how many of these are actually going to do it, being untrustworthy doesn’t imply lying necessarily. Now, how many of these are actually going to make mistakes in the Transmission of the Qur’an?! => In my demonstration in R-2, I took a very low estimate: 1 in every 10 of these will go ahead & lie (intentionally or not) in his transmission, while knowing the Penalty for such a thing, if he was ever caught. - Second, Pro ignores the condition of Tawatur, which necessitate at least 7 Reliable Reciters in every level throughout the chain of transmission, & supposes that there is only one instead of 7. << Which is the whole point of the argument. => As I proved through a simple calculation that, under the condition of Tawatur, we have a 0.00000000000000013% chance of error per generation, per verse. <<< Because my premise was about the ‘transmission of a recitation of one sentence by Reliable Reciters (under the condition of Tawatur)’. The math is oversimplistic, but it gets the point across - & it’s false. Con [. . ;] there is a mechanism that can perfectly correct for inevitable errors that will arise in the transmission, and that this mechanism has been in place for the entirety of history. A tough burden to bear - The mechanism is the one I presented, under which the Ten Recitations are preserved, fulfilling: > The degree of Tawatur as-Sanad. (as established above) <<< Tawatur is a condition that is required throughout the chain of transmission, if it fails once, the Tawatur fails. > Corresponding to at least one of the Uthmanic Codexes. > Corresponding to the Qurashi Arabic Tongue. - & no, it’s not my burden to prove it. Providing an authoritative Islamic source showing that those are indeed the requirements needed for a Recitation to be authenticated will be enough.[5] Muhammad dictated the Qu’ran one way, and now we have seven ways. - Muhammad dictated the Qur’an in Seven Huruf, not one way! [6]. at most one of these Qira’at can be what Muhammad dictated. - First, one Recitation does not correspond to one Harf [7]. & thus, even having 7 Huruf will not imply having only 7 Recitations. - Second, a Recitation is exactly what it says it is: the sum of series of recited verses. Within the same Recitation not all verses are necessarily recited in the same Harf [8]. Some my pertain to one Harf, & others to another. & thus, the number of theoretically possible Recitations is a great number: if we suppose half the Qur’an admits variants (not Muhkamat), then we’d have a theoretical estimations of = ~3,000^(7) = ~2^(24) possible Recitations. we already know that the Qira’at end up changing the meaning of what is stated in the Qu’ran in several instances - No, the Qira’at are part of the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an was intended to have all the meanings the Seven Huruf bring with them, or else they wouldn't be in the first place. we are missing the manuscripts for five of these Qira’at. - First, the 5 Uthmanic Codexes correspond to the Ten Recitations (& some others beyond). A Qira’a is a Recitation, as the name suggests: it’s not a written transmission, it’s an oral transmission. => The Narration of the Qur’an through Recitations is done & studied throught the Sciences of Recitation independently from its Transcription. & the Transcription of the Qur’an is done & studied through the Science of Uthmanic Depiction [9]. - Second, all the Uthmanic Codexes are transcribed in the Qurashi Harf (one of the Seven Huruf) [10]. & because the Quashi Harf contains mixtures of other Hurufs, because the Arabic of Quraysh was a sort of mixture of all Arab Huruf, because all Arab tribes come to Quraysh to perform Hajj, for commerce in their nation-wide market, & to compete in Poetry in Suk Ukath [11]. => The other Huruf survived in other Recitations beyond the Ten Recitations (there are in total 50 Recitations), as those corresponding to Ibn Masud’s Codex, or Ali’s codex, or Aisha’s Codex. . . - Second, & similarly to before, one Recitation does not mean one Uthmanic Codex. However, Recitations tend to conform most to the Uthmanic Codex available in the same region. Because the Caliph Uthman upon sending his Codexes to different places, he sent with them Companions that would teach what corresponds to those Codexes [12]. - Third, the manuscript of Tuk Kabi is not yet ruled out as an Authentic Uthmanic manuscript [13]. [. . .] if he doesn’t know the contents of all but two of these Qira’at. - Wrong, knowing by heart the Ten Recitations is a minimum requirement for any muslim Scholar. Hafs & Warsh are commonly used by the populace [14]. ->>> Finally I’ll talk about the Transcription of the Qur’an in my next round. Conclusion: - Con so far provided absolutely no argument to support his claim, only guesses & questions based on misinformation, ignorance & inexistent assumptions.