Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by logical7


Almost everything you have said on this page, I have already explained to you in this page and the previous page. Many of your questions can be answered in the op, or in these last two pages. And then you repeat information I already provided, and put a layman's explanation to it, when I have already explained it in a more broadened and understood point-of-view.

Why are you ignoring my posts? Why are you making me repeat myself? Why the redundancy?

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

Umar is of the Quraysh Tribe from Mecca.

Hisham is of the Quraysh Tribe from Mecca.

These two argued over the different "Ahruf" of Qur'an. Clearly "Ahruf" and "harf" do not mean dialect!!!!

"Ahruf" is the plural of "harf". These words mean difference and variation. They do not mean dialect or recitation (Qira'at).

i understood that a thousand years ago. I even posted what Ghamadi had to say from an excerpt from wikipedia.

you are clinging to a technical difference and making a ridiculous claim.
ahruf and qiraat.
Lets see,
if ahruf means different ways and qiraat means a way to pronounce and even by your claim that Qurayshi qiraat is reciting something in that recital. Right? The substance is some harf. Right?

I am btw not agreeing to you except hypothetically and even then your claim is just ridiculous.

Maybe this question will make you realise your foolishness.

when you say the ahruf are lost, what exactly is lost?
keep the reply simple please, i am no scholar

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

Almost everything you have said on this page, I have already explained to you in this page and the previous page. Many of your questions can be answered in the op, or in these last two pages. And then you repeat information I already provided, and put a layman's explanation to it, when I have already explained it in a more broadened and understood point-of-view.

Why are you ignoring my posts? Why are you making me repeat myself? Why the redundancy?

i see it as boiling down to the basics, none of the hadiths that you posted help you once we start clearing the unecessary and assumed narratives from your op.
Your basic contention is that the 7 ahruf are lost.
So lets proceed and see if you can prove it.
No, the hadiths you quoted don't prove a thing.

Let me make it more simple just for you to understand.
When i recite say surah Fatihah. I am reciting some substance, whatever the qiraat.
If there are 7 ahruf and all are lost as you say, am i reciting NOTHING with a certain qiraat

reply to post by dragonridr

thank you for your clarification about Christianity.
you said muslims are prevented from studying other religions. we should pay attention that even if a person is born in a muslim family he can not imitate the principles of Islam. principles of Islam are that "there is only one God" and "the other world exists" and "Muhammad is the prophet of God". no one can imitate these. people should they themselves reach to these principles. by logic or learning or any tools. and then they can become a muslim.
I do not know what you mean by pillars of Islam. you said you were living in Saudi Arabia. these are consequences of living in Saudi Arabia
and about Allah.

Allah (English pronunciation: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤˈlˤɑːh] ( listen)) is the Arabic word for God (literally 'the God', as the initial "Al-" is the definite article). It is used mainly by Muslims to refer to God in Islam,Arab Christians, and often, albeit not exclusively, by Bahá'ís, Arabic-speakers, Indonesian, Malaysian and Maltese Christians, and Mizrahi Jews.
The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos).[8] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā ܐܠܗܐ in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.[10] In the Sikh scriptures, Guru Granth Sahib, the term Allah (Punjabi: ਅਲਹੁ) is used 37 times.
The name was previously used by pagan Meccans as a reference to a creator deity, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia. The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) differ among religious traditions. In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters–a concept that was deleted under the process of Islamization. In Islam, the name Allah is the supreme and all-comprehensive divine name, and all other divine names are believed to refer back to Allah. Allah is unique, the only Deity, creator of the universe and omnipotent. Arab Christians today use terms such as Allāh al-Ab (الله الأب, 'God the Father') to distinguish their usage from Muslim usage.There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible.[16] It has also been applied to certain living human beings as personifications of the term and concept. en.wikipedia.org...

muslims do believe in holy spirit.

[The Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, "This is not but obvious magic." -Koran 5:110

Oh Muhammad Say: The holy Spirit hath delivered it from thy Lord with truth, that it may confirm (the faith of) those who believe, and as guidance and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). -Koran 16:102

so Jesus is alive and will return according to Islam. and other Messiahs as well. like Mahdi. some believe that Mahdi has not been born yet and some believe he is alive like Jesus.
true followers of monotheistic religions will not fight with each other but with the corrupted elites.

And We have already written in the book [of Psalms] after the [previous] mention that the land is inherited by My righteous servants. -Koran 21:105

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

I would love to sit and refute each ahadith but I do work 6 days a week, my daughter is dying of cancer and I just dont really have the time.... it would be best for people to find out the real truth on their own, but I dont suppose that will happen either.... If anyone were to take this to a Muslim (ie: not an extremist) website they would quickly find out the truth of this thread however.

So , notice this one.

Even if the OP was Muslim , he was WAhhabi , they don't accept Qur'an literally because of

33:33 إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

Because of

5:55 انما وليكم الله ورسوله والذين آمنوا الذين يقيمون الصلاه ويوتون الزكاه وهم راكعون

They don't accept that practically. And when the chain of haq (truth) which is connected by logic is broken , it will help other chains fall sooner or later.

So , basically , what are you exactly trying to prove here ?

conclusion about OP

Good job OP for rejecting Wahhabism , next time try to find the truth maybe in bible or talmud. Or maybe reject the judgment day by scientific facts , who knows really ?

And if you want to make more anti-Ialamic thread , be your guest.

And I'll be yours ,too , insha allah.

I almost forgot , there are many people here who will accept you with open arms in their group.

But remember that other than rejecting Islam , you would have not much to do.

And when the Islam has it's good days again , come back to Islam and maybe you will be accepted just like how Abusofian was accepted.

reply to post by logical7


You made another reply, basically ignoring the content of the op. I already explained all of this in the op. If you ask repetitive questions I will not respond.



(Click For) Summarized Abstract

In the op and in the "Summarized Abstract" I have listed sources showing that:

Only 22 people had the entire Qur'an memorized when Muhammad died.

Abu Bakr compiled the Qur'an by summoning those who memorized parts of the Qur'an directly from Muhammad, and those who scribed parts of the Qur'an in writing in the presence of Muhammad. In one event, only a single man remembered three full ayah (verses). How can we be sure more wasn't lost or forgotten?

Umar publicly declared that verses about stoning had been left out of the written Qur'an. Other people stated that other verses were also left out of the written Qur'an.

Uthman standardized the Qur'an and ordered all existing Qur'ans to be destroyed. When Hafsa died, Marwan destroyed the original Qur'an of Abu Bakr, saying that "I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios." If Uthman's Quran was identical to Abu Bakr's original, there would be nothing to doubt or fear. How can you doubt or fear if the two books are identical?

Who disagreed with Uthman's Qur'an? Two reciters named Ubay ibn Ka'b and Ibn Mas'ud. These two men were highly acclaimed and recommended by Prophet Muhammad to learn the Qur'an from.

Because of Uthman, there are only sparse fragments of the Qur'an from the mid-600's AD/CE and onward, being 20-30 years after Muhammad's death. All of these early Qur'ans are dated to after Uthman's death, and all are significantly different than today's Qur'an.





1. Verses were left out of the written Qur'an.

2. Uthman destroyed all Qur'ans.

3. Marwan destroyed Abu Bakr's first original Qur'an because it was different.

4. Because Uthman made one single Qur'an instead of seven variations like Muhammad approved, the seven variations of Muhammad were lost.

5. The Seven Recitation schools that exist today are based upon Uthman's Qur'an instead of Muhammad's seven variations. We already illustrated that Uthman's Qur'an is missing verses, and that Muhammad's two acclaimed reciters disagreed with it. Today's seven recitations are a different concept than Muhammad's seven recitations.

6. Differences in the older Qur'ans is not simply spelling mistakes or difference in vowels. Entire words and phrases are different, added, or omitted.

7. Every old Qur'an is different than today's Qur'an.

8. Uthman's Qur'an is different than what Umar, Ubay, and Ibn Mas'ud said.


Corruption, corruption, corruption.





Read the op. Read the abstract summary. Anymore redundancy and you won't hear from me.

reply to post by logical7


"Ahruf" are the discrepant variations that Muhammad reconciled.

Uthman came, left verses out of the Qur'an. Ignored Ubay's verses saying they were abrogated, now Ubay's verses are lost. Umar said verses were left out. Ibn Mas'ud disagreed with Uthman's Qur'an.

Bingo! Bingo! Today's seven schools of recitation called "qira'at" are based upon Uthman's Qur'an.

Clearly and painfully obvious, "ahruf" of Muhammad is not the same thing as "qira'at" school of recitation of today.


Assalaamu alaikum.
(You once said it was suspicious for me to use "salaam" as a greeting. To wish "Peace" upon others is the best greeting. I say "May Peace be upon you" to English speakers, I say "Assalaaum alaikum" to Arabs and Muslims. I don't differentiate who I wish peace unto)

reply to post by Sahabi


And all the sahabi and friends and followers were dumb and blind , until you discovered the truth 1400 years later ?

Goooooooooood job.

Excuse me , how many years were you studying ?

As far as this thread stands, the op has not yet been refuted or proven wrong.

The outcome thus far is debaters refusing to acknowledge or accept the information. Simple rejection, not refutation.

Uthman corrupted the Qur'an by leaving verses out, rearranging it, eliminating the seven reconciled variations of Muhammad, and burning all the rest.

All early Qur'ans are different than today's Qur'an.

I rest my case.

reply to post by Sahabi


Logic alone proves false your OP. First, if the quran had been altered there would have been entire wars started over that.... But everyone has always accepted the existing Quran, even those closest to the Holy Prophet (saww)

Anything to back up your claims has been in ahadith, weak and/or fabricated ones at that....and they do not support history, again, where was the angry people concerning the alterations you speak of? People would have died over that, without any doubt....

Sunni / Shia split had to do with the political realm, ie: could people elect leaders and ignore the commands of the Prophet (saww) or did they need a leader who knew intimately the religion whom the Prophet (saww) said was to be the successor after His (saww) death in order to have a religious governance? That was the crux of the Sunni / Shia split.

Yes, the Sunni back then rejected Imam Ali 's (as) Mushaf, which was His (as) exegesis (explanation of the meaning) of the Holy Quran, not any type of different Quran.....

So no, logic is not in support, arabic language is not in support, ahadith is not in support, nothing supports your argument.... an argument which is nothing short of slander because you read some muslim hating sites and according to you learned the religion of Islam from the enemies of Islam itself....Logic is the first proof and logic is not in support...

My first post was concerning the Quran an Natiq (the speaking Quran, Another name for Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) and The other 11 Imams from His Progeny (as) ), My second point was the quran itself.... "When you have any question concerning the Quran go ask the People of the Quran (as)....." those people are the ones who were there in the very beginning, the Man who was raised in the Household of the Prophet (saww) of Islam...

That Man (as) never taught a different Quran, that Man (as) never went to war over a distorted Quran, that man fought over the interpretation of the Quran.... and it shows it in history, and it was foretold in ahadith of the Prophet (saww) If He (as) had went to war over alterations in the Quran, the Shia of Ali (as) would today have a different Quran from the Sunnis....

and the fact is, we DON"T....Therefore, logic says, there has always only been one Quran without alteration....My Quran, as a Shia of Ali (as) is the same as the Quran as any Sunni on the planet. The only difference is exegesis.... I take mine from the Household of the Prophet (saww) and Sunnis take theirs from anyone who met the Prophet (saww)

In ancient times, the Arabs worshiped as many as 360 gods, and among them was the moon god allah (the deity). Shrines, temples, and the Kaaba were dedicated to allah the moon god and have been revealed through excavation. Allah had other names as well including the name Sin, and Sin (allah) had a wife who was the sun godess. Together they had sons and daughters which are the stars we see in the sky at night.

The Arabian tribes were continually killing each other in wars and so it came to pass that the idea to unite all the tribes under one god had been invented. The jury is still out as to how much contribution Muhammad actually gave to present day Islam as he could not read nor write and suffered from epilepsy, and was dependent upon the charity of his wealthy merchant wife, thus making the Quran and the teachings afterwards questionable and suspect.

After the unification under the "great god" allah, conquest began and it began to spread. Islam today is a far cry from it's origins, but history has in fact proven that the god of Islam called allah (the deity) is in fact the moon god of old, complete with the crescent moon symbol with the inscription "allah is great" which is still a phrase used today.

Here is some interesting reading on this.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

reply to post by Sahabi

Only 22 people had the entire Qur'an memorized when Muhammad died.

thats completely wrong, maybe you mean that there were 22 personal copies of Qur'an, actually i read it was 23.
The memorizers were above 34, at least that many are mentioned even in wikipedia.
And here's a link
www.companionofquran.com...
there were many who have remained unidentified.

When the above are added to the
seventy Ansar who were killed in the
battle of Yamama against Musaylima
the Arch-Liar, and who were all
memorizers of the Qur’an (qurra’)
[Bukhari and Muslim], the number of the Companions who had memorized
the Qur’an rises to over a hundred.
This number excludes the numerous
Companions — whether named or
unnamed — whose status of
memorizers did not reach us through isnad, as well as the women of both
the Muhajirin and the Ansar. All of this
memorizing was mass-transmitted.
The numbers of the next generations,
of course, keep rising exponentially in
identical fashion of transmission, and praise belongs to Allah.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Anything to back up your claims has been in ahadith, weak and/or fabricated ones at that

Oh please don't lie!

I just counted 21 sahih (authentic) ahadith in the op alone.

Either you are debating me without having read the thread, or you simply are a liar.

reply to post by Sahabi

Hey again, Sahabi!

You sorta dodged my last post, and I can understand that you thought I am trying to bring into question your background and stuff, but rest assured, I only did it because I was quite curious about it. To be honest, a lot more interested in it than in the subject of this thread...I thought I could ask them anyway, because you did include your background in the original post.

I just wanted to point out that you went from "according to many sources" in your original summary to a much more definitive "Only 22 people had the entire Quran..." in your later one. That's not exactly true, is it?

This is why I was so focused on sources. You take one source that agrees with your argument (and ignore many other things that source has to say), then for another point you take another source that has a completely different viewpoint, and often disagrees with the first source, and then you string them together to form this story.

70 Hafiz died in the Ridda wars. Interesting how you can jump from 22 to 70 in 6 months. Unless you mean there were actually 92, and 22 were left after the Battle of Yamama. 70 dying was a great blow, but it is no indication that there were only 22 left after that. There were many, and they cross-checked each other, and they taught more students.

Lets see....specifically named, there was:
Uthman, Ali (that makes the 2 Caliphs, the other two also memorised them, but not completely), then Ibn Masud, Ubay, Ibn Thabit, Utba ibn Amir, Abu al-Darda (who went on to teach thousands), Tamim al-Dari, Salim Maula abi Hudaifa, Muad ibn Jabal, Abu Zayd (all the ones who also wrote it down and collected it), then Abu Musa al-Ashari, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Al-As, Abdullah ibn Umar, Talha ibn Ubaidullah, Saad ibn Abi Waqas, Hudaifa ibn-al Yaman, Abu Hurayra, Abdullah ibn al-Saib, Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, Ubada ibn al-Samit, Muad Abu Halima, Mujami ibn Jariya, Fadala ibn Ubaid, Maslama ibn Mukhallad, Anas ibn Malik, Abu Umama al-Bahili, then the women that I know of, Umm Waraqa, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama.

That makes 31, and I am pretty sure I'm not being comprehensive. This of course, not including the ones who had just memorised "most" of the Quran.

EDIT: Hahah....logic beat me to it.

DOUBLE EDIT because I didn't want to make a whole new post:
So it seems you have revised your claim from "There were only 22" to "22 is the lower estimate that can be verified".
Fair enough!

reply to post by logical7


Battle of Yamama happened after Muhammad's death.

22, 23,... number variance of up to 25 memorizers in a weaker source when Muhammad died. After Muhammad's death, some Sahaba (companions) created learning centers to teach the Qur'an. From these 20-something odd companions, hundred and thousands more became hafiz (full memorizers). When Muhammad was alive, people felt they always had a source to go to for Qur'an. After his death, people sought out the Qur'an because Muhammad wasn't around anymore.


There were lots who had parts memorized. But only few who had the entire Qur'an memorized at the moment of Muhammad's death.

reply to post by babloyi


The low number indicates people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at the time of Muhammad. Not just parts. And not Sahaba who became full memorizers (hafiz) after Muhammad's death.

Many had parts memorized, but few had it all 100% at Muhammad's death.

reply to post by babloyi


I must reply to mideast next, and then I will reply to your earlier points after. I did not forget about you.

reply to post by Sahabi

Anymore redundancy and you won't hear from me.

Nice Excape *wink* I understand your difficulty
you have to hide behind a carefully constructed op and as soon as you are questioned the structured op shakes and threatens to crumble.

Let me put how i see things.

Zaid ibn Thabit is a personal scribe who writes down the verses under direct supervion of The Prophet.

Zaid ibn Thabit is also mentioned in hadiths just like Ibn masud and praised. You are trying to portray Ibn masud as the only eligible companion.

Zaid ibn Thabit was present when Muhammad pbuh recited the whole Qur'an to Jibrael a.s. in the Quraysh harf. Not Ibn Masud.

The differences that you said are in Ibn Masud and a few others' copy are in their personal copies/notes and the majority companions don't have those differences and all companions unanimously agree when Zaid compiles the codex that is passed down to Hafsa.

It was achieve within 1.5years of prophet's death.

Uthman r.a just called Zaid again to make fresh copies and prefer the quraysh dialect if a consensus among the committee is not reached.

Uthman sent reciters with the copies, are you saying that those reciters 1st memories the Uthmanic copy and then went with the copy?

is redundancy a new name for authentic curious questions? Or for a demand to you to explain things in a way that everyone can understand and see you for what you are?

reply to post by Sahabi


Assalam Alaikum again,

I wanted to reply to this post earlier and more clearly on your OP but unfortunately was busy.

You sound like you acquired a fair degree of knowledge in a short space of time which is great to see and I commend you for that as it's a rare gift.

You are young and your posts reflect that as you seem to want to explain your credentials a lot, to the point where your ego is manifestly present however you should know form your studies that this is a component of Islam that is central to who we are i.e. our true eternal Jihad is with the Nuf's (the self, the ego).

You lack wisdom and that only comes through age as you mature so do your views and with time you either become more humble or you become more abrasive, unfortunately in this day and age we have too many academic's - so called teachers who have acquired a lot of knowledge an can throw out terminology but they lack the wisdom to see beyond the information and understand the value.

I am not going to argue your article, there are better more qualified people out there and besides I think you have done the religion a service by identifying these discrepancies.

Something I learn't from my teachers (Ahl-Al-Suf, the likes of Habib Ali Jifri, Shykh Hamza Yusuf, Dr Timothy Winters...) is the following (paraphrased):

"When Allah rejects something, it is rejected in Islam. When Allah Azawajaal accepts something, it is accepted in Islam". Your leaving Islam was your choice but when you look at it from a causality perspective you have to wonder if Allah in his infinite wisdom decided that you with your knowledge would not benefit yourself or others in Islam so Allah made it easy for you to leave Islam...that's how Suf's think, we take the nature of things into context, look beyond the information, through the context to the divine purpose.

And you also gave a good example of something else I learn't in my studies, that if you spread yourself too thin, you try gain knowledge in Islam without having firm conviction (following a particular tradition, teachings etc as some Muslims do not) you can end up "like a ship without a sail, drifting aimlessly"...the knowledge you acquire becomes your burden and conflict.

The Prophet (pbuh) was not illiterate, through prophethood he like previous enlightened individuals had gained certain qualities (gifts from Allah), one of those being mastery over the spoken knowledge. There is a sound hadith I read that indicates the Prophet (pbuh) was asked by a Sahabi regarding his literal knowledge, he Sulallahu Alaihi Wassulim stated that it wasn't something he would do and scholars agree that the Prophet did not say he was illiterate, rather it wasn't his chosen academic trait (preferring the oral tradition as he was a man of the people for the people).

You also forget something more fundamental: Arabs of that time did not require books, they had (And some still do) exceptional memories and the ability to comprehend the meaning of words - I can provide many sources to back this claim up but a good source is "Zia-Ul-Nabi - English Edition by the late Pir Kharam Sha Al-Azhari" which has a fascinating discourse of the history of the Arab and Persian world prior to Islam, including facts regarding the qualities of the people of that region at that time.

If god did not want a thing to be known he would not allow it to be, right? So if god did not want the Qur'an to be written he would not allow it to be written?

What do you say of the Qaari's, the "Caretakers of the Qur'an" who memorise the entire Qur'an, can recite the Qur'an exceptionally (like the late Abdul Basit Abdus Samad), are they also corrupt i.e. the recitation and accompanied knowledge being unsound?).

Islam is not a religion of compulsion and we are not compelled to do anything - chose it or leave it, that is your choice and something no one should criticize you for.

My only advice is do a bit growing up, go see the world, experience profound joy and pain, lose someone close to you and watch the world come to life, then and only then will you gain some wisdom because had you been a Muslim as you claim with the knowledge you acquired, you would have known that what you are doing is purely about the ego and you would not have been so quick to attack something as greatly revered as the Qur'an in the manner you did (regardless of right or wrong).

If you had removed any statements that flouted your ego I would be much more willing to listen to you but it's the norm on ATS, to propel the self, ego and claim some kind of right or divinity (which we are none of) but I blame this on the path you took, lacking a tradition and teaching you took on so many different views that you were left confused and single minded at the end.

I take nothing away from you, I am grateful to have read your article and I pray to Allah, the lord of the worlds, that he guides you, gives you a good life and reveals some of his secrets to you.

Peace be on you

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Anything to back up your claims has been in ahadith, weak and/or fabricated ones at that

Oh please don't lie!

I just counted 21 sahih (authentic) ahadith in the op alone.

Either you are debating me without having read the thread, or you simply are a liar.

the hadiths that you have mentioned do not support your op unless you also string a narrative around it by only including selective half truths.
Why don't you for starters acknowledge that Zaid Ibn Thabit was the most suited for the task. Why ignore his qualifications and even fail to mention him?