Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by maes2


Oh owning slaves well thats ok but if you screw up you have to let them go. And worse it tells how many you have to set free,So god is ok with people being sold in to bondage? So he has no problem according to the Koran of someone owning someone else? And worse yet you dont seem to have a problem with that??????? See now you struck a nerve with me No HUMAN SHOULD EVER OWN ANOTHER!!!! And any religion that would condone this is EVIL!!!! And its time for a quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." — Martin Luther King

reply to post by maes2

apostasy has a great punishment in monotheistic religions.

There is no freedom of religion, thought, belief, or opinion in Islam, it is totalitarian and authoritative. So much for the false slogans; "religion of peace" and "no compulsion in religion".

could Jesus and Moses eradicate slavery ?

Muhammad says that he is the last and final prophet. He says that Islam is perfect and complete,... fit for all of time and all of mankind.

With such bold statements like that, you would expect Muhammad's All-Loving and Most-Merciful God to free all human beings.

According to Islam, slavery was never meant to be abolished because Muhammad and Allah proclaimed these words without ever forbidding slavery:

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." (Qur'an 5:3)


Islam only improved the treatment of slaves,... accepts the freeing of slaves as an alms for sin,... and says that freeing slaves is better than keeping them, but that you may keep them. But Islam NEVER abolished slavery or made it a sin. However, Islam was sure to take a tougher stand against alcohol

have not you heard those who are enslaved from poor countries for work or sexual slavery in the forwarded countries !?

Islam approves of sexual slavery!!!

"Also (prohibited for sex are) women already married, except those whom you rightly possess/own."
(Qur'an 4:24)

"Who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives/slaves) whom they rightly own/possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame."
(Qur'an 23:5-6)

never say that you were a muslim. you were not. you were not aware of truth and you were in doubt.

You do not know me. You do not know my thoughts or heart. You are being extremely presumptuous.

I sure did believe in Islam with all of my heart. Just because I left Islam and openly speak against it does NOT mean that I was ignorant or doubtful as a follower of Islam. Presumptuous......

reply to post by logical7


You did it again!!!

You make a statement,... I reply with a rebuttal that wins the point,... you ignore it and then quickly bring up another point.



Before we move on to something different, acknowledge my rebuttal from this post,...

You have alluded several times that Zaid ibn Thabit (Uthman's Qur'an Compiler) was a better candidate than both Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud to compile the Qur'an.

I provided sahih (authentic) sources illustrating Prophet Muhammad's and Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab's high acclamation and referral of the recitations of both Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.

I then provided sahih (authentic) sources illustrating Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had major disagreements with the Zaid/Uthman recitation of the Qur'an.

Here
There
Here



PLEASE.... if you are right and I am wrong, provide your evidence to win your point:

1. Muhammad's recommendation and acclamation of Zaid's recitation above ibn Ka'b and ibn Mas'ud.

2. Any Caliph (leader) or Sahaba (disciples/companions) praising Zaid's recitation above others.

3. Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud having identical recitations to the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an


* If you can not prove these 3 points, then I have won the debate regarding the superiority of the recitations of ibn Masu'd and ibn Ka'b above that of Zaid ibn Thabit.



Once we have openly determined who is more correct about this point,.... then we can move on.

reply to post by babloyi


First and foremost, the entire point of discussing the Kufic Script is in direct correlation with the many falsely attributed Qur'ans of Uthman. There are many manuscripts falsely claimed to be the Qur'an of Uthman, as mentioned in this post of the op.

The Samarkand Codex is also a false claimant. From the very website you recommended, "Islamic-Awareness", it dates the manuscript as:

Date


2nd century hijra or 8th century CE.

Shebunin dated this manuscript to the early second century hijra.[1] On the basis of the orthography as observed in the 1905 facsimile edition prepared by S. I. Pisarev,[2] Jeffery dated it to the early ninth century.[3] More recently, Déroche had assigned a date to the second half of the eight century.[4] The carbon-dating of a folio from this manuscript was carried out at Oxford. The result showed a 68% probability of a date between 640 CE and 765 CE, and a 95% probability of a date between 595 CE and 855 CE.[5] Commenting on this result, Rezvan noted that the paleographic dating of this manuscript also indicated a date at the turn of the eight / ninth century CE.[6]

Although the dates generated by the radiocarbon dating at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ʿUthmān's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.

Islamic-Awareness, Samarqand

And here are some more Islamic scholarly opinions:

Salahuddin Al-Munajjid, who has written an authoritative book on the history of the Arabic script, on the other hand, opines that the Tashkent copy is not one of copies prepared at the instance of Caliph Uthman, but it is likely that it was copied from one of the codices prepared during his caliphate. 19 Dr Tayyar Altikulac, an eminent expert on early Quran manuscripts and former President of Religious Affairs, Turkey, concurs with the opinion of Al-Munajjid and offers the following arguments in support of his view.

First, there are some mistakes of omission in the manuscript. For example, in Surat Al Imran (3:37), the words “innal-Allah” have been left out. In the same Surah (3: 51), the word “hadha” has been left out. Furthermore, in verse 78 of the same Surah, the words “wama hua min indil-Allah” have been left out. Second, there are spelling errors and discrepancies in the copy as well as lack of uniformity in the spellings, which suggest that this copy was neither scrutinized after being copied nor checked and verified by a competent recite (qari), which was the traditional practice. Third, though the copy does not contain vowel signs, the verse endings are marked by small panels of diagonal lines. Furthermore, every tenth verse is marked with a square medallion illuminated in blue, green and red colours with a stellar design. These signs were not used in the early manuscripts of the Quran prepared at Caliph Uthman’s instance. Dr Altikulac therefore concludes that the Tashkent Mushaf is neither the copy that Caliph Uthman was reading when he was assassinated nor one of the copies that were commissioned by him. However, it might have been copied from the Uthman Mushaf sent to Kufa or from a copy of the latter. 20

The IOS Minaret, an online Islamic magazine

The Samarkand Manuscript, along with every other "ancient" Qur'an contains mistakes, is incomplete, and is different than today's Qur'an.

* Challenge: Provide the earliest Qur'an manuscript that is 100% identical to today's Qur'an, has no differences or "mistakes", and is complete.








P.S.
I do not deny the Kufic script's older usage. This is not and was not the debate. The debate is regarding the age of the Kufic manuscripts falsely called "Qur'an of Uthman".

Additionally, I did mention the script of Mecca and the script-style of Medina in the op as Kufic, Ma'il, and Mashq

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by maes2

 

Oh owning slaves well thats ok but if you screw up you have to let them go. And worse it tells how many you have to set free,So god is ok with people being sold in to bondage? So he has no problem according to the Koran of someone owning someone else? And worse yet you dont seem to have a problem with that??????? See now you struck a nerve with me No HUMAN SHOULD EVER OWN ANOTHER!!!! And any religion that would condone this is EVIL!!!! And its time for a quote:

some words have the same appearance but different meanings. what you mean by slavery is because of racism. racism is condemned in monotheistic religions. the slavery you are pointing to was because of racism.
thousand years ago people would enslave their enemies in the wars. and they used to sell their slaves.
so not only Islam does not encourage enslaving people but it insists on releasing them. so that releasing slaves became a manner. at least they were behaved like members of families.
no racism.

"Accepting the fact of slavery in early Islam, was the imposition of a specific time period that slavery was the root of all human societies were common in those days. Hence Islam rather suddenly confronted with an unjust system that was ingrained in human history, it gradually solved the challenge by the rules and dictates of wisdom, and it's attempt was to defend the rights of slaves "

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by maes2

 

Oh owning slaves well thats ok but if you screw up you have to let them go. And worse it tells how many you have to set free,So god is ok with people being sold in to bondage? So he has no problem according to the Koran of someone owning someone else? And worse yet you dont seem to have a problem with that??????? See now you struck a nerve with me No HUMAN SHOULD EVER OWN ANOTHER!!!! And any religion that would condone this is EVIL!!!! And its time for a quote:

some words have the same appearance but different meanings. what you mean by slavery is because of racism. racism is condemned in monotheistic religions. the slavery you are pointing to was because of racism.
thousand years ago people would enslave their enemies in the wars. and they used to sell their slaves.
so not only Islam does not encourage enslaving people but it insists on releasing them. so that releasing slaves became a manner. at least they were behaved like members of families.
no racism.

"Accepting the fact of slavery in early Islam, was the imposition of a specific time period that slavery was the root of all human societies were common in those days. Hence Islam rather suddenly confronted with an unjust system that was ingrained in human history, it gradually solved the challenge by the rules and dictates of wisdom, and it's attempt was to defend the rights of slaves "

edit on 6-9-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

No it didnt solve it at all it allows it to continue. In fact there are still people today that own slaves because they think the Koran tells them its ok. Like Chad for example. And of Course racism is involved Mohammad made that quite clear in his rules. They had to be non Muslim meaning non arab since he obviously allowed slaves to become Muslim as long as they were arab. And of course both there parents were not all ready slaves. Now the other problem if god is against something he wouldnt say well you can do it anyway since you have been all ready.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Well i wont condemn murder since you know its been going on and its part of society. There was no attempt to stop slavery Mohammad owned slaves until he died buying and selling them like cattle his whole life. But somehow god wanted it stopped but couldn't even get his own profit to stop?????? How can you in good conscience defend this and how can it not make you question Islam? The only way is your ok with it you have come to accept slavery as being not so bad.

Muhammad says that he is the last and final prophet. He says that Islam is perfect and complete,... fit for all of time and all of mankind.

Islam could eradicate slavery gradually. most of slaves were because of wars. not because of race.
enslaving enemies were always the last choice. mostly they could become free with some conditions. for example teaching to muslims or becoming a muslim or living free but paying tax (Jazia) if they wanted to live in muslim countries.
even if they became slaves they should have been behaved like members of families.
so this kind of enslaving (which was always the last choice) can be considered a punishment better than imprisoning.
despite these Koran says :

therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds. then, either free them by grace or ransom until war shall lay down its loads -Koran 4:47

it is not slavery it is a punishment. a temporary punishment.
Islam was always against racism.
we know that Balal Habashi and Salman Farsi were slaves because of their races (before Islam) but they became serious followers of Mohammad and they became truly free !

But Islam NEVER abolished slavery or made it a sin. However, Islam was sure to take a tougher stand against alcohol

Islam prohibited alcohol gradually.
step 1:
wine is not a good drinking.

and the fruits of the palm and of the vine, from which you derive intoxicants and wholesome provisions. surely, in this there is a sign for nation who understand. -Koran:16-67

step 2:
do not pray when you are drunk.

believers, do not come close to prayer when you are drunk, until you know what you are saying, nor when you are in a state of impurity, unless you are crossing through the way (prayer area) until you have bathed yourselves. -Koran 4:43

step 3:
wine has some benefits but it's harm is greater.

they ask you about intoxicating drink and gambling. say: 'there is great sin in both, although they have some benefit for people; but their sin is far greater than their benefit. -Koran 2:219

step 4:
do not drink at all.

believers, wine and gambling, idols and divining arrows are abominations from the work of satan. avoid them, in order that you prosper. -Koran 5:90

so when Islam emerged there were people addicted to wine and there were racism and slavery.
Islam tried to correct them gradually.
moreover the concept of slavery is extinct nowadays. because Islam did not allow racism or misbehaving. Islam allowed enslaving the enemies in wars and that was always the last choice. and it was better than imprisoning.

You do not know me. You do not know my thoughts or heart. You are being extremely presumptuous.
I sure did believe in Islam with all of my heart. Just because I left Islam and openly speak against it does NOT mean that I was ignorant or doubtful as a follower of Islam. Presumptuous......

man. do not get me wrong. I am not presumptuous like your former Wahabist or radical Salafist friends. and I did not want to annoy you.
I just wanted to clarify that a person can not become a muslim unless he reaches to these points that God is just one. Mohammad is truly the prophet of God. and the other world exists.
apostasy means that someone knows the truth and then he pretends that he is a believer so that people trust in him then not only he ignores the truth but acts against it in order to misguide people. so apostasy has a dirty meaning.
many people (including me) may have such questions. but this does not mean that they are an apostate.

reply to post by maes2


Your not getting it if you accept something then in effect your condoning that behavior im sure god would understand this concept parents do it every day. But not saying its wrong and should not be done period makes the behavior acceptable. And thats been the problem with the world for far to long well its all ways been that way is not an excuse.

Ill post this again read it this time

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." — Martin Luther King

reply to post by dragonridr

No it didnt solve it at all it allows it to continue. In fact there are still people today that own slaves because they think the Koran tells them its ok. Like Chad for example.

there are still people today that they are eager to cut our heads and put them on our chests because they think Koran tells them its ok. Like followers of Al-Qaeda and their masters.

prophet of Islam said:

There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it.(Ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal)"

reply to post by Sahabi


Just posting so I can come back later and read more thoroughly.

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by dragonridr

 

No it didnt solve it at all it allows it to continue. In fact there are still people today that own slaves because they think the Koran tells them its ok. Like Chad for example.

there are still people today that they are eager to cut my head and put it on my chest because they think Koran tells them its ok. Like followers of Al-Qaeda and their masters.

prophet of Islam said:

There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it.(Ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal)"

edit on 6-9-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

This is called a deflection to avoid the topic. I dont care what al Qaeda thinks. What im talking about is the Koran should not be making allowances for people to have slaves. Where talking human rights here. If the Koran makes half hearted efforts to get rid of evil then how can you say this is the word of god. God is pretty straight forward do what i say or ill destroy you see it throughout the bible. Hes not the kind of person to go well ok just promise to stop later. Its like if you have a teenage son smoking pot are you going to tell him its wrong and not to do it. Or are you going to say well its wrong but i guess if you do it only once in a while and try to quit its ok. See this is a mixed signal us humans we dont process these very well.

So either god condones slavery under certain circumstances or he doesnt in which case he would have told Mohammad to get rid of his slaves. Never seen any other profits owning slaves theres a story in the Koran of Moses freeing slaves but later its ok? Did god change his mind he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were wicked. He seemed to draw a line in the sand there didnt he. But slavery hes going well treat them well and um try to free them when you can. really do you believe that?

reply to post by swanne


Thank you for the interest in the thread. If you have any questions or need anything further explained, don't hesitate to ask.

Don't let the tone of the dissenting debaters get to you. So far, I have not yet been disproven in this thread, nor has my information been proven incorrect. The dissenting debaters reply as if they have won, but closer examination will prove I have won each point thus far,... my debate opponents simply ignore my wins and move on to additional points of attack.

Have a nice weekend! Peace.

reply to post by dragonridr

Islam closed the doors of slavery. the important door was racism. Islam attacked racism directly. so that many slaves got released and they became the followers of Mohammad. Mohammad was not the prophet of aristocrats. but the prophet of oppressed people. including slaves.
Islam placed rules for releasing slaves gradually. however Mohammad was the founder of buying slaves and releasing them or releasing them after training.
even after wars the honorable individuals were not enslaved but they could do something useful for the society and became released. for example teaching.
releasing slaves and exemption of transgressive people is always the first choice in Koran.
prophet of Islam said

God Almighty forgives each fault, but the denial of paying dowry to your wives, or the denial of paying to your workers, or selling a free human

what you said about Chad is selling and trading free human. they buy and sell children of poor families.
or he said

The worst of people are those who trade human

so when you close the input and open the output, what will you expect to happen !

so why did not Mohammad give orders to release all the slaves suddenly !?

Some thinkers believe that the release of huge number of slaves is hazardous. Montesquieu ,about the mass release of slaves at the same time, he writes :

it is not expedient that people set out to free many slaves by a special law. Because it disrupts the order of society as economic, social and political disadvantages.
Thus freeing the slaves, should be gradual and accompanied by necessary and appropriate culturalizing.

however some people believe that Montesquieu was a racist. and racism is prohibited.
but we should pay attention that at the time of Islam many slaves were slaves not because of their races but because of warmongering. so they were somehow imprisoned. they should be trained before releasing.
more over the Islamic leader has a right to release slaves from tax budget (Zakat).

reply to post by Sahabi

You did it again!!! You make a statement,... I reply with a rebuttal that wins the point,... you ignore it and then quickly bring up another point.

your rebuttal is based on half truths as i have said before. A hadith praising a certain companion does not necessarily mean that he/they were suited the best for a task. Also you try to portray that those praised in the hadiths you quoted played no part or were disgregarded during the compilation of Qur'an. Which is not the case.
Zaid had a strict guideline to include any verse. It must be written in the presence of the Prophet himself and two witness who had seen it.
If Ubay ibn Kab and Ibn Masud had a variation then they did not bring it up or object. So they havent written everything they had in the presence of the Prophet.
You want that a very scientific method should have been over-ruled in preference to a single person because some hadiths had praised him?
Does praising an individual make him infallible authority?

Also if the Prophet told to learn the Qur'an from four individuals and a personal copy of one has a slight variation, what does common sense demands to conclude?

There also hadiths that praise Zaid ibn Thabit for his memory and hadith that tell that the Prophet himself called him to write down verses and told him where it belongs. Abu bakr r.a and Umar r.a called him to compile the Qur'an. So if the hadith you present as proof for ibn Masud's superiority says that Umar praised him. What you have to say that Umar agreed along with Abu Bakr to give the task to Zaid? Actions speak louder than words i guess.

Or you would now like to claim that all Caliphs were co-conspirators in the Uthmani TakeOVER

reply to post by yourmaker


The post is excellent, the conclusions drawn by its author is on point and true. Islam exists to remove all non believers from the earth, and in most cases that means any member of Western Civilization and other non believers in the Far East.

I find it amusing that posters here on this site, actually view others as "just people", I think you will find that most "just people" are not trying to kill anyone who disagrees with them, burns their bible, or draws pictures of their religious founder.

If you really want to get some insight into what is going on in Islam, just tune into YouTube and listen to the lectures by Ann Barnhardt who actually burns a Qu'ran on the video. Remember those who published images of the founder of the "moon god" religion who have been killed over the years.

Of course lets not talk about "honor killings", slavery, homosexuality and other matters prevalent in Islam, because this site is primarily a fantasy land site, which believes in aliens, and conspiracies. Again, if Islamics had their way, few if any of you reading this post, would even exist today, because your ancestors would have been killed by this political organization.

Of course what do I know . . . I am just one voice in this wilderness? John

reply to post by maes2

even if they became slaves they should have been behaved like members of families.
so this kind of enslaving (which was always the last choice) can be considered a punishment better than imprisoning.
despite these Koran says :

therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds. then, either free them by grace or ransom until war shall lay down its loads -Koran 4:47

it is not slavery it is a punishment. a temporary punishment.
Islam was always against racism.

maes,
read that passage in the blue box again - read the FIRST HALF OF IT.


therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds. then, either free them by grace or ransom until war shall lay down its loads -Koran 4:47

Now, read this again, that you said AFTER posting 4:47

it is not slavery it is a punishment. a temporary punishment.
Islam was always against racism.

Do you honestly NOT SEE THE DISCONNECT THERE? First "kill many of them" - that is NOT a temporary punishment. Racism is no different than "unbelievers being killed".

And I can hardly believe that all you Muslim apologists are carrying on about this, when Syria is about to explode BECAUSE OF SECTARIAN DIFFERENCES. It's the SAME THING.

Islam does not make sense. It is barbaric, inherently oppressive, and malicious.
My opinion.

Do something about the region where you all are ripping each other apart. The rest of the WORLD wants you all to STOP THIS NONSENSE. From within. Why should the WHOLE WORLD be pressured to "do something" when you all have been at it for centuries....

are you not getting the MESSAGE?

STOP slaughtering each other; stop forcing your views onto others, STOP. STOP

reply to post by wildtimes

Islam does not make sense. It is barbaric, inherently oppressive, and malicious. My opinion.

nice to know your opinion based on ignorance.
IMO you believe a philosophy where people should live and let live and when a group starts killing another and they resist, then call them barbaric and anti-peace.
You also believe in living any way one likes and as if the worldly life is the only life but also want a soothing spiritual belief of something better later.
I do not understand why you are TROLLING here.
There are enough threads.. Maybe more than enough threads that are discussing Syria, how about going there?

reply to post by logical7


I WAS there...I have been on the Syria threads. Did you see the FRONT PAGE today? Me. That is me. Insisting that Syria is NOT OUR PROBLEM, and fighting the only way I can TO KEEP AMERICA OUT OF IT. Why aren't you talking about Syria? Instead of defending your religion, when it is the VERY REASON that Syria has a problem?!!!

You really don't see it, do you? No, as usual, you don't. Fine, then. Continue on with your superior attitude and condemnation of Western lifestyles, people who think open-mindedly, and don't believe that Muhammed spoke the word of God, talked to Gabriel, or flew to heaven on a horse.

Go ahead and talk about your philosophy of KILLING people - I guess it's okay with you that Assad is killing all those people? It's okay the the rebels want to install SHARIA LAW, and don't WANT a DEMOCRACY? That Americans are telling our President to Butt Out of the never-ending chaos CAUSED BY MUSLIMS who CAN't GET ALONG with each other, or anyone else.

I'm a "troll"? Really? You are a being a COWARD and a HYPOCRITE. You're welcome for all of the rest of the WORLD'S EFFORTS trying to keep OUR GOVERNMENT from butting into YOUR BUSINESS.

Why the hell aren't YOU in the Syria threads, defending either the rebels or Assad? WHY AREN'T YOU condemnig those atrocities, instead of arguing against people who see Islam's real-life effects on innocent people?

You really piss me off, logical7. Yeah, we're on the BRINK of WORLD WAR 3, because of YOUR RELIGION and the nutjobs who live it every day - smiting people's necks, killing the unbelievers, and their own countrymen!

You think for ONE MOMENT that you will be rewarded in some ridiculous afterlife filled with perpetual virgins? Because you keep attacking every person who is thinking outside of YOUR box? Because you condemn BILLIONS of people to a fictitious "Hell" based on a desert tribe's bronze age superstitions?

If the Muslim community should be doing ANYTHING right now, it's insisting on PEACE.
Either work for peace, or STFU

reply to post by FlyersFan

Hey FF!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by babloyi
.It seems you don't know at all about Islam or the Quran,

I know it's not from God .. but from men. (like the bible)
I know a large chunk is poorly 'borrowed' from the jews, christians, pagans and Zoroastrians.
I know there are tons of historical errors and scientific errors, as well as contradictions.
I know the Qu'ran is full of misogyny. It celebrates slavery.

I know enough.

Like I said .. even if you could find 20 people who memorized 'the original' ... so what?
It's still not from God. What they memorized is just a man made mess.

That's very interesting, really, but it is not like we haven't all heard your opinions on the matter before already. We're having a bit more of an in-depth discussion here, though. You might like to start your own thread where you can post these thoughts of yours, and pepper it with lots of the word "FACTS" in full caps.


reply to post by Sahabi

Hey S!

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by babloyi

 

First and foremost, the entire point of discussing the Kufic Script is in direct correlation with the many falsely attributed Qur'ans of Uthman. There are many manuscripts falsely claimed to be the Qur'an of Uthman, as mentioned in this post of the op.

...

P.S.
I do not deny the Kufic script's older usage. This is not and was not the debate. The debate is regarding the age of the Kufic manuscripts falsely called "Qur'an of Uthman".

Additionally, I did mention the script of Mecca and the script-style of Medina in the op as Kufic, Ma'il, and Mashq

But part of your argument, and part of the reason you went into so much detail about the kufic script was to show that it WASN'T one of the early scripts used, and your original post went into some detail about how the hijazi "defective" script would've been used, and thus implying it did not include the kufic script. Since we've now established that kufic (and proto-kufic) scripts WERE used during that time, much before the founding of the city after which they were named, and they too lacked diacritical marks, and are counted among the hijazi scripts, (coupled with the frankly very silly mistake of grouping the "[B, T, N, J]" letter shapes together), I'm no longer sure what your original post is talking about.

If your challenge is about the earliest "complete" and unerrored Quran, why are we discussing the Samarkand Quran at all? We already know it isn't complete, and a brief perusal of the history will show that some (perhaps well-meaning but ultimately destructive) 19th century european orientalist (probably one of your "paleographical experts"), in an attempt to more clearly show the texts for photographing, inked over the letters and made several mistakes.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Islam does not make sense. It is barbaric, inherently oppressive, and malicious.

And mundane. Totally addicted to the sensual organic (mundane) instead of the spiritual. The 'holy book' is full of the mundane and the afterlife is a nightmare of it. Also - with all the scientific and historic errors - it's easily debunked.

Originally posted by logical7
nice to know your opinion based on ignorance.

.... says the person who believes the Qu'ran is actually from God.

IMO you believe a philosophy where people should live and let live and when a group starts killing another and they resist, then call them barbaric and anti-peace.

How disingenuous. Muslims aren't sitting there being slaughtered ... they are doing the slaughtering. And yes .. they start it. Don't even try to paint it as a religion of peace that is being butchered by others. It's not peaceful. Not even close.

Originally posted by wildtimes
You really piss me off, logical7.

Yeah, we're on the BRINK of WORLD WAR 3, because of YOUR RELIGION and the nutjobs who live it every day - smiting people's necks, killing the unbelievers, and their own countrymen!

Yep. A big chunk of it is just that. The ol' Muslims killing Muslims because they aren the right kind of Muslim .. and killing off peaceful non-Muslims because they aren't Muslim.

Syria, It comes down to Muslim Oil Pipelines and Religion

Children Among Christians Machine Gunned in Nigeria
Syrian Islamist Rebels Attacking Christian Town/Forcing 'Conversions'
Al Qaeda Vows to Slaughter Christians in Syria
Islamic Rebels Shell Syrian Hospital with 'Allahs Permission'
Christian Priest Murdered by Islamic Syrian Rebels

There is more .. so much more ....