Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

FlyersFan

1104light
Then why can't you simply quote any such passages? Because none exist?

You are new here so let me explain something to you. IT IS OFF TOPIC.
Again ... go to this thread and it's all there.
Christ claimed Godhood ... quotes all here

You made it part of the topic. You claimed it in this thread. If it was off topic, then your post about it was off topic, right?
Either quote a passage or just admit you are lying. Sorry, I have read your bible so lying to me in the name of your honest god will get you nowhere. Trying to tell me something you brought up is off topic just wreaks of deflection. Maybe you never should have said it since it is not true and you cannot back it up and you sure as hell seem to think it is off topic.

reply to post by FlyersFan

You were proven wrong, over and over, on this thread

I read through the entire thread again and I didn't see a single verse where Jesus said "I am God".
Oh wait, that's because that verse does NOT exist.

Stop deflecting. That's not the topic of this thread. The mess of a Qu'ran is.

The only thing that is a mess here is your attempts to discuss Abrahamic religion.... while holding on to some bizarre personalized form of Christianity... in which you hold a low opinion about some Biblical figures and dismiss some others as myths.

You have a problem with Moses.
Who do you suppose showed up at Jesus' transfiguration?

You have a problem with Abraham.
Who do you suppose rejoiced to see "Jesus day"?

You believe Noah was a myth.
Who do you suppose Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24:37?

You believe Melchizedek was a myth.
In who's order was Jesus identified as a priest?

I think I'll stop here. Your belief in Jesus has been pretty much invalidated.

1104light
New Testament Christians? How many are there?

I have no idea if a census has ever been taken. The thing is, much of the Old Testament is easily disproven. Disproving chunks of the Old Testament doesn't effect belief of the events surrounding Jesus
in the New Testament

Example - Christians who know Genesis is just a creation myth. Well ... there are one billion Catholics and the Catholic church recently made the statement that if science proves creationism is wrong, that's fine. The fact that the story of creation is proven to be a myth in no way takes away from a persons faith in Jesus. God can make people any way He wants. Creation. Evolution. 'Seeding' from other planets. Whatever.

Example - Noahs Ark. Proven to be plagiarized by the Jews from the Summerian Giglamesh story. Understanding the truth of Noahs Ark - that it didn't happen at all like the bible says - in no way effects a persons belief in Jesus.

Example - The Ten Commandments. Proof that the Ten Commandments wasn't given to Moses by God on top of a mountain. That's just the truth. Accepting that truth doesn't effect a persons belief in Jesus.

Example - The Psalms. Attributed to King David. But the truth is that nearly half of them can be found on the Ancient Egyptian temples that predate David. Akenaten wrote them to praise his pagan sun-god. Example here. But acknowledging the truth that many of the Psalms were written by Akenaten and not King David doesn't effect a persons belief in Jesus.

When truth is staring a person in the face ... the truth that David didn't write all the Psalms, the truth that the Ten Commandments weren't handed to Moses by God, the truth that Noahs Ark didn't happen, the truth that Genesis is just a creation myth, ... a thinking person can't deny those truths. A thinking person wouldn't want to deny truth but instead embrace it. And acknowledging those truths about the Old Testament in no way effects the belief in Christ in the New Testament.

So when a muslim comes on this thread about the Qu'ran and states that Muslims refuse to look at the errors in their Holy Book ... it's embracing ignorance. Errors are errors. When something is proven wrong .. it's wrong. A thinking person would want to know when something is wrong so they can adjust their thought process.

Everyone I talk to still quotes at least one rule from Leviticus.

You must live around some real old fashioned fundamentalist christian types. I'd bet a box of donuts that the Christians in my neighborhood couldn't find Leviticus or would even know what it was. And if you asked the Christians who live around here if God will send you to hell for eating shell fish or for homosexuality, I'd bet most of them would look at you like you were crazy.

Of course, if you went to Alabama and said 'Leviticus' they'd probably be able to quote you chapter and verse. But not here. (Philadelphia area)

sk0rpi0n
Your belief in Jesus has been pretty much invalidated.

Only in your little mind.
How about you stop deflecting and get on topic for a change.
The Qu'ran ... epic mess.

reply to post by 1104light

Grow up. Learn how to post and how to read. Skorpion brought it up .. not me. He attempted deflection and you walked right into it. I gave you an entire thread with tons of quotes. Take your crap there. This thread is about the Qu'ran ...

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a reminder...this is the topic

Islams Incorruptible Quran Is Corrupt

Son, not the Bible...not other members....
Those who cannot or will not post on topic will have their posts removed....with the possibility of posting bans for repeat offenses.
Bickering stops now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

reply to post by logical7

What exactly is ahruf(plural) or harf(singular)?

Literally, (singular: Harf) (plural: Ahruf), means "a letter" or "a word".

However, the most accurate meaning of "7 Ahruf", according to its Islamic-context, is "Muhammad's 7 variant modes of the Qur'an" or "7 approved Qur'an variations of Muhammad".

The academic science of "7 Ahruf" is very crude and insufficient. Different sheikhs, imams, and schools of thought give widely different interpretations and explanations of "Seven Ahruf". There is nothing even close to a general consensus or agreed upon explanation. What is "ahruf"? Even most Muslims do not know.

Some falsely teach that Muhammad's "7 Ahruf" are synonymous with the "7 Qira'at (Schools of Recitation)".

Some falsely teach that the "7 Ahruf" refer to "7 Dialects".

Some falsely teach that the "7 Ahruf" refer to "7 Regions".

How about letting go the styles of recitation(qiraats) and concentrate on ahruf, i would love to learn what you know about them and also how you reach the conclusion to claim that they all are lost!!

Today, we have one 'Harf' of Qur'an, which is the Qurayshi Harf of Zaid/Uthman. Derived from it are the many Qira'at (Schools of Recitation).

If the Qira'at (Schools of Recitation) are NOT Muhammad's 7-Ahruf variants, then where are the other approved variants? We don't have them anymore. Nobody knows what they are. Nobody even has a second Harf of Qur'an to supplement the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, let alone a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh!

If Islamic scholars can not identify Muhammad's 7-Ahruf, it means they are gone.

For the sake of discussion, 'IF' the Zaid/Uthman Harf is one of the seven Ahruf, then we are missing the other 6 Ahruf. If we do not have all 7, then it is a fact to say that "Muhammad's 7 Ahruf are lost."

Is there a difference in every word of every verse? Or just a few synonymous words difference or/and pronounciation and spelling differences?

As indicated in the many ahadith, Muhammad and several sahaba (disciples/companions) proclaimed that there are 7 Ahruf of Qur'an. They said "Qur'an". They did not say 7 Ahruf of a certain sentence, verse, or chapter. The wording used was "7 Ahruf of Qur'an." Muhammad transmitted 7 Ahruf of Qur'an, not 7 Ahruf of certain sentences.

And since we have only have the Harf of Zaid/Uthman, we can not catalogue each instance of variation. We only have one Harf to analyze!

What exactly is different between one mode and other?

If we had the 7 Ahruf today, then we could better compare and contrast. Muhammad's 7-Ahruf were annihilated and all we have left is the one single Harf of Zaid/Uthman.

It is easier to say what the 7-Ahruf are not, rather than saying what they are. Why? Because we don't have the 7-Variations anymore.

yes the hadith you mention is a good way to discuss. Surah Furqan, two companions of the same tribe(same dialect) have a slight variation, so if it was not dialect, then what was it? Umar r.a. did recognize that it was Surah Furqan right? he objected to some variation.. so what was it??

Again, if we had the 7-Ahruf instead of only the Zaid/Uthman Harf, then we would know the answer to this question.

there are enough hadiths that clear that there were 7 variations in some words and that all are correct as they give the same teaching. so if you claim that all ahruf are lost, then you are claiming that the Uthmani Quran does not have one of those acceptable variation.

that seems a bold claim as the verses that were compiled to make the whole copy by Zaid r.a. at the request of Abu Bakr r.a. were actually all written in the presence of the Prophet and seen by two witnesses. so each word was approved by the Prophet. Uthman r.a. later only standardized the pronunciation/dialect to Qureshi dialect and you, yourself have enlightened us that dialect is not the same as ahruf. so Uthman couldnt alter or destroy the ahruf, unless you eat your own words and now want to say that using a certain dialect ruins the ahruf, implying that ahruf were dialectal variations.

During Muhammad's time there were 7-Ahruf.

Uthman authorized one standard Harf of Qur'an.

The 7-Ahruf variants are no longer known.

The blame is directly on Uthman.




* CHALLENGE:

If you can do what no Islamic scholar has been able to do, which is provide all 7 variant Ahruf of Muhammad, then I will happily recant my statement that Uthman annihilated the 7-Ahruf.



Here are two articles affiliated with "The Islamic Center For Research And Academics (ICRAA)" at the site "Let Me Turn The Tables", which wonderfully and objectively attempt to understand what the 7 Ahruf are and are not.

The articles even highlight some of the differing views of notable Islamic scholars. If the 7-Ahruf were available today, there would be no debate or differing of opinion.

Understanding Seven Ahruf –1 (the weaker explanations)

Understanding Seven Ahruf –2 (Best Explanation)

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Sahabi

 

Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

One can go about looking for mistakes in the Mona Lisa and claim its a bad painting. It wouldn't mean a thing to people who sincerely acknowledge it as an artistic masterpiece. Similarly, the Koran would only appear "corrupted" only to people who go about looking for signs of corruption. It means nothing to Muslims.

You say you are a former Christian who converted to Islam. Yet you seem to confidently assume that your special take on Islam is somehow superior to that of Muslims who have, for 1,400 years, diligently studied the Koran and made it the foundation of their spiritual life.

edit on 20-9-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Greetings sk0rpi0n, may Peace be upon you.

I do not think that my interpretation of Islam is superior to anyone. I do not claim to be the authoritative source of anything. Simply, the topics discussed in this thread are largely unknown and not touched upon by mainstream Islamic communities. The concepts in this thread are so hushed, that it has become nearly taboo to discuss. Getting too far into these concepts may insight anger and hostility for blasphemy.


If the Qur'an "appears corrupted" to "people who go about looking for signs of corruption," this is a clear contradiction to Allah's words and Islam. In the Qur'an, Allah proclaims to guard the Qur'an from corruption and also challenges all to find fault in the Qur'an. These two things have been refuted by this meager thread alone.

Peace.

FlyersFan

1 - Yes it does.

Yet you cannot quote it.

2 - Nearly 2 Billion Christians agree that it does.

Back that claim up anytime now.

3 - Even though Skorpion is, once again, attempting deflection from the subject of how the Qu'ran is a stink'n mess with this, this is not the subject of the thread.

It sure seems relevant. You want to play "my god is better than your god" then you have to bring the goods.

4 - www.abovetopsecret.com... This is where it has been widely discussed ... and where Skorpion has been proven wrong over and over ...

But no quote proving me wrong anywhere. Interesting.

FlyersFan

1104light
New Testament Christians? How many are there?

I have no idea if a census has ever been taken. The thing is, much of the Old Testament is easily disproven. Disproving chunks of the Old Testament doesn't effect belief of the events surrounding Jesus
in the New Testament

Great so explain the obsession with homosexuality then.
It is not mentioned at all in the new testament.

FlyersFan
reply to post by 1104light

 

Grow up. Learn how to post and how to read. Skorpion brought it up .. not me. He attempted deflection and you walked right into it. I gave you an entire thread with tons of quotes. Take your crap there. This thread is about the Qu'ran ...

The thread you provided did not have any such quote. If one existed, it would be so easy to just post but you cannot because there is none. This is about the Koran, Qua'ran. If it is going to be called imperfect then so be it but when someone wants to compare it to the bible and their post is not removed for being off topic, how can it not be on topic?

reply to post by Sahabi

I do not think that my interpretation of Islam is superior to anyone.

Yet you proclaim that your thread has "refuted" something in the Koran.

If the Qur'an "appears corrupted" to "people who go about looking for signs of corruption," this is a clear contradiction to Allah's words and Islam.

Its a case of making a conclusion first and then looking for details to "prove" it. If people have already concluded that something is "corrupted", they would naturally go about with the intent of finding "corruption". Its a biased approach.

In the Qur'an, Allah proclaims to guard the Qur'an from corruption and also challenges all to find fault in the Qur'an.

That isn't exactly the same as a guarantee that everybody who reads the Koran ends up accepting it, is it? Allah also proclaims that there would be people who reject and dismiss the Koran.

Peace.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Hello, and assalaamu alaikum. To be honest, I was hoping you would eventually join in this thread discussion. Ahlan wa sahlan!

Yet you proclaim that your thread has "refuted" something in the Koran.

I have not refuted anything in the Qur'an. Islam's history, sahih ahadith (authentic traditions), and the Qur'an itself have done that. I have only provided the source-evidence in a somewhat coherent fashion.

Its a case of making a conclusion first and then looking for details to "prove" it. If people have already concluded that something is "corrupted", they would naturally go about with the intent of finding "corruption". Its a biased approach.

But brother,... I was an honest and devout Muslim before searching out these issues and concepts. Discovering these issues lead me away from Islam. Personally, there was no bias,... only a man searching for the truth.






Would you like to debate, counter, or rebut any of the following points?

• Muhammad and other sahaba (disciples/companions) stated that there were 7 Ahruf (variations) of Qur'an. After the implementation of the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, the 7 Ahruf do not even have an Islamic acedemic consensus as to what they were. The 7 Ahruf of Qur'an are lost.


• Two Qur'an reciters (Abdullah ibn Mas'ud / Ubay ibn Ka'b) that were highly acclaimed by Muhammad had disagreements with the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.


• Caliph Umar and other sahaba have mentioned that verses were left out of the Qur'an.


• None of the Qur'ans of Islam's earliest manuscripts are identical to today's Qur'an. Additions, omissions, different words used, different verb/noun tense, different arrangement, different spelling, and more.



These are facts that are founded upon authentic Islamic sources, all cited within the op and thread replies.

reply to post by Sahabi

I have not refuted anything in the Qur'an. Islam's history, sahih ahadith (authentic traditions), and the Qur'an itself have done that. I have only provided the source-evidence in a somewhat coherent fashion.

You said in your previous post :
"In the Qur'an, Allah proclaims to guard the Qur'an from corruption and also challenges all to find fault in the Qur'an. These two things have been refuted by this meager thread alone."

You have declared the Koran as "corrupt" only by your own standards. Not surprising considering the bias.

But brother,... I was an honest and devout Muslim before searching out these issues and concepts. Discovering these issues lead me away from Islam. Personally, there was no bias,... only a man searching for the truth.

Man has the free will to choose what he wants to believe, so its not for me to question the decisions you have taken in your life. However, I must point out something you wrote in the OP.

You said...

The religious superiority complex that once blinded me with notions of “us separate from them” and “Muslims differentiated from non-Muslims” has been lifted, and I now see only fellow humans, and strive towards universal brotherhood

That is a loaded statement.
You have slipped in your personal assessment that concepts such as “us separate from them” and “Muslims differentiated from non-Muslims” has something to do with a "religious superiority complex".

People of every faith/nationality/race distinguish themselves from those who are different from them. So you have the "Xs" and "non-Xs" (or simply "Ys" and "Zs"). That doesn't mean they have a "superiority complex" so lets apply the same to Muslims.

Your idea of "universal brotherhood" seems rosy but it fails to work in the real world... unless you expect Muslims to accept "universal brotherhood" with the same people who bash them for their faith. Muslims also believe in "universal brotherhood" but within the boundaries of faith. The reason is because Islam places God above peoples personal philosophies.

You might remember this from the Koran :
And the blind man and the seer are not equal, neither are those who believe and do good works (equal with) the evil-doer. Little do ye reflect! - Koran 40:58

reply to post by Sahabi

Would you like to debate, counter, or rebut any of the following points?

All your points have been long been addressed by the Muslim side, several times over. At best, I could copy paste things from Islamic websites. So I'd rather focus on patterns as opposed to individual dots.

Had the Koran been so "corrupted", Islam would not have lasted so long, let alone go on to become the second largest religion in the world today. Its utterly absurd to suggest that Mohammad's former enemies converted to a religion that, as you say, was "corrupt". Rivalries among Muslims were NOT over the actual message of the Koran.... unlike Christians the Muslims never argued over basic matters such as the nature of God etc.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

All your points have been long been addressed by the Muslim side, several times over. At best, I could copy paste things from Islamic websites.

I'd love to see any. Because as an ex-Muslim, I have already considered the Islamic stance and arguments, and I have ALREADY countered the popular understandings based on this premise of knowing the Islamic view.

Had the Koran been so "corrupted", Islam would not have lasted so long

The same can be said about Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Baha'i Faith, and Sikhism. According to the logic you just used, all of these religions must also be free from corruption

reply to post by Sahabi

Because as an ex-Muslim, I have already considered the Islamic stance and arguments, and I have ALREADY countered the popular understandings based on this premise of knowing the Islamic view.

And as an ex-Muslim hater, I am quite familiar with the usual stance and tactics used by the anti-Muslim crowd. And some of your posts strongly resemble them.

I think Its interesting how our backgrounds are exact polar opposites. It makes me wonder if we may have crossed paths as our former selves. But then again, backgrounds aren't really important when it comes to matters of faith, right?

The same can be said about Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Baha'i Faith, and Sikhism. According to the logic you just used, all of these religions must also be free from corruption

Not going to address that, as the forum admin said no discussions on other religions. So no comment from me on that.