Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by g2v12

Islamic scholars spent decades studying the Qur'an, Hadith and other historical evidence without seeing the discrepancies you've laid claim to

It is from the Islamic sources which list these discrepancies. Not a thing was my invention.

From where I'm standing, you look like some unfortunate fellow with an inferiority complex

Good!!!

I would dislike appearing as an egotist with a superiority complex
Truly, I am no better than any person amongst mankind.


Assalaamu alaikum.

reply to post by Sahabi

but you did not provide any source-evidence to rebut or debate not even a single point made in this thread

So tell me OP (a christian convert to Islam) , when exactly did the early Muslims ever debate/argue over the actual content of the Koran?

Also, congratulations on your stars and flags from those who stopped short of asking such questions.

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Sahabi

 

but you did not provide any source-evidence to rebut or debate not even a single point made in this thread

So tell me OP (a christian convert to Islam) , when exactly did the early Muslims ever debate/argue over the actual content of the Koran?

Also, congratulations on your stars and flags from those who stopped short of asking such questions.

I guess he's taking false hadiths from Shia, that unfortunately have become corrupt in their deen.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Dear brother sk0rpi0n,... it is truly my intention to expose the corruptions as illustrated in the op, with the intended hope of restoring unity, compassion, and freedom for our entire species.

However, your previous replies are outright fallacies. Maybe in your haste to defend Islam, you did not even bother to read the op or the follow up replies. If you spare me some words, I will elaborate as to how your accusations are incorrect.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

His claims can be easily disproved by the fact that there was never an argument among Muslims over the actual content of the Koran.....


We can deduce that they made no real difference because NO Muslims argued over the actual theological content of the Koran.....


He hasn't "proven" anything because he has NOT demonstrated that the writers were actually arguing over the actual doctrines of the Koran....


Muslims never argued over the theological content of the Koran....

Fallacy #1:
No Muslim argument regarding content, doctrine, or theological content of the Qur'an

• Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had arguments regarding the content of the Qur'an. (1) and (2)

• Ubay ibn Ka'b had arguments regarding the content of the Qur'an. (3)

• Umar ibn al-Khattab had arguments regarding the doctrinal and theological content of the Qur'an. (Stoning Verse) (4)



Why are ibn Mas'ud and ibn Ka'b so important?

** Muhammad named 4 people specifically to learn the Qur'an recitation from:
1. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Salim
3. Mu'adh
4. Ubay ibn Ka'b


** Umar ibn al_Khattab said:
1. None more qualified to write and teach the Qur'an than Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Ubay was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an)
3. Whoever wishes to ask about The Qur’an then let him approach Ubay bin Ka’b

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

In Islam, there was never a council of Nicea type of meeting to decide on doctrines and concepts, hundreds of years after the prophets death....

So the fact that 7 ahrufs existed are irrelevant...

Fallacy #2:
No councils to determine the Qur'an

Uthman ibn Affan created a small council headed by Zaid ibn Thabit to compile the Qur'an into written form. Thereafter, all writings of the Qur'an throughout the entire Islamic Empire were ordered to be burned, and replaced with Uthman/Zaid authorized Qur'an.

Although Islam's founder, Muhammad, proclaimed 7 variations (ahruf) of the Qur'an, Uthman ordered only one variation (harf) of Qur'an to be recorded. Uthman annihilated Muhammad's 7 Ahruf with his Qur'an council.





1. Hafsa's Qur'an was not identical to Uthman's, proven when Uthman said; "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." (Sahih al-Bukhari 6.510). This is also proof that Uthman destroyed the Seven Ahruf (Variant Modes) that Muhammad approved of. The seven ahruf ARE NOT the same as the Seven Qira'at (school of recitation).


2. Hafsa's Qur'an was not identical to Uthman's Qur'an, proven when Marwan destroyed it and then said; "'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios." (Hafsa's Qur'an).


And just as a reminder, Hafsa's Qur'an was the original Qur'an that Abu Bakr (Muhammad's first successor) had compiled.




Conclusions:

• Uthman destroyed the 'Seven Ahruf' (variant modes) that were approved by Muhammad, by standardizing the Quraysh dialect.

• The original Qur'an possessed by Abu Bakr, Umar, and Hafsa was different than Uthman's later compilation. Marwan destroyed this Qur'an after Hafsa'a death because of the differences.

• Uthman ordered all Qur'ans to be burned after his council completed the canonization.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

OP's claim is that the Koran is "corrupt" because of things that took place before the final canon.

Fallacy #3
No arguments after Uthman's final canonization of the Qur'an

As referenced and hyper-linked in "Fallacy #1" above,...

• Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to burn the manuscripts of his Qur'an recitation and ordered his students and followers to hide their manuscripts after Uthman's final canon was standardized.

• The recitation of Ubay ibn Ka'b remained different than Uthman's final canon after the Uthmani standardization. Ubay's differences live on through accounts in the ahadith record, and through fragments found bearing his recitation.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Hundreds of Muslims had already memorized the Koran. So no one man could have re-written the Koran and present it as the "official" one.

Fallacy #4
Hundreds of Muslims memorized the Qur'an

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 had the entire Qur'an 100% memorized at the moment of Muhammad's death.

reply to post by Kemal

I guess he's taking false hadiths from Shia, that unfortunately have become corrupt in their deen.

I counted 21 authentic ahadith from Sunni sources in the op.

If I have provided a Hadith that is known to be inauthentic or a forgery, please point it out so that I may correct myself. To my knowledge, I have not used a single false source.

Sahabi
reply to post by Kemal

 

I guess he's taking false hadiths from Shia, that unfortunately have become corrupt in their deen.

I counted 21 authentic ahadith from Sunni sources in the op.

If I have provided a Hadith that is known to be inauthentic or a forgery, please point it out so that I may correct myself. To my knowledge, I have not used a single false source.

Misquoting your sources doesn't impress someone who is educated. Cherry picking verses and applying your own interpretations to get attention is a great way to get flags in ATS. Using the nick name Sahabi doesn't prove you were a Muslim. I'm sure you've never been a Muslim or have studied Islam as one.

What I am seeing here are mere "talking-points" that are used in Christian Apologetics. Pretty obvious that you are trying to piss people off. Nice try buddy, but you can't fool everyone..LOL

.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Well g2v12 " Pretty obvious that you are trying to piss people off. Nice try buddy, but you can't fool everyone..LOL"
you are making yourself look bad ,...or is that mad ? way to go OP ...nice work and it's still standing ...peace

sahabi, you have declared the koran as ''corrupt'' because of certain events that took place during the time the Koran was being compiled............................................ 1) The koran remained an entirely arab affair, from the very first revelation, to the final canon. Unlike that other semitic religion, the Koran and Islam was not subjected to councils held by foreign powers (of pagan background) who decided by VOTE the meanings of spiritual concepts of a religion that was alien to their own cultures. ............................................ 2) Unlike that other religion, nobody came along after Mohammad....claiming visions of Allah and having his contradictory writings inserted into the Koran, along with what was revealed to Mohammad. Had such a thing happened, the likes of you would have had a field day proclaiming ''CORRUPTION', no?................................................ 3) You keep reading controversies into the history leading up to the Koran, and going ''see? Corruption!!!''. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. It has no bearing on the actual theological message, which remains free of corruption. Islam is simple monotheism - There is One God and there are all those prophets. God cannot be man and vice versa. End of story, Hard to ''corrupt'' such simple, yet POWERFUL concepts................................... As for the 7 ahruf, which seems to be one of your more strong talking points... you yourself stated that no one knows what they were. IMO It could have simply been an alternate arrangement of verses(As the Koran doea not read like a story with a beginning, middle and end) or maybe some slightly different phrasing. It really is not enough to qualify as ''corruption'' of the original texts.

in reply to your first post on this page.... No one accused you of inventing things. However what you are doing is reinterpreting hisory to suit your viewpoints. One could just as well read from world war 2 history and ''conclude'' that the Nazis were in fact, the good guys. He could also claim to be on some ''noble mission'' to expose the ''corruption of Ww2 history'' as taught in schools. He would have his fair share of fans giving him stars and flags because it appeals to their views, but the overwhelming majority would simply see him for what he is ie- Someone driven by agenda.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


In your two posts you use 29 lines of text .In which you use that other religion and the different peoples involved to give us something that couldn't be true. .The mere fact that Islam is a Arab only from start to end should be a hint as to its failure . What better way then for one group to create a conspiracy then to have just one group making one .Unlike that other religion and the different groups that although having there different modes of interpreting ,which is what you are saying was going on with Islam in the beginning when every one should have been in agreement because it was a direct revelation from God and it was very very close to the original .Well it was the original that you say they were disagreeing about . Do you want it both ways ?

You claim OP strongest point is the 7 ahruf but I think that should be his weakest points .I can see why you would want to argue that point but I think there are stronger points to his claims . Dont you know someone who is very qualified to address his points so that we who are following along can see .If not his charges will stand and all of the logical fallacies ,red herrings and Ad hominem used in this thread will fail as well . And also, I noticed the star flag excuse lol that argument is pure gold . Yep you are going to convince a lot of people with that one lol ...peace

Sahabi
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

His claims can be easily disproved by the fact that there was never an argument among Muslims over the actual content of the Koran.....


We can deduce that they made no real difference because NO Muslims argued over the actual theological content of the Koran.....


He hasn't "proven" anything because he has NOT demonstrated that the writers were actually arguing over the actual doctrines of the Koran....


Muslims never argued over the theological content of the Koran....

Fallacy #1:
No Muslim argument regarding content, doctrine, or theological content of the Qur'an

• Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had arguments regarding the content of the Qur'an. (1) and (2)

• Ubay ibn Ka'b had arguments regarding the content of the Qur'an. (3)

• Umar ibn al-Khattab had arguments regarding the doctrinal and theological content of the Qur'an. (Stoning Verse) (4)

 

Why are ibn Mas'ud and ibn Ka'b so important?

** Muhammad named 4 people specifically to learn the Qur'an recitation from:
1. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Salim
3. Mu'adh
4. Ubay ibn Ka'b


** Umar ibn al_Khattab said:
1. None more qualified to write and teach the Qur'an than Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Ubay was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an)
3. Whoever wishes to ask about The Qur’an then let him approach Ubay bin Ka’b

Ubay ibn Kab r.a. was rebuked by The Prophet himself for being narrow minded and believing that only his recitation is authentic or best and i have posted the hadith regarding it before.

the few differences that are found are in the personal copies of Masud r.a. and Ubay r.a. they even wrote some hadiths and personal notes in those copies when the prophet had discouraged anyone from doing that.

there is a BIG difference between them sticking to ther own recitation and asking their students to continue that way AND the implication that the official standard copy being wrong. The Uthmani Qur'an had an acceptable variation that even Masud r.a. and Ubay r.a. didnt object to.
so the question that scorpie is asking is very relavent. The people who you are using to give authenticity to your op would rather die then let anyone alter the Qur'an. Unless now you also claim that they were also involved in the Uthmani takeover

Umar r.a. very well knew that the verse of stoning had been abbrogated in the time of Prophet. he was just concerned that because its no more a part of Qur'an, people of later times may stop implementing its ruling. the ruling stayed as you may know having studied islamic rulings.

you are doing nothing more than bringing up "authentic" hadiths and reinterpreting them to suit your claims. its not genuine scholarship my friend. no wonder its hard for people here to start feeling that you are here with an agenda rather than being really interested in knowing the truth.

each verse of Quran is universally accepted as mutawatir(so many chains of narrations, through various unconnected chains that nobody could have altered it)

the whole Quran was compiled in strict way where each verse should have been written down in the presence of the Prophet and seen by two witnesses.

Zaid r.a. was the personal scribe of the Prophet who had memorised the whole Qur'an and could have single handedly created a copy, yet he used these strict guidelines to compile it when he was given the responsibility.

All these are historically documented facts supported by numerous authentic hadiths(more than 21 btw)

I had asked you at the very start of this thread that if you are so sure that your op is serious scholarship stuff, why don't you publish it as a paper and silence us muslim ATSers!

and yes about Ali's r.a. compiled Qur'an, his order of verses is sure different, but that order is not what the Prophet commanded. its order is according to the order how the Quran was revealed. so it would have the 1st revealed verse as 1st and the last as last. but the Qur'an wasnt supposed to be that way, most of the Makkan Quran that was revealed 1st is at the end of the Quran and this was already known in the lifetime of the Prophet. you must know that the whole Quran was recited during each Ramadan and even while praying 5 times each day the verses that are recited should be preferably in the order they are in Quran.

you seem to just ignore these immensely important tiny details that makes muslims laugh at your op and more so at the claim to it being scholarly!

it is logically impossible to corrupt a scripture whose contents are being recited 5 times a day over the whole islamic empire and at least once fully during the month of Ramadan.

now about the Ahruf, i see that you do grudgingly accept that the Uthmani Quran has one of the ahruf, although you try to downplay it by calling it "uthmani ahruf" or "Zaid's ahruf" its not that! its one of the seven that the Prophet taught.

and please don't use the argument about a dialectal preference destroying ahruf as its you who have said that ahruf are not dialectal variations.

and stop posting summaries of op every time and start answering and discussing using common sense and responding to questions put by muslim posters.

op seems to think whatever he has learned during his few years as a muslim trumps the collective knowledge of Islamic scholarahip over 1400 years. Even if he does publish his views as a paper, it would do nothing to change the real facts that the Koran was not subjected to corruption after Mohammads blessed life ended. Its not as if the world has a shortage of people who oppose islam. People cant find a real example of corruption in the koran, so they have started digging through islamic history to find things that they could misinterpret as being proof of ''corruption''.