Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
This is an outright lie and deceit!!!

I was referring to the post later on where you said that the ancient hijazi script was missing phonemes such that BK, TK, NK (and JK ) could be confused which each other, which is obviously not true. You did indeed post about similar manuscripts, I suppose because the only one you showed an image from in close-up was the double-layered ultra-violet scanned image, I didn't notice that it had the dots too.

originally posted by: Sahabi
One of the main points of the op still stands

So you're saying that most of the others no longer stand? Interesting!

a reply to: babloyi

"So you're saying that most of the others no longer stand? Interesting!"

You're stooping to this level of unproven inference? I never said such a thing, and still to this day, the entire op stands. Period.

You did help correct 1 editorial mistake in the op when I mistakenly posted that the Arabic letters for B, T, N, and J look similar.

I mistakenly added "J" to that bunch, because as I said earlier, it was a mistake from taking the information from my larger compiled work. "J" was supposed to be the first letter included in my second example, Jeem, Ha, Kha. But to condense the material for the ATS audience, I did not add all of the grouped letter examples. And to allow that singular oversight caused me to continue the "live-writing" of "JK".

But this point and concept still stands, because the Arabic letters Ba, Ta, Tha, and Noon do look similar and may be mistaken or confused when written without diacritical markings. The Arabic letters Jeem, Ha, and Kha look similar and may be mistaken or confused when written without diacritical markings. Saad and Daad may be mistaken for each other, and Taa and Zaa may be mistaken for each other.

The only thing in the op that has been actually proven wrong; a single editorial mistake from a copy/paste/live-writing error from condensing my larger compiled writing. An editorial mistake that did not invalidate the point or concept being presented.

a reply to: Sahabi
And where you said that the "ancient hijazi script" and the kufic script didn't feature dots that differentiated between those letters when in fact they did (such as given as examples by the2ofusr1 and the examples I mentioned).
And where you made an assertion about abrogation based off medieval work and implied it was the universally accepted understanding and application of abrogation, when in fact both earlier, more contemporaneous sources as well as modern scholarly sources disagree with that understanding and application.

And that's just what I remember from our discussion of the last couple of pages . So I think your original assertion "One of points still stands" was probably closer to the truth than what you said later "the entire op stands" and the "point and concept still stands".

a reply to: babloyi

In your last 3 consecutive posts, you put words in my mouth, twisted my words, and said inaccuracies about me: [1], [2], and [3].

"And where you said that the "ancient hijazi script" and the kufic script didn't feature dots that differentiated between those letters when in fact they did (such as given as examples by the2ofusr1 and the examples I mentioned)."

This is another lie and twisting of my words. I did not say this.

In the op, I provided photos and clearly said, "All phoneme sounds found in the language weren’t represented in the alphabet. The script at that time did not include vowels (vocalization)[1], did not implement uniform word or sentence spacing[2], and several letters represented multiple phonemes without clear distinction as to what sound is meant[3]."

And this is PRECISELY what is shown in "MS. Or. 2165," "MS. Arabe 328a," and "MS. Vaticani Arabi 1605". Read up about these manuscripts and look at the original folios.

1. The manuscripts in question do not contain vowel diacritical marks.

2. The sentence and word spacing isn't uniform or obvious.

3. The consonant diacritical marks are only used occasionally. The appropriate consonants are only marked sometimes. This means, as stated in the op, that the many instances where consonant diacritical marks were not used, "several letters represented multiple phonemes without clear distinction as to what sound is meant."





These Qur'ans are remarkable, and I am not disputing the various expert datings. The entire point of highlighting these manuscripts is to show, definitively, that they are all different than today's Qur'an.

There are no ancient Qur'ans that have exactly the same sentence arrangement, same chapter arrangement, nor are any 100% sentence-for-sentence, word-for-word, and letter-for-letter identical to today's Qur'an. All ancient Qur'ans are different than what we have today.

Not only are all ancient Qur'ans different than the modern Qur'an,... but we also have hadith sources quoting Successors (Caliphs) and Disciples (Sahaba), perfectly explaining the various differences that we now see in the ancient Qur'ans as compared to the modern Qur'an.

originally posted by: Sahabi
3. The consonant diacritical marks are only used occasionally. The appropriate consonants are only marked sometimes. This means, as stated in the op, that the many instances where consonant diacritical marks were not used, "several letters represented multiple phonemes without clear distinction as to what sound is meant."

"Many instances"? So what you were saying with your detailed (and very ambiguous) history of the arabic script in your OP, is that the hijazi script is a defective script because "all phoneme sounds weren't represented in the language" (except they were)? I'm sorry I missed the "sometimes" that didn't occur in your original post. Might just be a typo. I suppose writers of the time had selective amnesia regarding whether or not the hijazi script had developed to the point where dots were used to mark consonants. I'd be very curious as to where you get your "sometimes" hypothesis, however. Please, share!

I have to say, Sahabi, while it was interesting talking to you initially on this subject, recently it all seems to be backpedalling and typos and ambiguousness, all the while gloating about how no one has challenged any of the points in your OP, as if the discussion itself is now meaningless, and everything must be done simply to grasp at any straws to remain in the right and "win". Or who knows, maybe you're just really bad at expressing yourself. Or perhaps I'm really bad at understanding what you say. You accuse me of attacking you about "semantical use of wording", but semantics is the study of meaning, and if your meaning is wrong, then your argument is meaningless because it won't be understood consistently.

I have no doubt that as usual, you will probably just quote my last paragraph to show that I am somehow attacking you personally and again go on about how "Nobody has proven anything in the OP wrong, this is what they resort to!", and ignore all the points I (and others) raised that show your analysis of the subject is deeply, deeply flawed. And then in a couple of pages, or perhaps in a new thread, you will raise those exact same points as if they were gospel truth, and others who don't understand a tenth of what has been discussed here, will in other threads link here in an attempt to show up and denigrate the muslims they're discussing completely unrelated topics with while gleefully exclaiming "Look at this well-researched scholar of islam proving that your Quran is corrupt!".

Oh well.

a reply to: babloyi

Petty word twisting and jousting with semantics. You now want to whine and cry because the word "sometimes" was not blatant in the op, well buddy, the word "never" was not said either, so go twist that! Enough is enough.

1. If I am a liar or back-peddler,... show me an ancient, first century Hijra Qur'an representing all spoken phoneme sounds.

2. If the Qur'an is uncorrupted, show me the evidence. Show ancient manuscripts that are identical to today's Qur'ans. Show us Successors (Caliphs) and Disciples (Sahabas) who state that NOTHING has been left out, forgotten, re-worded, or re-organized.

You can not, period. But I have illustrated the contrary with sources and references. Stop the deflections and show us your proof that the today's Qur'an is perfect and identical to Muhammad's first century Hijra Qur'an.


If you attempt to twist my words again or state unsubstantiated inferences about me,... I will no longer speak with you no matter what you have to present to the discussion.

a reply to: babloyi

"I'd be very curious as to where you get your "sometimes" hypothesis, however. Please, share!"

There is no "sometimes hypothesis". Did you even read and study the facsimile images of the original folios discussed above? They only feature consonant diacritical marks sometimes! The manuscripts illustrate it and the scholars say so too.

The format is vertical, and the script which is thin and slender, also has a distinct vertical emphasis, despite the slant to the right. The codex is written by two copyists A and B with their own characteristic writing. The text is written in brown-black ink, with occasional diacritical strokes. There is no vocalization. Six oval dots ranked in three pairs punctuate the verses. Every fifth verse is marked by a red alif surrounded by dots. The surahs are separated by a space.

"MS. Arabe 328a"

It was written in italic script that was used in copying the Qur'an at that time. Occasional diacritical marks are observed as seen in line 9 for kha and nun.

"MS. Vat. Ar. 1605"

Click on those links and look for yourself. The scribes who penned these manuscripts only used consonant diacritical marks sometimes. It is plain, evident, and obvious.

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
Petty word twisting and jousting with semantics. You now want to whine and cry because the word "sometimes" was not blatant in the op, well buddy, the word "never" was not said either, so go twist that! Enough is enough.

You also didn't say "The previous sentence is not true" in your OP. Should I assume that as well at random intervals?
You call it "whining and crying" when you initially claim that the ancient hijazi script hadn't developed dots to differentiate the different consonant sounds, when in fact you yourself show images where dots are used, and when I point this out, you say "Oh, I meant it is 'sometimes' used"?
Please, again, explain how a script can be considered defective in such a way that dots are used SOMETIMES by the author and other times not? That literally makes me no sense. If I sometimes dot my "i"s and sometimes not, is english suddenly a defective script?

originally posted by: Sahabi
1. If I am a liar or back-peddler,... show me an ancient, first century Hijra Qur'an representing all spoken phoneme sounds.

You've linked several yourself. They have dots too. You think ancient arabs would know their own language to such a level of ignorance they wouldn't be able to tell what a word is, even when dots are used for specific words that may cause confusion?

originally posted by: Sahabi
You can not, period. But I have illustrated the contrary with sources and references. Stop the deflections and show us your proof that the today's Qur'an is perfect and identical to Muhammad's first century Hijra Qur'an.

I have to show you proof? But this is your thread, where you make the claims, and then change them later. Why don't YOU prove it?

originally posted by: Sahabi
If you attempt to twist my words again or state unsubstantiated inferences about me,... I will no longer speak with you no matter what you have to present to the discussion.

I'm not sure how that will be all that much different from how you are behaving now. You focus all your responses to me on feigned indignation, and ignore my points. Tell me, are you still arguing that verses that come later are abrogated, when I've shown you clear, accepted hadith where the sahaba (your namesakes) were justifying earlier instructions despite, and in the light of later ones, instead of ignoring them as you seem to insist they did?

Why don't you rephrase your initial arguments from the initial posts as clearly and concisely as you can in a couple of lines, so that they can be clearly understood, and nobody can accuse you of backpedalling. I mean, right now, you seem to have abandoned your personal history as an argument, you seem to be ignoring all the abrogation talk for now, since it has been proven that both kufic and hijazi DID actually feature dots for the different consonants as early as 22AH, all that talk about them seems irrelevant, and your last couple of posts seem to be totally focused on the fact that the original manuscripts had no vocalisation, and they contained scribe/copyist errors (I guess typos must come easy to some people ).

Is the final leg, the entire crux of your entire thread now the fact that ancient manuscripts didn't have vocalisation, and that they had copyist errors and slightly different phrasing?

This conversation has come up in another thread so I'm bringing this forward for new people to view and refer to.

If someone really learn about islam and Quran, they will know that Quran is not a book that got all the writing and stuffs.
Should not be to hard to found out what Quran is, but alas even loads of muslim dont realised what Quran is.
Small clue, when first Quran sent down?

Just wanted to drop off this link and ask if OP is familiar with it . "Jewish, Christian & Islamic Origins, in Scholarship and Fiction, from the 15th century to the present www.4enoch.org...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Hello again. Thanks for the link! They seem to have an impressive staff and a ton of information.

I just got done reading the "Overview" section of the page; Early Islamic Studies. Even in this area, the information available is immense.

Have you found anything from the site, in particular, worth sharing?

a reply to: Sahabi

I haven't done much searching as of yet . I stumbled on the link ,,,I forget where now ,but thought I would drop the link off and book mark it for later . I did notice they seem to have lots of material ...I am not sure on the quality yet but at a glance there should be lots a person can use .

I thought I would post this Vid. from Chris White as it delves into end times ,comparing Islam and Christianity's Anti-Christ .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I thought I would post this Vid. from Chris White as it delves into end times ,comparing Islam and Christianity's Anti-Christ .

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: maes2


Interesting vid and does represent what we are being told . Chris White takes no prisoners in his study of the subject .I am guessing that on both sides we see deception and misinformation being substituted for the truth .In Christianity we find it in many writings and it would seem that Islam also has it's phonies . Could these be covert Zionist shills ? I think so .

As much as the western msm tries to put Iran in a bad light and biblical writers try and weave into scripture them as being the great Satan ,I surely don't by it. As for watching the crap that Hollywood puts out , what can person say other then there will be many that get deceived and I think it plays a part in that .

One of the things I have come to understand and believe is that Jerusalem is the city Babylon and the mystery that it represents .Which is ,religion ,commerce , and control . It is the place where The anti-Christ will finally manifest or try to set up his world kingdom . That whole series is worth watching and although they get a lot correct they do have some things I disagree with .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Have you seen the collaboration research thread presented by AshleyD and Bigwhammy?

Correlations Between the Antichrist and the Islamic Mahdi


I do not believe in the eschatology of Christianity or Islam, but I must say, the two end times traditions are perfectly mirrored and inverted.


Jesus = Dajjal
False Prophet = Isa
Antichrist = Mahdi

a reply to: Sahabi

Have you seen the collaboration research thread presented by AshleyD and Bigwhammy?

I have not but will check it out . thanks and peace

Not to seem like a nit picker but in that thread they say "The Antichrist is prophesied in the Bible to confirm a seven year peace treaty between Israel and the nations."

Daniel 9:27New International Version (NIV)

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d]”[e]

By supposing it to be a peace treaty they are creating a narrative that is just not there . Also they look at the 666 issue and give it credit and I have to agree that it could look like that but Chris White looked very deep into this and has a very good reason not to believe it as having value . Walid Shoebat's Mark of the Beast Theory Debunked - Islamic Antichrist Debunked - Chris White www.youtube.com...

Wallace also takes a stab at Walid Shoebat's work . "Shoebat’s basis is this: “When I first saw the Codex Vaticanus, I was literally shocked because I could read the text. It was Arabic! … ‘In the name of Allah.’”

But Shoebat did not read Codex Vaticanus. This codex is the famous fourth-century Greek New Testament (and Old Testament) manuscript that ends at Hebrews 9.13. The material added after Heb 9.13 is all in a much later hand. According to the authoritative Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, 2nd edition (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), the supplement (known as codex 1957) was written in the 15th century. What Shoebat saw was not technically Codex Vaticanus but Codex 1957, a text written over a thousand years after Vaticanus.

In his video, he explains how the three Greek letters χξς in Revelation 13.18 are not really Greek at all, but Arabic. On top of the stretch to make the Arabic words fit, there are other severe problems with Shoebat’s claims. As much as some Christians would like for Shoebat’s interpretation to be correct, it fails at many levels. Let’s examine Shoebat’s claims. " www.reclaimingthemind.org...

That thread is well worth the read and I want to thank you again . Seeing it is so easy to mix in misinformation with the truth one has to discern what the bathwater is and save the baby :>) Many times I have had to rethink what I was believing to root out my own misconceptions to get a clearer picture . Some times these dirty little un-truths we hold to wont let the light get in and we become stuck in a false perception .

edit on 13-5-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)

Gee I am having fun in that thread Sahabi . A second point although small is dealing with the Temple Mount . Like the American Alamo most people have come to think of it as a fact .Truth of the matter is that it has no basis in the truth but somehow got put into the human historical narrative . Bob Cornuke using biblical text and other historical writings puts the Jewish temple in the City of David which makes it impossible to have been on the Mount . Much like the true location of Mount Sainai being in Aribia and not Egypt which has some how been believed for 1000's of years . These small corrections make a big difference ,or I think they can . When looking for prof of the Exodus one would need to look in the correct place . Bob Cornuke also has done the leg work on that one as well and offers pictures and corroboration from others . www.youtube.com... Could it be that these seemingly small corrections might have a effect to a bigger picture ? I can say that for me they give me a much clearer understanding and also paint a picture saying there is something else to watch for .