Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

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.

Initially, you claimed that there was no council to compile the Qur'an. When presented the truth that Uthman ibn Affan did indeed commission a Qur'an council [1], you changed your wording to no "councils held by foreign powers".

Perhaps your new emphasis on "foreign power" is to offset discrepancy or change? However, even "an entirely Arab affair" did prove to cause change.




According to authentic Sunni sources and traditions, Abu Bakr is credited with compiling the first Qur'an. This Qur'an is often known as "Hafsa's Qur'an", because Hafsa bint Umar was the last person to inherit the manuscript before it was destroyed. Hafsa was one of Muhammad's widows, and also the daughter of second Caliph Umar.

When Uthman ibn Affan later compiled his authorized Qur'an, it was indeed different than the earlier "Hafsa Qur'an".

As mentioned earlier in the thread and also in a reply to you [2];

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.


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). If Hafsa's Qur'an was identical to Uthman's Qur'an, there would be nothing to fear and no reason to destroy it. On the contrary, if the two Qur'ans were identical, they would be celebrated for their concurrence,... not "feared" and destroyed.





And you imply that there was no "vote" on the contents of the Qur'an. Maybe there should have been!

Instead of a "vote", the absolute authority of Uthman, Zaid, and the small commissioned council was upheld. Thereafter, all earlier Qur'ans were burnt throughout the entire Islamic kingdom. Uthman even burned the Qur'an verses that were scribed in the presence of Muhammad. How asinine was that!?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

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?

Fallacy #5
No prophetic claimants came after Muhammad

As respectfully as I can say it,.... this reply of yours illustrates that you do not have an adequate knowledge of Islamic history, nor a thorough knowledge of the history of the Near or Mid East.


The very moment that Muhammad died, many individuals rose up standing on the foundations of Islam, and proclaimed themselves as prophets. Some individuals adhered to the Qur'an while simply claiming prophethood. Some sought to rely upon the Qur'an, but supplement their own teachings and writings into their new offshoot sects. Some even claimed to be of the same prophetic line as Muhammad, but proclaimed entirely new teachings. If any of these individuals or groups would have been allowed freedom of belief, then surely they would have supplemented the Qur'an directly.

Muhammad's first successor, Abu Bakr as-Saddiq, launched jihad against these self-proclaimed prophets and also attacked Islamic apostates (deserters) during the military campaign known as The Ridda Wars.




Self-Proclaimed Prophets of Allah:

• Al-Aswad AI-'Ansi

• Musaylimah bin Habib al-Hanifi

• Tulayhah bin Khuwaylid bin Nawfal bin Nadlah al-Asadi

• Sajah bint al-Harith ibn Suaeed

• Laqeet bin Malik

• Salih ibn Tarif

And as wildtimes mentioned above;

• Báb (Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází) [Bábism]

• Bahá'u'lláh (Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí) [Bahá'í Faith]


In addition to these self-proclaimed prophets of Allah, there are also many claimants to the position of Mahdi.


And for many bias Sunni Muslims,... the Shia and Sufi patriarchs are considered blasphemous heretics, apostates, and false-prophets.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

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

Harkening back to all of this thread's examples of Qur'anic corruption before, during, and after Uthman's canonization,... of what consequence is it to ignore those corruptions to simply stand on a platform; "No Theological Corruption in Islam of Monotheism"?

If this simple defense justifies Islam in your opinion, then surely every single monotheistic religion shall be put on equal status with Islam. With your logic, Islam is NOT superior to Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, Sikhism, Babism, Baha'i Faith, Judaism, Christianity, Ancient Egyptian Atenism, or Sabianism.

In fact, it proves Allah to be a liar, where in the Qur'an Allah promises to guard it against corruption (15:9).

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

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.

Only 3 posts out of the 18 original opening posts are regarding the 7 Ahruf. The 7 Ahruf is not the strongest talking point of the thread, in my opinion. Simply, a few Islamic Apologists opened the topic up further by making false and inaccurate claims regarding the 7 Ahruf, equating the 7-Ahruf with the 7-Qira'at, which is a fallacy.

No one knows exactly what Muhammad's 7 Variant modes of Qur'an were after Utman burned all Qur'ans besides his own authorized canon. That alone should raise red flags as to the Qur'an's canonization.

in reply to your first post on this page.... No one accused you of inventing things.

User g2v12 did make that accusation. That is why that reply is addressed to him/her.

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.

I did not "reinterpret" anything. Simply, I highlighted authentic ahadith, quotes from Islamic scholars, and historic manuscripts of the Qur'an in order to discuss the concepts which are highly ignored by Muslims. Ignored, because as this thread has proven, there are no reasonable rebuttals for the points made in this thread.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


With all of the Muslims and Islamic Apologists claiming to easily debunk this thread's claims,.... no one has, and there isn't even a website or Islamic academic source which can directly refute this thread's claims.

Thus far, not a single point of the op or the follow-up replies has been disproven or successfully counter-rebutted. Nor have you made any successful attempts to counter-rebut the 5 Fallacies that I have laid out against you personally. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]


Sincerely and genuinely, Assalaamu alaikum.

reply to post by logical7

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

I did not do such a thing! It was Uthman's entire campaign to standardize the Qur'an, which resulted in the 7-Ahruf being lost. His proclamation for one single harf annihilated the other variations, it just so happens that his proclamation included the mention of the Quraysh dialect. He mentioned the Quraysh dialect, but as I have illustrated, the variances weren't based upon dialectic differences.

The entire discussion of 7-Ahruf became such a prominent talking point specifically because you, amongst others, kept making false claims such as the 7-Ahruf representing different dialects or being equated with the 7-Qira'at.

In fact, it was YOU who made the claim of "dialectic variation" in your 4th reply to this thread! You said, "There are 7 ways to recite Qur'an. The difference being in the pronounciation and tribal dialect." [1]


Additionally, before I showed you the truth of your error, and before you back-peddled your stance, you claimed that all 7 of Muhammad's Ahruf were known and preserved! You said, "The 7 ways were know. Uthman r.a just made the Quraysh way as official to achieve uniformity. The other ways are all known and preserved and taught to anyone interested to learn." [2]


What makes you so brazen as to pass your own fallacies off as mine, after it was I who corrected your knowledge and understanding in the first place?

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

I would LOVE to!! However, I must do so each and every time a debate-challenger makes statements or claims which were already covered in the op.

Instead of asking me to stop re-quoting the op, how about we ask the debate-challengers to read the op so that I don't have to keep quoting it.





First, you engaged this tread without properly reading the op.

Next, each time I corrected your inaccurate statements, you ignored the truth of the matter and acted as if nothing happened.

Now, you accuse me of your own incorrect understandings!

This is why I have become ever-hesitant to engage you in discussion.

reply to post by logical7

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.

And I have posted that hadith in the op

Your argument, beginning from this point, is invalid, incorrect, and illogical. Please spare me some words to correct the chain of events.

• The misunderstanding and disagreement between Islam's Prophet Muhammad and Ubay ibn Ka'b was regarding the 7-Ahruf variations. Ubay was shocked and shaken by Muhammad's pronouncement of 7-Ahruf variations.

• Ubay ibn Ka'b disagreed with the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an regarding added/omitted phrases and words, different word-usage, the inclusion of two extra chapters not found in the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, and the inclusion of abrogated verses. [1]


CONCLUSION:

You are comparing apples to oranges. Regarding Qur'an, the events between Ubay and Muhammad were of a different nature than the events between Ubay and the Zaid/Uthmani Qur'an.


Perhaps it is you who should take your own advice:
"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!

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.

Fallacy!

The differences were not found in the "personal copies" of Ubay and Abdullah, in the form of notations! This is an unsubstantiated cover-story that is easily refuted by the fact that Islam's oldest extant manuscripts of the Qur'an, the Sana'a Manuscripts, feature Ubay's differences, and the Sana'a Manuscripts are NOT Ubay's personal notes! [2]

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.

What do you mean they did not object to it? That is not right at all! Just from the short information provided in the op, one can see the obvious dissent: [A], [B], [C].

• Abdullah ibn Mas'ud trash-talked Zaid ibn Thabit,... proclaiming superior authority of the Qur'an over Zaid. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud even refused Caliph Uthman's direct order to burn all Qur'an manuscripts. Additionally, ibn Mas'ud's Qur'an does not include the first or last two chapters of the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, and his recitation differs by word addition/omission, phrasing, and word-usage as compared to the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.

• Ubay ibn Ka'b included the abrogated verses that were left out of the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, and many sahaba (disciples/companions) knew this. Additionally, Ubay's Qur'an includes two additional chapters not found in the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an, and his recitation differs by word addition/omission, phrasing, and word-usage as compared to the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.


These facts are enough to illustrate ibn Mas'ud and ibn Ka'b's dissent with the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.

There were many military campaigns and executions of dissenters by Abu Bakr and Uthman. It is amazing that ibn Ka'b and ibn Mas'ud demonstrated the level of dissent they did. Any more ruckus and surely the full strength of the Caliph's army would have annihilated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubay ibn Ka'b, and their followers.

In the face of such military expansion and campaigns of Abu Bakr and Uthman, would you expect anyone to instigate a war based upon semantics? Abdullah and Ubay were no fools. Instead of inciting rebellion or war, they simply ignored Uthman's Qur'an and continued to teach their own versions.

reply to post by Sahabi

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.

would you not give up repeating that the 7 ahruf were destroyed because one dialect was preferred? Especially when you have been proven wrong.

Let me explain again.

-The whole Qur'an is compiled from verified written verses.(which means they'l be in at least one of the 7 ahruf)
-if the Qurayshi dialect was prefered, it does not alter or destroy that one harf as you yourself have argued that ahruf are not dialects or recitations.

So would you accept that you are wrong in continuing to claim it when your own arguments destroy your claim because of being inconsistent with each other?
I hope that you are open to accept mistakes and agree to the islamic principle of accepting whatever truth comes out from a discussion even if its against you.

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). If Hafsa's Qur'an was identical to Uthman's Qur'an, there would be
nothing to fear and no reason to
destroy it. On the contrary, if the two
Qur'ans were identical, they would be
celebrated for their concurrence,... not
"feared" and destroyed.

Let me point out to another error in your narrow minded conclusions.

Does being unidentical equate with being corrupt? As you are trying to push.

The word "color" and "colour" are not identical so a book containing one rather than the other has been corrupted according to your standard?

Qur'an is primarily an oral message and continues to be passed down orally.

You continuously refuse to see these points and cling to the claims in the op based on your standard of whats corrupt and whats not.
If a british and an american student writes down a lecture of a teacher word to word, their copies would not be identical as there would be differences in spellings. And then if one is made the official copy, say the british because the teacher was british. Then would you claim that the offical copy is corrupt because its not identical to the american copy?

And say that they used some notes from the american copy to make the official copy but prefered to change to british spelling wherever it differed, would that mean the official copy is corrupted?

unidentical-YES, corrupted-NO

reply to post by logical7


The differences and corruption only begin with spelling errors.


Comparing the Qur'ans of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubay ibn Ka'b with today's Qur'an,....

Comparing the existent physical Qur'ans from Islam's first two centuries with today's Qur'an,....

• Added/Ommitted words

• Added/Ommited phrases

• Different tense/usage/gender of words

• Including entire chapters not found in today's Qur'an

• Including abrogated verses not found in today's Qur'an

• Different sentence structure

• Different sentence arrangement, thus changing the concept/idea of the verse's context





The Qur'an is corrupt.

reply to post by Sahabi

Your opening post premise has been proven to be correct time and time again.
I don't think you are going to get a response to your information.
I"m still waiting to get an answer to my question from him ...
*waiting and waiting and waiting *

reply to post by Sahabi

In fact, it proves Allah to be a liar, where in the Qur'an Allah promises to guard it against corruption (15:9).

you shouldn't have said this..

Tell me do you consider this verse to be from Allah (actually its mutawatir, meaning that prophet Muhammad pbuh got it as revelation and it was reported by numerous narrators) or you think that it was made up.
-If from Allah then your op gets debunked
-if you think it was made up then your op gets debunked as your claim that Qur'an is corrupt implies that there was a uncorrupt pure Qur'an that really came from God and if you do not agree to this then what exactly are you trying to prove
there are people here who think that God sends no revelations and people who think that Qur'an is just man made forgery but they are at least consistent with themselves.

The verse in question has to be a forgery to save you and your op. There is no proof that it is. And there is enough proofs that it has been taught by the prophet himself.

I have asked you before, if you consider Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be really a prophet of God or not. It would be nice of you to answer that and it would weaken your op claims. But why would do something like that unless you are really honestly trying to find the TRUTH.

reply to post by logical7

would you not give up repeating that the 7 ahruf were destroyed because one dialect was preferred? Especially when you have been proven wrong.

Proven wrong? Hahahaaa!

Please do so now with source-evidence proof (daleel).




You really want to talk about Uthman's Qur'an? Ok, here's the historic and verifiable truth:

• There are no Qur'ans from Muhammad's time, Uthman ordered them all to be burnt.

• There is no original "Qur'an of Uthman". They have all been lost to time!

• Every single 'alleged' hand-copied Qur'an based upon Uthman's original (copies of the original) are different than today's Qur'an. Not merely by spelling errors, but by the errors listed above.

• The oldest Qur'an (Sana'a Manuscript) is different than today's Qur'an. Not merely by spelling errors, but by the errors listed above.




Hadith sources list differences from today's Qur'an.

All physical Qur'ans of antiquity are different than today's Qur'an.


How in the world is there any proof that today's Qur'an is anything except corrupt? Today's Qur'an can not be found in hadith tradition or physical manuscripts.

reply to post by logical7


But he's correct. The Qu'ran is a lie. If the Qu'ran is from Allah .. then Allah is a liar.
If the Qu'ran is not from Allah, then it is a manmade lie.
The Qu'ran claims the myths of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, and Moses story, are true.
They have been proven to absolutely not be true. So yes ... the Qu'ran is a lie.

Adam and Eve are CREATION MYTHS. The Earth wasn't created in 6 days. The Earth isn't 6,000 years old. Snakes don't talk. And when Cain supposedly killed Abel .. who were 'the others' that he was so afraid of?? If they were alone on the planet there wouldn't be 'others' to be afraid of. Babylonian Origins of Adam and Eve Creation Myth

Noahs Ark is a fable. It is absolutely impossible for the entire earth to repopulate from 3 pairs of reproducing humans from 6,000 years ago. It is absolutely impossible for all the animals of the earth to have come from one reproducing pair of their species on a mountaintop in Turkey from 6000 years ago. Scientifically and absolutely impossible. Summerian Mythology Source for Noahs Ark Myth There have been major floods around the world, but there were survivors all over the planet and there was no 'one ark' that God spared with a family and two animals of each kind. Total myth. 101 Reasons Why Noahs Ark Doesn't Float .

The Ten Commandments are a doctrine of men and were NOT given to Moses on some mountaintop by God. The jews were never slaves in Egypt and they didn't live, en masse, in the desert for 40 years. The Egyptians who kept very good records have no records of any of this happening. There is no archeological evidence whatsoever in the desert. And if hundreds of thousands of people lived and died there, then there would be human bones, animal bones, pottery, etc. But there is NOTHING ... because it didn't happen.

Abraham may not have even existed. That's right. He supposedly lived in 2000 BC .. but the folklore about him wasn't written down until 500 BC. That's 1500 years of embellishments and changes to the story and addings on and takings off ... it's a totally unreliable folklore story.

Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

The differences and corruption only begin with spelling errors.


Comparing the Qur'ans of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubay ibn Ka'b with today's Qur'an,....

Comparing the existent physical Qur'ans from Islam's first two centuries with today's Qur'an,....

• Added/Ommitted words

• Added/Ommited phrases

• Different tense/usage/gender of words

• Including entire chapters not found in today's Qur'an

• Including abrogated verses not found in today's Qur'an

• Different sentence structure

• Different sentence arrangement, thus changing the concept/idea of the verse's context

 

The Qur'an is corrupt.

edit on 10/11/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

you made some bold claims, for example added/omitted phrases?
You would need to bring a proof for these things, i would seriously like to know if this is true.

I think i have satisfactorily refuted your claim based on the hadiths of Ibn Masud and Ubay ibn Kab.

You claimed that because the Uthmani copy had slight variations as compared to the personal copy of these two and as prophet Muhammad pbuh told people to learn Qur'an from them, it means the Uthmani copy is corrupt.

I showed you a hadith when one of these two had a different way of reciting than the others and Prophet Muhammad pbuh said that all are "acceptable" variations and rebuked him for having a narrow minded view that only his way is right.

Well if he had a variation in reciting, his personal copy would also have it but that just means the Uthmani Qur'an has another "acceptable" variation and not a corruption as you continue to claim.
I hope you will show enough humility to accept this point before we go further.

reply to post by logical7

Tell me do you consider this verse to be from Allah (actually its mutawatir, meaning that prophet Muhammad pbuh got it as revelation and it was reported by numerous narrators) or you think that it was made up.
-If from Allah then your op gets debunked
-if you think it was made up then your op gets debunked as your claim that Qur'an is corrupt implies that there was a uncorrupt pure Qur'an that really came from God and if you do not agree to this then what exactly are you trying to prove

The entire original Qur'an was from the mind of Muhammad. Today's Qur'an is the work of those who changed it throughout history.

I have asked you before, if you consider Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be really a prophet of God or not.

No I do not.

Hermes Trismegistus, Laozi, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira, and Jesus are among the enlightened patriarchs.

Muhammad ibn Abdullah of Arabia belongs to the group of Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Cyrus the Great, Napolean, and Atilla the Hun, being war-mongering conquerors.

reply to post by Sahabi

Proven wrong? Hahahaaa!

YES, proven wrong my friend
about the seven ahruf being lost. six maybe yes, but one sure remains.
My daleel is just common sense.
The whole Quran has been compiled from WRITTEN pieces under the direct supervision of the Prophet.
Agreed? Yes.

So i hope you'l also agree that one harf get preserved by the act of writing it down.

Now no matter what dialect is used to recite that written copy, the harf doesnt get lost unless it was a dialectal variation which you yourself refused as being the case.
So yes my friend, accept that you are wrong in claiming that all 7 ahruf are destroyed.

Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

Tell me do you consider this verse to be from Allah (actually its mutawatir, meaning that prophet Muhammad pbuh got it as revelation and it was reported by numerous narrators) or you think that it was made up.
-If from Allah then your op gets debunked
-if you think it was made up then your op gets debunked as your claim that Qur'an is corrupt implies that there was a uncorrupt pure Qur'an that really came from God and if you do not agree to this then what exactly are you trying to prove

The entire original Qur'an was from the mind of Muhammad. Today's Qur'an is the work of those who changed it throughout history.

 

I have asked you before, if you consider Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be really a prophet of God or not.

No I do not.

Hermes Trismegistus, Laozi, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira, and Jesus are among the enlightened patriarchs.

Muhammad ibn Abdullah of Arabia belongs to the group of Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Cyrus the Great, Napolean, and Atilla the Hun, being war-mongering conquerors.

HAHAHAHA!!
and you still are so concerned for proving it to be corrupted when you think its all man made? That seems very odd indeed.

What Sc0rpie said makes so much sense now, why should any muslim listen to people like you in preference to muslim scholars over the centuries who have dedicated their whole lives to the study and understanding of the Qur'an and how it was compiled and preserved and have reached a conclusion that it has been preserved as Allah promised in the Qur'an itself.
I have been saying this, that your op to you appears as a work of genius which is very understandable but when its seen through other angles, your claims start crumbling down as being very selective interpretation based opinions rather than being very common sense truths.

Sahabi,

I have added you as a friend on ATS, as I look forward to reading future posts by you. I am awe struck by the information you presented.

I am also at awe, by the fact you were so heavily involved in something such as this, a disciple, (clearly an intelligent one with a very logical mind) who chose his own path.

I do not take pleasure in seeing people toss away religion, but I sure as hell welcome it, as I see many religious organizations, doctrines, take complete control over people who lose their sense of self being. I do applaud spiritualism, as you can find that without religion.

You are a testament to the oppressed all over the world, who are coerced into serving false religious doctrines, many who had this happen before fully developing, before given a choice.

The part I liked the most was,

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is the only uncorrupted book of God, and that it will be protected until the end times (Judgment Day).

As I hear this kind of thing repeatedly from Muslim's I know, sort of saying "My religion is better than yours" but in my heart I know it's got to be some kind of complete crock, since religions, nearly all of them, were political in nature, and no different than a modern day politician's rhetoric in the days of old.

I commend you on finding your own path in life and wish you the very best.

Thank you for making such a great contribution to the forum.

Cheers.

logical7
why should any muslim listen to people like you in preference to muslim scholars over the centuries who have dedicated their whole lives to the study and understanding of the Qur'an

- They have 'dedicated their whole lives' to the study of myth and folklore and lies in an effort to sell those lies to the masses. Pretty sad waste of life.

- How about Muslims listen to the scientists, geologists, sociologists, and archeologists who have proven that large chunks of the Old Testament and the Qu'ran are absolutely false? You can't argue with DNA evidence and the historical documentation that proves the Qu'ran (and Old Testament) wrong.

Oh ... and since the Old Testament and the Qur'an are both wrong, that again proves that Muhammad didn't get his stories from God but instead he (poorly) stole the stories from the Christians and Jews.

It's kids taking a test in a school room. One kid gets the answers wrong, but the others copy from his paper and so they get the answers wrong as well because it was copied from a BAD SOURCE.

Side note ... you and skorpion have decided that 1400 years of 'muslim scholarship' trumps the findings of the OP ... I"m sure that you both will stop all the threads you two author on Christianity ... you know, the ones where you think you know better than 2000 years of 'Christian scholarship'. SAME/SAME.

reply to post by logical7

HAHAHAHA!!
and you still are so concerned for proving it to be corrupted when you think its all man made? That seems very odd indeed.

Any idiot can see the thing was made up as Big-M went along. He get's caught cheating on his wife, suddenly there is a law that states there needs to be a woman with 4 witnesses to prove that a was cheating. Dear lord. Beyond the whole child romance thing going on, you know, cause god was big about baby love back then.



If you hadn't noticed, every religion served the religious leaders who made sure the masses followed them, throughout the entirety of history. They didn't have news back then, no TVs, no public messages, no modern day brainwashing, it was just got handing down super secret messages to "gasp" the people who wanted to control the masses.

Go figure.