Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

One of ATS's epic threads that is quietly waiting ....Seems that darkness does flee from light ...

reply to post by the2ofusr1


What are you talking about?

reply to post by wildtimes


I am not sure if you have studied the thread but it has been kind of dormant for a time now ...The op challenged the claims of the Koran and it seems that there hasn't been any serious counter to it ....I would have thought that Islam might be able to defend itself but I guessed wrong ....ok maybe it was a shameless bump to the thread on my part ...

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I am not sure if you have studied the thread but it has been kind of dormant for a time now

It's been on here for four months.

Yes, I participated in it, and read all of it.

It was never credibly disputed.

Okay, just wondered.

@the2ofusr1
......''One of ATS's epic threads that is quietly waiting '' _________________________________________ Only if ''epic'' has been downgraded to mean talking points and assertions presented in neat looking bullet points.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Um, I'd say 4 months and 92 stars, with 47 pages is pretty much "epic." It's certainly not "dead."

the2ofusr1
One of ATS's epic threads that is quietly waiting ....Seems that darkness does flee from light ...

The light of truth exposes the darkness of lies and deceit.

In this thread, we have witnessed more hate, anger, and attack,... rather than an organized attempt at debate and rebuttal of the op. That, in its self, is very telling. Thanks for the "shameless bump"

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Only if ''epic'' has been downgraded to mean talking points and assertions presented in neat looking bullet points.

sk0rpi0n,
You speak with such an air of authority, but even you were left without words when I replied to you directly with several "talking points and assertions presented in neat looking bullet points."

You, nor any other ATS Islamic Apologist has been able to refute or debunk even a single "talking point" or "bullet point" in the op or throughout the thread.

reply to post by Sahabi

Sahabi
You, nor any other ATS Islamic Apologist has been able to refute or debunk even a single "talking point" or "bullet point" in the op or throughout the thread.

"Not a single point"? That's a bit dishonest, don't you think?
I've contested your interpretation of naskh with evidence, and got no refutation on that.
I've contested your thesis that the kufic script wasn't used by the early muslims, thus all kufic manuscripts are not early manuscripts, by providing several examples of use of kufic by early muslims. You seemed to have backpedaled on that point, but your original thesis still stands unchanged on the first page of this thread.
You've been challenged innumerable times with your statements about ahruf and qirat, yet have not provided any refutation on that.
Even your background, which would be irrelevant, except you devoted your entire first post it to cement your authority on the subject, has been challenged, considering that such a learned scholar (or even basic reader of arabic) would certainly never confuse the letter "jeem" with "bey" "tey" or "nun". If you had done it once, it could be understandable as a typo, but you mentioned it twice in your explanation on how letters without the diacritical marks may be confused. This means you either copied your entire argument from somewhere else, or that you're not as learned as you claim to be- in either scenario, I'd say that makes your background "refuted" or "debunked" as well.

Considering the last couple dozen pages of this thread have been filled simply with people patting you on the back for validating their preconceived notions on Islam, or random off-topic denigrations of muslims and islam, or responses to those, I'd say that yes, the thread has been dead (or perhaps undead, like a zombie) for a while now.
The problem is that if you're going to be the judge of whether or not your argument has been refuted or debunked, obviously it is never going to be.

Sonny2

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Sonny2

 

lots of people freak out over the possibility.... it is only those who really look who will find the truth...

yeah, paid Israeli guy might be right!

Look at his signature, he is a buddhist

I told ya, he was never a muslim, just spread his propaganda.

He probably thinks that his stone god is better than Muhammad's

edit on 19-8-2013 by Sonny2 because: (no reason given)

If he was Buddhist he wouldn't be de-faming a religion, the Buddha teaches to not Judge a man for his path, since we all have the same goal. Also, the Buddha is not a god, just a man who did good things.

reply to post by Sahabi

You speak with such an air of authority.....

No, YOU do, because you have spoken like some authority on Islam just because you claim to have studied it for sometime. And a lot of people on this site seem to like what you have to say. Well, congrats on the stars and flags!

You, nor any other ATS Islamic Apologist has been able to refute or debunk even a single "talking point" or "bullet point" in the op or throughout the thread.

You also seem to have convinced yourself that none of your talking points have been debunked but a simple read through the thread shows otherwise.

Those who are genuinely interested in researching Islam further can google the Islamic side to the "issues" raised in the OP. People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Islam from those opposed to it.

sk0rpi0n
you have spoken like some authority on Islam just because you claim to have studied it for sometime.

Oh come on ... have you seen your own lengthy 'threads started' list? Threads here
You run around acting like 'some authority on Christianity' just because you claim to have read the bible or whatever. So you are doing exactly what you are complaining about Sahabi doing.

People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Islam from those opposed to it.

So there's no reason for people to learn Christianity from those opposed to it either. And since you have stated here that you can't wait for Christianity to die, then people shouldn't bother listening to you when you spew about 'what a real christian' should be. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

reply to post by iRoyalty

If he was Buddhist he wouldn't be de-faming a religion

Shakyamuni Buddha participated in many religious debates with followers of other traditions. The Buddha would often host Q&A sessions where people could come to ask questions or come to debate concepts. He even expressed the futility of many religious practices.

Where there are edicts of the cultivation of personal or societal suffering, only the Light of Truth can dispel its negativity. Since Islam contains teachings of slavery, misogynistic sexism, religious superiority complex, the separation of believers against non-believers, violence, hate, intolerance, distrust, and war,... where there is truth of Islam's corruption, it must be known far and wide.

The Buddha spoke of crooked paths and straight ways. As long as we are coming from a place of Compassion and Love, there should be no harm in discussing truths.

This op is not an attack on the personal relationships that people have with God/Self/Universe/All/One,... but rather, an illumination of the corruptions of the Qur'an, in order to remove the "divine" status of the edicts in Islam that cultivate personal and societal suffering.

reply to post by babloyi


Hello babloyi, welcome back to the discussion.

I specifically replied to each one of the points you just mentioned, earlier in the thread. Just because you do not like the answer I gave does not mean that I did not engage you in debate.

I've contested your interpretation of naskh with evidence, and got no refutation on that.

Discussed Here

It is not "my interpretation" of naskh (abrogation). Allah mentions it, Muhammad mentions it, the Rashidun, Sahaba, Salaf, and Sheikhs mention it.

In the instances where the thread mentions an abrogation, there is sound Islamic Academic sources to support it.

I've contested your thesis that the kufic script wasn't used by the early muslims, thus all kufic manuscripts are not early manuscripts, by providing several examples of use of kufic by early muslims. You seemed to have backpedaled on that point, but your original thesis still stands unchanged on the first page of this thread.

Discussed Here

Here

And Here

The debate regarding Kufic has been misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

Firstly, the Hijazi Script would have been used by Muhammad's disciples, Abu Bakr, and Uthman,... because Islam's foundation was erected in the Hijazi Region, by Hijazi Arabs, at a time when the Hijazi Script was still the dominant script of the area.

Secondly, the Kufic style scripts found in the many alleged "Qur'an of Uthman" are agreed upon by international, inter-religious individuals and institutions as being of a time period later than Uthman's reign.

There is nothing to back-peddle, as this is the original point of contention.

You've been challenged innumerable times with your statements about ahruf and qirat, yet have not provided any refutation on that.

Discussed many times: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

This reasoning is incredibly inverted! It is I who provided the most sound understandings and evidences regarding "Ahruf" and "Qir'aat". In fact, following the thread, we can see how several Muslims and Islamic Apologists made inaccurate statements and learned about "Ahruf" and "Qir'aat" through this thread.

The fact of the matter is Muhammad pronounced 7 different Ahruf. Today there is only 1 Ahruf with more than 7 Qira.

Even your background, which would be irrelevant, except you devoted your entire first post it to cement your authority on the subject, has been challenged, considering that such a learned scholar (or even basic reader of arabic) would certainly never confuse the letter "jeem" with "bey" "tey" or "nun". If you had done it once, it could be understandable as a typo, but you mentioned it twice

I corrected the typo as soon as you mentioned it.

bā’ b /b/ ـب ـبـ بـ ب

tā’ t /t/ ـت ـتـ تـ ت

thā’ th ـث ـثـ ثـ ث

nūn n /n/ ـن ـنـ نـ ن

jīm j ـج ـجـ جـ ج

ḥā’ ḥ /ħ/ ـح ـحـ حـ ح

khā’ kh /x/ ـخ ـخـ خـ خ

Discussed Here

It was a simple typo. I Copy/Paste from my own generated source material. As mentioned and easily proven, this thread is a condensed version a larger work of my own. Try to Internet search the op, and it will be self-evident that this thread in itself has now become the original online source of the op.







Please don't lie.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You also seem to have convinced yourself that none of your talking points have been debunked but a simple read through the thread shows otherwise.

Show me your proof.

5 Fallacies that I have laid out against you personally, regarding your incorrect statements:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Those who are genuinely interested in researching Islam further can google the Islamic side to the "issues" raised in the OP.

If it is that easy, show me where any information I provided in this thread has been properly debunked or refuted with equal or stronger source-evidence than what I have provided.







Money talks, B.S. walks.

I can plainly see that I have refuted you on several occasions. Please show where I have been refuted.

reply to post by wildtimes

I am not sure if you have studied the thread but it has been kind of dormant for a time now

It's been on here for four months.

Yes, I participated in it, and read all of it.

It was never credibly disputed.

 

Um, I'd say 4 months and 92 stars, with 47 pages is pretty much "epic." It's certainly not "dead."

Hey there wildtimes. Thanks a million for your participation in this thread, and your vote of confidence!

reply to post by FlyersFan


So far, this ATS member accuses others of what he himself does,... ignores the many instances when he is proven wrong,... and continues to utter half-truths, lies, and fallacies. I know he has a Truthful, Loving, and Compassionate heart within him, we all do. It's just a matter of acknowledging it! But in the meantime, the deflections, ignoring wrongs, and finger-pointing is becoming rather tiresome, to say the least :p

Always a pleasure FlyersFan!

reply to post by Sahabi

Sahabi
It is not "my interpretation" of naskh (abrogation). Allah mentions it, Muhammad mentions it, the Rashidun, Sahaba, Salaf, and Sheikhs mention it.

I'm sure they "mention it", but that isn't the same as your non-scriptural basis of applying it, where "If I don't like what came before, or I don't agree with it, or I can't understand it from a superficial comparison with what came after, then the one before is nullified". THAT seems to be your interpretation, which I find hilarious, because such ideas were completely negated by the as-salaf as-saleh (who you purported to be a follower of), where there are clear hadith that shows them following (and explicitly SAYING that they're following) OLDER verses AS WELL AS the newer verses with regards to topics you claim were abrogated (such as a specific instance of a call to fight against non-muslims at a specific time supposedly abrogating ALL rulings on the subject before).

The "If I can't understand the two verses, then the older one is nullified" school was popularised in the medieval period, and WASN'T mentioned by Allah or Muhammad or the Rashidun or the Sahaba or the Salaf. One can't apply naskh wantonly whenever one feels like it. It only applies to specific situations where it is explicitly stated that a change has taken place from a previous ruling.

Sahabi
The debate regarding Kufic has been misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

Has it? Then let me quote from your OP, which shows my "original point of contention":

Sahabi
The Kufic Script was developed in Kufa, Iraq and perfected its vocalization during the end of the 7th century. Spread by Kufi travelers, the Kufic script didn’t become popularized with Islamic officials until the 8th century during the Umayyad Caliphate.

Uthman’s official manuscript would have been penned in the Arabic style of the Hejaz region of Saudia Arabia. With Uthman’s insistence of a Qurayshi-based dialect of the Qur’an, it is obvious that the script which was native to Uthman’s scribes, the Quraysh, Mecca, and Medina would have been used; Hijazi Script. The two most notable Hijazi scripts are the Ma’il script and the Mashq script. “Ma’il” literally means “slanting”, as indicated by the Ma’il script’s angular slanting style. The Mashq script was developed in Medina, and employs a leisurely cursive style.

The Hijazi scripts were defective scripts of Arabic. That is to say, the Arabic writing system of the Hejaz region during the time of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Uthman did not accurately represent the spoken language. The Hijazi scripts were in the archaic format of rasm. In fact, the script used in the original Uthmani codecies is known as ar-Rasm al-Uthmani by early Islamic scholars.

Here you assert that the script was "developed in kufa"- just to clear it up, in case of moving back the goalposts, do you mean developed as in created, or do you mean that it was formalised and improved?
Because it certainly WASN'T created in Kufa, and had been in use for a while at that point.
Then you say that Uthman's official manuscript would be in the Ma'il script (I'm assuming that is what you meant. Mashq isn't really a subset of the hijazi script), because "it is obvious" that they'd use the script native to the Quraish.
Totally unproven conjecture, and verifiable false to boot. The inscription marking Uthman's election to Caliph, dated 23AH, BEFORE he had the Quran compiled (obviously), IS IN THE KUFIC SCRIPT. So there is no "obvious which script would be native to Uthman's scribes".
You also say that the script they used at the time was without any diacritical markings (in the sense of dots, I don't mean vowel sounds).
Also proven wrong, since with the same example as given above of the dated inscription, it HAS dots identifying the letters. That many of the early Quranic manuscripts were specifically written WITHOUT these initially was an indication of the various OFFICIAL readings of the text, not a sign of misunderstanding what words could possibly mean.
Am I still misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you are saying?

Sahabi
The fact of the matter is Muhammad pronounced 7 different Ahruf. Today there is only 1 Ahruf with more than 7 Qira.

Oh, I'm sorry. So what you're saying is that out of all the officially sanctioned ahruf, only one remains, and about the Qira, which you say is purely about dialect and pronunciation, there are more than 7. So....where exactly is the corruption here?

Sahabi
I corrected the typo as soon as you mentioned it.

The "typo" is still there, and not corrected, and is written in such a way that it can't possibly be a typo.

Sahabi
To illustrate letter sharing in English, this would be similar to not being able to differentiate between the letters [B, T, N, J] as they would share the same letter but represent a different phoneme sound.

Without vowel usage in English, this would be like writing the word “Book” as “BK”. Without proper clarification, this “BK” could potentially be “Bake” or “Bike”.

Now, considering letter sharing and non-vocalization, the word “BOOK” could be “BK” or “TK” or “NK” or “JK”, in addition with any vowel combinations.

If you had slipped in a J in there accidentally once, it could be understood. But no sane reader of even the most basic of basic arabic is ever going to confuse J with B/T/N. EVEN AS YOU WERE WRITING IT, you'd think "Hey, wait a second, J doesn't belong here!". Considering that you made this same mistake a third time (which you say you later corrected), it seems that whoever wrote that (either you, or whoever you got it from) clearly believed that the letter "jeem" is confusable with the letters "bey" "tey" or "nun", which is laughably false.

For the benefit of our non-arabic readers, let me give an example:
If someone was telling you about the letters of the english alphabet in another language, they might say (in their own language, obviously) "b, d, p and q use the same shape, and could possibly sometimes be confused. Be sure you don't confuse it when you want to write "pitch", and write "ditch" (or something worse) instead!"".
What even the most basic of basic readers of english would NOT say is "b, d, p, q and m use the same shape, and could possibly sometimes be confused. Be sure you don't confuse it when you want to write "pitch" and say "mitch" (or something worse) instead!".
If you saw that written somewhere, you would know at once for certain that the person who wrote it doesn't have an even basic understanding of english. The first "m" might have slipped in there accidentally, but then the second?

Sahabi
Please don't lie.

Indeed!

Sahabi
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

If he was Buddhist he wouldn't be de-faming a religion

Shakyamuni Buddha participated in many religious debates with followers of other traditions. The Buddha would often host Q&A sessions where people could come to ask questions or come to debate concepts. He even expressed the futility of many religious practices.

Where there are edicts of the cultivation of personal or societal suffering, only the Light of Truth can dispel its negativity. Since Islam contains teachings of slavery, misogynistic sexism, religious superiority complex, the separation of believers against non-believers, violence, hate, intolerance, distrust, and war,... where there is truth of Islam's corruption, it must be known far and wide.

The Buddha spoke of crooked paths and straight ways. As long as we are coming from a place of Compassion and Love, there should be no harm in discussing truths.

This op is not an attack on the personal relationships that people have with God/Self/Universe/All/One,... but rather, an illumination of the corruptions of the Qur'an, in order to remove the "divine" status of the edicts in Islam that cultivate personal and societal suffering.

The Eightfold Path tells us that it is better to say nothing than to offend people.

Right Speech:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.

Whilst the Buddha did get involved in politics, it was only because he was asked his opinion because he was highly respected.

reply to post by Sahabi



Even more 'corrupt' is the "Enlightenment Koran" - a new Koran with all the violence taken out. Its quite a hoot…!

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387904822&sr=8-1&keywords=enlightenment+koran