Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

I wish there were a choice that people could delete their repeated posts !

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The Moon God theory is a Western make believe story... Where does the Koran say anywhere that Allah is the Moon, or the Sun, or any other Object in space? It doesn't. Allah cannot be depicted so how can the Moon (which is visible to everyone) be the God of Islam? Allah is simply creation itself. The Moon is part of that creation also.

29.17. "You worship only idols instead of God, and thus you invent a mere falsehood. Surely those that you worship instead of God do not have power to provide for you; so seek all your provision from God, and worship Him and be thankful to Him. To Him you are being brought back. "

Now I can agree that maybe some Muslims are practicing some form of Idol worship today, but does the blame be placed on the Qu'ran for the actions of those people knowing they are told NOT to worship idols? Of course not. The Qu'ran mentions Idol worship 64 times so it's not like this is a teaching that can be easily missed or overlooked.

The same applies to the Torah and the Christian beliefs. Those Books are clear about what is required and what is condemned. Do we blame the Books for the actions of corrupt followers? Of course not. People from all three religions make up their own bs to suit their beliefs but with that also there are people who follow their religion to the last word and these are the true worshippers and you will not find Idol worship among them.

Allah is simply creation itself. The Moon is part of that creation also.

So you are inadvertently making a claim for Gaia . The Christian and Hebrew God is outside of creation .Another thing I find strange is the saying Allah is great ,in that Allah means God .Why not just say God is great? a reply to: DarknStormy

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Allah is simply creation itself. The Moon is part of that creation also.

So you are inadvertently making a claim for Gaia . The Christian and Hebrew God is outside of creation .Another thing I find strange is the saying Allah is great ,in that Allah means God .Why not just say God is great? a reply to: DarknStormy

Allah is the Creator of all things, inside and outside of this existence. Allah is used by all three religions in the Middle East, It doesn't matter what name is used if the worship is towards the creator of everything. You could call it dog balls if you wanted.

As for Gaia, if you believe in Greek Mythology, then what ever floats your boat.

Never mind ...I guess it all goes to the mystery religions or Mystery Babylon . Big subject .. a reply to: DarknStormy

Allah is the Creator of all things, inside and outside of this existence. Allah is used by all three religions in the Middle East, It doesn't matter what name is used if the worship is towards the creator of everything. You could call it dog balls if you wanted.

What??? Surely you jest here??


By their fruits shall ye know them. Become a fruit inspector.

It does matter what the essense of a religious belief system is..in the name of their God. This is an aspect overlooked in studying religions in order to make all religions the same religion and all gods the same God.

But those trained and educated in it know this is not true....That all gods are not the same God..that all religions are not the same religion.

The attempt is to put all religions on the same footing...thereby laying the ground for a future substitution.

A common religion...a world class religion.



I will give the readers here an historical example...known from history.

Before AD 1519 the so called Intellectual ...White man...lived equally as poor as any other men on the planet. There was almost no progress anywhere to be found. People were either part of a ruling class...the priesthood..or you were a peon...living at a basic substance level or lower.

No progress took place ..even among the fabeled "White Man" under this feudal system.

ONce an obscure priest named Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesises on the door at Wittenburg, Germans and the political dischord took place around his trial...and he got away to Northern Germany...within 200 years scholars began to notice a change in the econonmic structure in Northern Germany...and the Catholic areas. The people in Northern Germany were able to keep more of what they produced and not lose it to the church or royalty. Progress began to obviously take place in the non Catholic areas which did not take place in the Catholic Areas.

This economic change due to a change in religion..spread to England , to the lowland nations, in addition to Northern Germany and the resulting change naturally took place...economically. It could not be stopped. It was an invetable result of the religious change.


Today ..under todays intellect...wise men...gnostics..running things...everything is a matter or race...race baiting and race hating.

But the White man lived equally as poor as any other people until his religion changed from the RCC church and the feudal system which supported it and vice versa. Whatever was to change the fabeled White Man was not his race..for he always had that and until some 200 years after AD 1519...nothing changed.

Understanding the religion and what came out of it or did not come out of it is key to knowing what is going on around us in many fields..even today.

What this knowledge does it put light on many of the race baiters and race career panderers out here who ony have a one topic line to control and censor or the public thinking and reaction to any even deemed racism or racist..or unfair.

This puts a different light on their activities and control methods once you know..for it was never a result of race..but of religion.
But these people musts always have it a result of "RACE and RACISM."
Their investment is in censorship...one way thinking about only RACE ...they are RACISTS.

For the White man always had his race and it profited him nothing until some 200 years after AD 1519 and Martin Luther.



What this also does...for those capable of thinking for themselves outside the box of what attempts to pass for intelligence and logical thought today...is to look at Islam..and what historic fruit Islam has produced.


Why if Islam is the way to go ...do Islamic nations have to go outside of their nations and peoples to enjoy any progress. Why did not any of this progress or inventiveness take place there??? Even today they must needs go outside their nations to get any of the tools of progress. What progress are they exporting to other nations???


By their fruits shall ye know them.

This is not an idle phrase.

You do not have to know all the verses from the Bible or any other religious work. All you have to know is the history and how it applies to people ..how the religion worked or did not work within this history to produce the goods and services of progress. Where the progress took place ...to where it was exported to other nations and peoples.

What you learn once you teach yourself to think outside the box or boxes of what tries to pass for excellence today..is...

All religions are not the same religion ...all gods are not the same God.


For if this were so...than ..


"The children of the bondwoman...Shall Be Heir...with the children of the free woman"

But the Word does not say this.

It says...


"The children of the bondwoman...Shall Not Be Heir....with the children of the free woman."


A glaring contradiction once one knows for what to look.


The religion and the God ..does make a difference once you know the history and for what to look.
I strongly suspect that this is why history is such a poorly taught subject today and often subjected to much revision.

This is in order to bring about a world in which

"The children of the bondwoman....Shall Be Heir...with the children of the freewoman."

People are never supposed to have enough knowledge to understand what this means such that the new world class religion can defult through unchallanged and unquestioned.



Some additional informations for the readers out here who can think outside the box of what passes for excellence reason and logic today.

Be very careful about the nature of the debates to which some get you deeply involved. Learn and teach yourself to inspect the fruit produced..not all the rhetoric and my verses against your verses.

By their fruits shall ye know them.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Here is some additional informations to consider when gettin involved in these types of posts and debates. NO cover charge..free.

I bring this up because History is such a poorly taught subject today in lieu of censorship and guilt programming and guilt thinking so popular and taught in public schools and by the body politic as a control mechanism on unthinking and unlearned people.


One of the items you often see in posts like this is the standard rhetoric or talking points about the Crusades and Inquisition.


YOU have to know history to understand fully what is going on here in debates like this in order to attempt to silence opposition or any other view and understanding.


First off...I do not approve of the Crusades and Inquisition. I think the real reasons for them are covered up and hidden in history. They do not tell the whole picture.


But these historical events are often used and misused against westerners to get them to feel guilty about their history or religious beliefs and what took place.


But how many of the readers out here know that Islam is spread by the sword???

How many know that Islam was on the move and conquering into Europe in the late 600s AD..and was stopped in France by Charles Martel or "Charles the Hammer" at Tours, France in 732 AD??? This was some 300 to 400 years before the first crusade.

While I dont approve of the Crusades or the Inquisition...this makes any debate using them very weak once you know what also historically happened. What is missing from the knowledge of most of us.


This history is almost never told or known in debates like this.

I caught it earlier in Babyoi's post but decided until now ..not to say anything..but finally educate some of the readers out here ..concerning Islam and what was never taught to us in our public schools.

Islam...The Crusades and the Inquesition never make me feel guilty or silence me in debates like this one..as a control mechanism or guilt programming . I just happen to know the history and what happened...not just about this event but other historical events as well..and in a manner not taught to most people today..for politicl and control reasons...ie..censorship.


I am not into censorship. And Politics is today quickly becoming a devout and zealous religion hell bent on censorship to get it's way.



Here ..about the BAttle of Tours and Charles Martel..from Wiki.


en.wikipedia.org...

I hope some of you can see, hear, and understand what I am attempting to get across in thinking outside the box of what tries to pass for logic and reason today.

Thanks,
Orangetom

By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them


There is an interesting thing about progress and history hardly taught today to people in order to get them predictable as to how they are going to think and by this ..how they are going to act or conduct themselves.

What you learn once you begin to expand your thinking outside the box of what attempts to pass for the moral high ground today..even for intellect and wisdom..is that it is not accidental that history and what it means is not taught to people.

That people are so often not given much history in order that they not be able to connect the dots.



For example...the Fruit produced by a people.

What was the fruit exported from the Communist Nations before the fall of the so called Wall or Iron Curtain???

Very little real fruit was exported to other nations. The tools of revolution..yes..but real fruit producing tools...no.


How about the fruit produced and exported by Catholic nations?? historically??


How about the fruit produced and exported from Islamic Nations??


What you realize when you look at the big picture...is that there was very little fruit produced by these nations..the fruit of progress.

But this is not how your history books read.

What this means is that all these nations ...are dead..fruit wise...progress wise. They are the same.

The progress which was produced by theses nations mostly stayed in these nations..there was not much of a surplus such that any quantity could be exported.

Art works and magnificient buildings ...are not progress. The progress is measured by how much it changed the standard of living of the ordinary peon.

What is exported is the dogma and the religion of inertness and deadness. Not progress from these nations.

Most of the economic progress in the world was exported from Northern Germany, the Lowland Nations, and finally from England and America...unto today.



About time warp type history in order to control or shame or have feel guilty such that others be allowed to default through unquestioned and undebated.

Again back to the Crusades and the Inquisition...


Here is a detail from history also hardly taught or explained to people today such that politically correct or authorized understandings and control techniques can take root unchallanged and undebated.

The common technique in threads like this one and other is that Religion is the root cause of so much of the chaos in history. In Particular...Christianity.


But watch something here from todays intellectuals...independent thinkers.


Democide...death by ones own government.



en.wikipedia.org...

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

Notice whats R J Rummel is stating here about the last 100 years...that some 262 million people have been killed by their own government ...in addition to what happened in wars. Not just in War..but in Peacetimes..in addition to wars.

This puts a very noticeable spin on what tries to pass for time warp blame game by unbelievers on sites like this one for this is a knowledge never spoken about by them.

More people have been killed by their own governments in the Last 100 years and at a faster rate than in the centuries before.
What is significant about this is that the last 100 years are the time of wisdom, of Intelllect..of Gnostic Wise men running things by their collective intellect, knowledge, and wisdom...by mans greatness and glory.

Knowing this about Democide puts a very different light on mans glory and greatness, knowledge, and wisdom.


As I have stated ...as have some others who also know......be very careful about what passes for knowledge, wisdom, and intellect...by leadership today ....and also by people on these boards et al.

It is often not the product advertised.

Learn some history on your own and dont wait for someone to spoon feed you. If you do this you will often find out that the goods are not the product advertised. Even in public education..paid for by the political process.


Free..no cover charge..

Orangetom

a reply to: babloyi


May Peace, Happiness, and Good Health be with you babloyi.

Thank you for your concern, I am fine and well. My absence served as a fasting, introspection, and self-work.

Regarding our earlier discussion, once again, I can not help the fact that you do not like the answers or rebuttals that I have provided. They have been based upon a well-rounded consideration of archeology, Qur'an manuscript history and comparison, religious authorities, and the historic record.



First, you debate the OP's illustration of abrogation. My dear brother, I fully understand that abrogation is not a continuous cycle of "bumping off" older and previous verses in favor of new verses. This is not what I illustrated nor what I proposed.

The specific abrogations in the OP are supported by the Qur'an's chronological revelation, the chronological actions of Muhammad and his successors, and by the words of Muhammad, his companions, and influential scholars. I did not cherry-pick abrogations, I presented academically sound abrogations.



Secondly, you attempt a purely semantical debate about the history of the Kufic script. Your insinuations regarding the semantics of my use of the word "developed" is not in conflict with the historic development of Kufic. For you hint that I meant "invented", which I did not. I did not say Kufic was "invented" in Kufa,... I said Kufic was developed and perfected in Kufa,... this is not the same as saying "invented" in Kufa.


Once again, the entire premise of discussing the Kufic script in this OP was NOT about debating its history, because I concede to the academically accepted historic development and spread of Kufic. Kufic is mentioned in the OP to illustrate that the style of Kufic presented in the oldest Quranic manuscripts is NOT consistent with the date-period or style of the official Uthmani Qur'ans. Either way, all of the oldest Qur'ans differ from each other.



You asked:

"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?"

The corruption is that Muhammad and the Sahaba attested to 7 different Ahruf. By standardizing one version and burning all other Qur'ans by Uthman's order, only 1 Ahruf survived while 6 were forced into annihilation by the decree of the Caliph.

And then we have multiple Qira which stem from the singular Uthmani Ahruf. The point here is to differentiate between the 7 sanctioned Ahruf mentioned in the Sunnah and Hadith, from the later emergence of the alternate Qira.

Muhammad rebuked his followers for attempting to propagate a singular Ahruf,... but Uthman and his committee did even what Muhammad refused to do.



Next, you focused intensely on a copy/paste typo error in the OP. Well, the typo is not able to be edited in a dated post, and the typo was honestly acknowledged, affirmed, and corrected in the subsequent posts of our discussion.
If you would like to attempt to disprove the entire OP based upon an acknowledged copy/paste error,... how then can you logically support the Qur'an, which has even more errors, discrepancies, additions, and omissions throughout it's history than the single copy/paste typo of the OP?




Until we meet again, take care my brother.
Peace. Love. One.

a reply to: orangetom1999

I believe the innocent are at the top, nonetheless

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. Revelation19

Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together

Joel 2 And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalm2

originally posted by: Sahabi
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

What did this post have to do with debating or discussing the points in the op? You are clearly deflecting attention.

 

Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. If you separate Catholics from Protestants, then Islam is the world's largest religion.

Islam is an ideology that endorses slavery, spousal abuse, sexism, violence, hate, religious superiority complexes, religious separation, distrust of other religions, oppression, and tyranny.

If I know that the so-called holy book of Islam has been corrupted in its verbal and written form,.... then surely I am a Messenger to mankind about this corruption! I am a Messenger to tell Muslims that they can love God but abandon the negativity taught in the Qur'an.

The verbal form of Qur'an was corrupted. The written form of Qur'an was corrupted. It is foolishness and ignorance for any human to justify Islamic jizyah tax on non-Muslims,.... or to support spousal abuse,... or to support slavery,... or to support religious murder and war. These things are contained in a corrupted Qur'an! Let Love and Peace shine!!!

Islam's number of adherents is on the rise. More and more people are turning to a book ordaining slavery, spousal abuse, sexism, religious separation, and religious murder. Muslims lie to them when they say the Qur'an is pure and untampered. I am a Messenger of Truth.


Assalaamu alaikum.

You are a Messenger of falsehood.. You cannot sit here and give all this information and then write the above expecting no-one to see your lies... All I can say is shame on you.... The quote above is all I need to know when it comes to your background and your credibility. There is nothing spiritual about your writings above. It's something a fundamentalist Christian would use to demonize Islam. Is your name Walid Shoebat by chance?

I have a few questions..

Can you point to me where the Qu'ran justifies any attack on any person..

Can you point to me where the Qu'ran condones oppression and Slavery?

Can you show me where the Qu'ran actually Mentions any Non-Muslim must be killed indiscriminately?

Thanks..

originally posted by: Sahabi
• Part 3: Physical Qur’ans

Islam teaches that it is the original and true religion of Abraham, and that it worships the God of Adam, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus. Islam teaches that the Jewish traditions of God became corrupt and Jesus was sent to bring the people back to God. Muslims believe the Christians later corrupted God’s religion and Muhammad was sent to bring mankind back to God again. 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). Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today is the same Qur’an of Muhammad’s time, word for word, letter for letter. Many base their entire faith upon this premise. This entire concept of the completeness, originality, purity, and incorruption of the Qur’an is not true. In each of these points, the opposite has been shown.


The fact of the matter is, the oldest surviving Qur’an which is fully intact and fully complete dates to 1203 AD/CE. This is a staggering 571 years after Muhammad’s death!

In 2007, the oldest fully-complete Qur’an sold at Christie Auction House in London, England for $2.3 million dollars. It is signed by Yahya bin Muhammad ibn ‘Umar and dates to June 6, 1203 AD/CE. It is completely written with gold, and uses silver for its margins.

 

Although none are complete or fully intact, fragments of Qur’an compilations exist which are far older than the Qur’an sold at Christie Auction House. There are a few small fragments dated to the mid-600’s AD/CE, however, due to their lack of consistency and uniformity amongst themselves and with today’s modern Qur’an, we will only highlight the most significant manuscripts.


* Codex Sana’a *

In 1972, a restoration project at the thirteen-hundred year old Great Mosque of Sana’a in Yemen unearthed a hidden cache of ancient manuscripts, including fragments of the Qur’an. Carbon-dating of the parchment and ink, along with the analysis of its Hijazi script-type place the Qur’an fragments to 649-715 AD/CE, making them the oldest examples of Qur’an known to exist. The Sana’a Qur’an fragments are written in an archaic Hijazi script. The palimpsest contains two layers of writing. The older layer, scriptio inferior, has been washed off (erased) and the newer layer, scriptio superior,has been written over it. The compilation includes less than half of the Qur’an, with some pages missing, and some pages damaged. The scriptio inferior has become easier to study using ultraviolet lighting.

The literary experts (Islamic and non-Islamic) from around the world that have been working on restoring, understanding, and publishing the Sana’a manuscript are all in agreement as to its comparison to today’s Qur’an. The newer scriptio superior follows the same format as today’s modern Qur’an, however, it contains spelling differences. The older scriptio inferior shares several commonalities to the Codex of Ubay ibn Ka’b, and illustrates different chapter arrangements and different sentence arrangements than today’s Qur’an. The Sana’a Qur’an also uses different wording than the modern Qur’an.

 

* MS. Or. 2165 *

The British Library of London, England is in possession of the one of the oldest known compiled Qur’ans. The historians and curators of both the British Library and the British Museum date the Qur’an to the 8th century. However, the manuscript has also been dated by other researchers to as early as 650 AD/CE. It is written in an archaic Hijazi script known as Ma’il script. This Qur’an, known as MS. Or. 2165, is missing more than 47% of its content.

 

* MS. Arabe 328a *

The National Library of Paris, France has fragments of one of the oldest Qur’an compilations. MS. Arabe328a dates to the later-half of the seventh century AD/CE, similar in age to MS. Or. 2165. This codex is only 26% complete, and features multiple spelling and copyist errors. It is written without vocalization (vowels), in an archaic Hijazi script.

CONTINUED

This is very interesting. I was unaware that the Qu'ran had it's own version of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many say the opposite, that the Bible was corrupted and mistranslated, and yet theses documents refute this. Seeing the opposite happen to a book that challenge the integrity of the Bible is interesting. I admit that I skimmed this post, and plan to do further study in it, researching more. I understand what you must be feeling, as I believed in the molecules to man evolutionary theory preached by mainstream so-called science, until I actually learned more about it.

a reply to: DarknStormy

May Peace be upon you my family.

This thread is littered with unsubstantiated, libelous, and slanderous attacks against me. It's a shame to see another from your post. Can we not discuss the topic without resorting to personal attacks?


• If you call me a liar and a messenger of falsehood, please clearly illustrate how I am so. I strive towards truth. I am mindful to let my yeas be yeas, my nays to be nays, and to not lie even in jest. If I have said anything that is inaccurate or incorrect, I will happily apologize and accept truth if I am shown to be in error.

• I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I was, however, a Christian prior to my conversion to Islam. Today, I adhere to no religion.

• I am not Walid Shoebat.







I will now address your actual questions:


1. Can you point to me where the Qu'ran justifies any attack on any person.

"1. [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

2. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

3. And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

4. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

- Qur'an, Suratul Tawbah, ayah 1-5 (9:1-5)

2. Can you point to me where the Qu'ran condones oppression and Slavery?

Slavery in the Qur'an

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

- Qur'an, Suratul Ahzab, ayah 50 (30:50)

"Who abstain from sex, except with their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy" [Qur'an 23:5-6]

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." [Qur'an 4:24]

3. Can you show me where the Qu'ran actually Mentions any Non-Muslim must be killed indiscriminately?

"O you who have believed, fight those near to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."

- Quran, Suratul Tawbah, ayat 123 (9:123)

"O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination."

- Quran, Suratul Tawbah, ayah 73 (9:73)

There are many more examples that with support from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ahadith, Sahaba, Scholars, and actual historic events. If this is new to you, I highly suggest that you research Islam's history and take a good look at the Qur'an.

a reply to: Sahabi

Thank you for your response and I wouldn't of asked you the questions if I already didn't have an answer for you because the parts of the Qu'ran you have quoted are the parts that are usually quoted when someone tries to prove these issues.. But in just about every instance they are taken out of context and what may seem like oppression, slavery or even maybe a call to slaughter all non-Muslims is simply not the case...

The Qu'ran does not justify attacking any person unless an attack is committed against a Muslims

You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them.

This is the just retribution for those disbelievers. If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors. (2:190-193)

Now it doesn't matter who the aggressor is. It could be Extremists, it could be Non-Believers, it could be America but when it comes down to it, a Muslim has no right to openly be aggressive to any human being or ethnic group unless another has been aggressive to the Muslim.. And in that case, they are authorized to kill the people who have come to kill them. To me, that is fair and nothing more than Self Defense...

But this also continues further down the track in the Qu'ran..

O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors. (5:87)

Again, the God of Islam hates aggression or unrighteousness. Even if Muslims are attacked and the attackers surrender or call for peace, a Muslim must surrender and accept peace also as the next verses explain.

if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them. (4:90)

If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient. (8:61)

So to sum up, Muslims are not to attack anyone who has not attacked them through the teachings of the Qu'ran. Yes, if they are attacked they are well within their right to fight and kill but anything around that is unlawful..

The Qu'ran does not Condone Oppression

One of the above verses says that oppression is worse than murder.. But the Qu'ran also clearly points out it's feelings towards oppression in other parts of the Qu'ran also..

And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allâh, and for those weak, illtreated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.” (4:75)

Say, “In fact, my Lord has forbidden all kinds of lewd and obscene acts whether committed openly or in secret: (all sorts of) sins and wrongful oppressions, associating anything (or anyone) with Allah for which He has revealed no sanction, and attributing to Allah that about which you know nothing.” (7:33)

We will reserve the houses of the hereafter exclusively for those who do not seek self-glory in this life and do not cause oppression and corruption to spread. The final outcome belongs to those who fear (Allah). (28:83)

Though I take the Hadith with a pinch of Salt in most cases, I think this one sums up the Oppression part perfectly.

Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing others.” Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624:Sahih Bukhari.

Again, no justification to oppress anyone.

Slavery

The prophet had clearly stated, “If anyone kills a slave, we shall kill him. If anyone maims a slave, we shall maim him as well. If anyone castrates his slave, we shall castrate him.”(Muslim, Abu Dawood)

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)," (24:33)

The Prophet himself freed Slaves whilst adopting and marrying some also.

The Islamic prophet Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. On many occasions, Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Muhammad personally freed 63 slaves, and his wife Aisha freed 67. In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves. The most notable of Muhammad's slaves were: Safiyya bint Huyayy, whom he freed and married; Maria al-Qibtiyya, given to Muhammad by a Sassanid official, whom he freed and who may have become his wife; Sirin, Maria's sister, whom he freed and married to the poet Hassan ibn Thabit and Zayd ibn Harithah, whom Muhammad freed and adopted as a son.

Yes I know it's Wikipedia but I'm sure the information can be found elsewhere..

The truth of the matter was, slavery was a common practice back in the day and was also only up until a century or so ago in the West.. God, the explanation above sounds like when a person quits their job lol, they get some money to keep them going and are released.

No Non-Muslim should be killed and this runs with the Laws of Islamic war also

One part of the Qu'ran stands out when I touch upon this subject.. The first part speaks directly about Non-Muslims..

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62)

If you are a righteous Christian, Jew or even a Sabian you have nothing to worry about when it comes to Allah or God.. So who are the disbelievers? Anyone who doesn't follow the above religions.. It is not just Non-Muslims. Remember also, for a Muslim to attack anyone, Muslims must be attacked. So this idea that Muslims must kill everyone who doesn't convert to Islam is ridiculous. The Islamic faith holds the other two Monotheistic religions in high regard also.. But if any of those religions launch a war against Islam, Islam has a right to defend itself and will defend itself..

I will finish off in another post, I have run out of space.

a reply to: Sahabi

The above post has shown you a few things from the Qu'ran itself..

- Any Muslim cannot commit an act of aggression against anyone unless an act of aggression has been commited against the Muslim.

- Oppression is frowned upon in the Qu'ran and though slavery is a hot topic, much of the teachings are based around the treatment and what will happen if slaves are treated badly also.

- Taking into consideration that a Muslim cannot commit an act of aggression against anyone without someone acting in aggression towards Muslims, it is utterly ridiculous that the Qu'ran would warrant the unjustified slaughter of Non-Muslims and Muslims with that also.

Now I'm not knocking your overall research because I can see you have put a lot of time into what you presented, I admire someone who is willing to do that. But when it comes to the teachings themselves, I am tired of people presenting false interpretations.. I am not a beginner on Islam.. I actually see worse in parts of the Bible at times especially when it comes to the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament.

But I have had the opportunity to study this Book/Subject very deep and I disagree with your accusations when it comes to what I have explained above, nothing more, nothing less. The Slavery part I will admit is something I haven't dug into and even studying the Bible is something I haven't got around too. But when we read these texts, we need to look past what is actually written in front of us. We need to look for key words and the deeper meaning behind what is written and from what I see on a regular basis here and in society in general, people haven't got that ability. The Books are meant to be thought provoking, not picking and choosing the bad stuff to demonize them or justify why we should go out and slaughter people.

Again, I respect what you brought to the table, I couldn't do what you have in this thread...

a reply to: Sahabi
Hey Sahabi, good to hear you are ok. Hope you truly found what you were looking for!

originally posted by: Sahabi
First, you debate the OP's illustration of abrogation. My dear brother, I fully understand that abrogation is not a continuous cycle of "bumping off" older and previous verses in favor of new verses. This is not what I illustrated nor what I proposed.

The specific abrogations in the OP are supported by the Qur'an's chronological revelation, the chronological actions of Muhammad and his successors, and by the words of Muhammad, his companions, and influential scholars.

You say you understand that abrogation is not a continuous cycle of "bumping off" older and previous verses in favour of new ones, but then you say that the procedure is related to chronology of revelation, which essentially is saying the EXACT same thing, except in fancier language. And that is still wrong. In fact, I proved your assertion that there was a commandment to wage continuous war against unbelievers that abrogated all previous commandments not to wrong, from Hadith.
Either way, you used these abrogations as an example of how the Quran was corrupted, when in fact at this point the Quran had not even been completed, so how could it have been corrupted? So your entire section on "Abrogation" is null and void in terms of the discussion on corruption of the Quran. If I was writing a history book on current events, and I before it was complete I had to change a paragraph at one point because of something that happened, when I completed and published the book, would you say "Oh, but your book is corrupted"?

originally posted by: Sahabi
Secondly, you attempt a purely semantical debate about the history of the Kufic script. Your insinuations regarding the semantics of my use of the word "developed" is not in conflict with the historic development of Kufic. For you hint that I meant "invented", which I did not. I did not say Kufic was "invented" in Kufa,... I said Kufic was developed and perfected in Kufa,... this is not the same as saying "invented" in Kufa.


Once again, the entire premise of discussing the Kufic script in this OP was NOT about debating its history, because I concede to the academically accepted historic development and spread of Kufic. Kufic is mentioned in the OP to illustrate that the style of Kufic presented in the oldest Quranic manuscripts is NOT consistent with the date-period or style of the official Uthmani Qur'ans. Either way, all of the oldest Qur'ans differ from each other.

I'm sorry, but anyone who wishes can clearly see what you wrote in your initial post on this topic.

originally posted by: Sahabi
Many of the existent Qur’an manuscripts and fragments which are falsely attributed to Uthman or Islam’s early beginnings are written in an Arabic script known as Kufic. 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.

It is very strongly implied here that "Kufic came later, so old stuff in Kufic would be false". You are right that you did not outright say that, but that is the impression of anyone who would come away from your writing. If that is not what you meant, what does that mean? Did you simply add an extraneous paragraph unrelated to anything else to confuse everybody? Either way, you now say that "Kufic is mentioned in the OP to illustrate that the style of Kufic presented in the oldest Quranic manuscripts is NOT consistent with the date-period or style of the official Uthmani Qur'ans", which definitely DOES go against what you wrote in your original post, at least in the part that I quoted.

Suffice it to say, I am glad we have now established that despite what you implied (or didn't imply), we all agree that Kufic WAS used even in the earliest times of Islamic history, and as I pointed out in a previous post, it was used WITH the diacritical marks which you claim were a later style. Thus your assertion that it was "obvious" that the hijazi script would be used is baseless, and your extension of it not having diacritical marks is absolutely irrelevant, because, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, kufic WAS used from the earliest times of Islamic history in Arabia, and it DID have diacritical marks.

originally posted by: Sahabi
Next, you focused intensely on a copy/paste typo error in the OP. Well, the typo is not able to be edited in a dated post, and the typo was honestly acknowledged, affirmed, and corrected in the subsequent posts of our discussion.
If you would like to attempt to disprove the entire OP based upon an acknowledged copy/paste error,... how then can you logically support the Qur'an, which has even more errors, discrepancies, additions, and omissions throughout it's history than the single copy/paste typo of the OP?

I certainly did focus intensely on it, because it is literally impossible as a typo. It is like typing "That man is tall. He is tall." and then claiming later that it was a typo and you meant "That man is short. He is short.". Earlier you claimed you already fixed the typo, which means that you made the same mistake multiple times (again indicative of it NOT being a simple typo). This literally gives us only 2 possible conclusions: either you are not able to read/write arabic at even a beginner level, or the person you copy-pasted from is not able to. You claim that you copy-pasted from your own notes, so whatever that means.
You initially said:

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.
...
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.

When I initially asked you how one could confuse J with B, N or T, you said "Because these letters share the same "shape" and are only differentiated by the later advent of diacritical marks and dots". If it had been a typo, you would have realised your mistake and pointed it out THERE- the fact that you didn't reveals simply that you don't know arabic at all.
A note in case you still haven't caught on: With or without diacritical marks, the shape of the character J (jim or ج) in arabic bears absolutely no resemblance to the letters b, t or n (ت ب or ن ) . A 4 year old, being just freshly taught arabic would be able to tell you that. The fact that you made this mistake multiple times (in contexts that totally precludes any chance of it being a typo), shows that something is very very fishy in your narrative.

a reply to: vivera

"1. When Ali Bin Abi Talib (RA) became a caliph "why did he remianed silent / why he didn't take any action instead simply followed the Uthman (RA) compilation - Ali (RA) was the caliph - He would have ordered like Uthman (RA) to follow his compilation. Why?"

It is a well know and Islamically academic fact that Ali compiled a Qur'an a few months after Muhammad's death. It is also confirmed and affirmed that Ali's Qur'an differed from the Uthmani Qur'an.

Q. Why didn't Ali establish his own Qur'an as Islam's standard text while he was Caliph?

A. Ali was a man of truth and honor. When his Qur'an was initially rejected by Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and the collective Islamic community, he made a vow that none but his descendants shall ever see his codex. During the reign of Uthman, Ali's Qur'an was requested for official comparison, and even at the request of Islam's leader, Ali refused to share his Qur'an with Caliph Umar. So when Ali became Caliph (Leader), he stayed true to his word.

Additionally, Ali's entire caliphate (term of office) was rocked by in-fighting, civil war, dissension, and secession. He was elected under rocky circumstances, held office for only 5 years, and was finally assassinated. He was struggling to unite the Muslims under one community, and replacing the Uthmani Qur'an with his own would surely splinter and strain the Muslim territories even more.

2. You mentioned that "Aramaic" is the language of Quran. But in the Quran several places claims that Quran sen t down in Arabic Language (12:2, 13:37, 20:113, 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3, 46:12) Allah says clearly and boldly that it has been revealed arabic language."

I did not say that Aramaic is the language of the Qur'an. I spoke of the language of the Qur'an in these posts of the op: [1], [2], [3].

All-in-all, the Qur'an was recited by Muhammad in Arabic. However, some words and some verses held more than one variation. As illustrated in the op, Muhammad was familiar with multiple dialects and languages, and he approved of seven official variations in the recitation of the Qur'an.

Because of the standardization of the Uthmani Qur'an, the seven official variations of Muhammad (ahruf) have become lost to history. There are academic and scholarly works that attempt to reexamine the lost ahruf, through the usage of Aramaic. In this type of research, the entire backdrop of the Qur'an is examined according to its traditional Qurayshi Arabic dialect. Any discrepancies or inconsistencies between alternate historic texts are examined in light of Aramaic phrase usage. This technique is also used in verses that appear to be vague, or do not make much sense.

"3. Ofcourse Prophet (SAS) taught those seven dialect to different tribes then why they don't have troubles like Makkans' had.
If one shahabi or few shahabi among numerous had objection then it's not subjected when Prophet (SAS) taught anything not all shahabas with him. I mean to say that other shahabas not updated at time Prophet (SAS)."

There were arguments about the variant recitations of the Qur'an during the lifetime of Muhammad, and during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Discrepancies were found near and far. This is why Uthman burned all Qur'an manuscripts throughout the empire and implemented his standardized version. He eliminated all discrepancies from official recitation, and as a consequence, annihilated Muhammad's seven variant ahruf.




Assalaamu alaikum.

a reply to: Zaotar

Hello Zaotar! It seems that you have created an account purely for the purpose of posting this single reply. Thank you for contributing such an informative post! I've never heard of Francois Deroche's work, and I will keep an eye open for it.


What I find remarkable about the Sana'a Qur'anic manuscripts [1] is that the older scriptio inferior shares several commonalities to the Codex of Ubay ibn Ka’b [2], which gives physical evidence and support to the hadith, sahaba, and scholars that mention the differences of Ubay's recitation. Ubay's recitation had different chapter arrangements, different sentence arrangements, and also uses different wording than today’s Qur’an (Uthmani Quran).

"In particular, Professor Deroche finds that the Qur'an was not invariant, but rather that there were "plural written traditions" of the Qur'an that continued from the beginning and well into the 8th Century. Tons of variations, most dramatically exemplified by the non-Uthmanic Sanaa palimpsest."

We know, from Islamic sources, that Muhammad gave 7 different variations (ahruf) to the recitation of the Qur'an [3]. Uthman's standardized Qur'an stamped out all of the officially sanctioned variations, replacing them all with one.

The full scope of Muhammad's 7 official ahruf have been lost to Uthman, politics, and time. We can not say for certain if the variations and differences that are found in early manuscripts are representative of Muhammad's official variations, or if they represent unofficial divergence. We can only be sure of the differences mentioned by Muhammad, his companions and followers, and early religious authorities.

"As to a few comments others have made -- regarding the Qur'an's intensive use of Aramaic terms, it's hard to see how that could be controversial given that it was admitted by al-Tabari and all other great early Islamic scholars. Almost all of the Qur'an's religious terminology (including the name "Qur'an" itself) is taken from Syriac (an Aramaic variant). This linguistic fact, striking as it shows the Qur'an's relation to Syriac Christian sources, is not remotely controversial in modern scholarly circles. Indeed, the Arabic script itself was taken ... from Aramaic."

You have made some great points about the Qur'an's relationship to Syro-Aramaic. It is fascinating how obscure verses become extremely clear and vivid when Syro-Aramaic is implemented.





Once again, thank you for an awesome post. I hope to hear from you again. Take care!

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Congrats sahabi on the 100 Flags for your thread and the 59 stars on the first page .Thanks also to many members that have commented on this post ...it's all good :>)

Thank you. It wouldn't have gotten this far without all of the differing views, points, arguments, and questions. This is truly a thread built up by the discussion of many different minds.

May Peace be upon you the2ofusr1.