Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

[The Cat]

Quran doesnt mention the order and hence if quran alone approach is to be followed then Quran is only first 4 chapters and 3 verses from chapter 5 after which it needs to be discarded.... The information about ordering of verses is not found in the quran at all.

You're like a kid that needs a hand to cross the street. Why do you think that sura 96 is known to be the opening sura (etc)?

The first to present it in some chronological order was Theodor Noldeke back in 1860... based on both external & internal evidences.
From him, at the very least, we could differentiate between 3 Meccan periods and the Medina ones.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter7.html

Further researches made a reliable, chronological account. So chapter 5 is indeed the 112th sura, followed by sura 9.

That ahadith (on stoning) is a mutawatir as well as Tawatur typ. Oh your source is quran.

Even the Last Sermon is tawatur, yet contains three different versions of Muhammad's sayings. Umar himself declared that he would
be accused by the people of adding to Allah's word if to put it. So the end criteria even for tawatur hadiths is their Koranic accord.
The stoning verse isn't there so, most obviously, he lacked the required two testimonies, thus ALL these hadiths are forgeries.

Now, as I've said, stoning IS koranically allowed but -for the Jews alone- since it's a Torah precept Muhammad had to apply when judging
them (5.48-49; B.4.56.829). The very word 'hadith' comes from the Hebrew 'hadash' (novelty, new). Religious novelties are forbidden in
Islam! They were compiled so to copy the Jewish Mischna, not by Arab natives... but by far removed Khorasan people in north-east Iran.

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/11 ... adiths.htm
Omar carried on his reaction against Abu Hurayra and Kab who continued transmitting hadiths.

And this is why both Omar and Uthman chastised hadiths writings, both of them ordering their burning.
That's why too we have no -authoritative- hadiths before about 250 years after Muhammad. Full stop!

The committee which you named came into picture after 20 years. I am asking you why Umar didnt collect the quran himself .

First, there was TWO recensions: the first under Abu Bakr which gave the Hafsa codex and then a 2nd one, ordered by Uthman.
Second, your question is ludicrous. The task required years and Umar had, first of all, to rule over vast conquered territories...

Muhammad himself disassociated from his tribe by ridiculing the God of pagans.

So he was rejected by his own tribe, yet to form the 'tribe of Allah' in Medina. But his native Bedouin's background remained.

You and Darth railed over Reza Aslan, but you talked without checking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_god_but_God

The book was chosen 'Best Book of the Year' in its category by The Financial Times. The Los Angeles Times dubbed it a “favorite book
of the year”. Journalist Fareed Zakaria called the book "a textured, nuanced account that presents a living, breathing religion shaped
by centuries of history and culture." Islamist author Noah Feldman called it "elegant, accessible, and informed by historical scholarship"
and "a wonderful view into the rich world of early Islam."

From which the quotes were taken...
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/Is ... Arabia.htm
Reza Aslan

In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way
considered stealing, and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution ... It was the Shaykh's
responsibility to maintain peace and stability in his community by ensuring the proper retribution for all crimes committed within the tribe.
Crimes committed against those outside the tribe were not only unpunished, they were not really crimes. Stealing, killing, or injuring
another person was not considered a morally reprehensible act per se

Which mentality is confirmed by our very wikiislam
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Mind_of_t ... Chapter_II

Spoiler! :

The Bedouin has not changed..... When a pasture is found, he must make sure of its possession against other rivals, and, on occasion, use violence. It is a life of fever and of fighting, a rough and dangerous life. But seldom can the Bedouin satisfy his hunger; he has everything to fear from nature and from man. Like a wild beast, he lives in a state of perpetual watchfulness. He relies chiefly upon robbery. Too poor to satisfy his desires, devoid of resources in an ill-favoured country, he is always ready to seize any chance that offers — a camel strayed from the herd provides him with a feast of meat: a sudden dash upon a caravan or the douar (camp) of a sedentary tribe furnishes him with dates, spices and women.

The practice of arms and the hard training he has always to live in have developed his warlike faculties; and, as it is these that enable him to triumph over the dangers of his wandering life and to procure the only satisfactions possible in the desert, he has come to consider them as his ideal. The coward and the cripple are doomed to contempt and death. The respect of his neighbor is in proportion to the fear with which he inspires him. To win the praise of poets and the love of women, he must be a brilliant horseman, skilled in the use of sword and spear.....

Necessity compels him to be selfish. The available pasturage is too scanty to be shared, he keeps it for himself and his own people; it is the same with the watering place. He kills his infant daughters, who are the source of difficulties; and sometimes even his little boys, when the family is becoming too numerous. Hard on himself, he is hard upon others too; holding his life so cheap, he thinks nothing of his neighbor's. "Never has lord of our race died in his bed," says a poet. "On the blades of swords flows our blood, and our blood flows only over sword-blades. ".....

The Bedouin lives for himself and his tribe, beyond it he has no friends; his neighbor is the man of his tribe, his relation. Faithfulness to his pledged word, honesty and frankness only concern members of the tribe, the contribules. Each tribe selects as its chief the most intelligent habits of sobriety and plunged into the worst debauchery.

From what has gone before, we may sum up the characteristics of the Bedouin in a few essential traits: he is a nomad and a fighter, incessantly preoccupied by the anxiety of finding some means of subsistence and of defending his life against man and nature; he leads a rough life full of danger. His faculties of struggle and resistance are highly developed, namely physical strength, endurance and powers of observation. Necessity has made him a robber, a man of prey; he stalks his game when he espies a caravan or the douar (camp) of some sedentary tribe. Like a wild beast, he sees a chance when it arises.

So, indeed, Muhammad was a product of his time and so the Koran doesn't depict him as a role-model at all!

33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

In a far twisted logic, a good example for him who looketh unto Allah, remembering Him much
BECOMES... Look for the Siras, the Tafsirs, the Hadiths and Muhammad's Sunna!!!

Even to look unto Allah and last day we need to know how muhammad lived so again your attempt has failed.

16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying):
Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.

So why follow Muhammad, himself ordered to follow Abraham?
That's the shitty logic of the Sunnites you keep parroting.

Muhammad was asked to follow Abraham and hence muslims cant follow Muhammad. A team leader is asked to follow the Project Manager and hence a junior level programmer cant follow the team leader.

Read again the underline part.

The word translated 'religion' is Millata, meaning path, trace, way of example. The word 'nature upright' is the Arabic Hanifa (Hanif).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif

--It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.
--2.124 gives the title of IMAM solely to Abraham; Isaac, Jacob (21.72-73) and Moses (46.12)!

Which was -wrongly- translated so to hide it...
46.12: When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an example and a mercy (Imāmāan), a world leader;
and this is a confirming Scripture in the Arabic language...

Not even close to be 'A statement of the Truth' (19.34), let alone 'a revelation (by birth) for mankind' (19.21)
in the likeness of Adam! That which Muhammad himself is commanded not to waver (3.59/3.60).

The very title of Imam is never accorded to Muhammad, the deviant, only exemplary in his redemptive trust unto Allah.
I'm not even talking about those un-koranic imam Shafi'i; imam Bukhari, etc. All blasphemous titles!

Muhammad can't be, as a person, someone to follow anywise. That's why there's NO Shahada in the Koran!

2:272: The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guideth whom He will.

41.43: Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

46.9: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers, nor know I what will be done with
me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

And as a secular leader he is to rule through councils (3.159; 4.59; 42.38), and over non-Muslims according to their own books (5.48).

I know that I'm hitting some cognitive dissonance, as that of the Muhammadans' idol worship of Muhammad.
But, in my own way, I am much more a threat to nowadays 'Islam' than your crude hatred will ever be...

Shirk and Idolatry in Islam (The Cat): viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062

[The Cat]

My source ain't wikipedia but the Koran (2.282; 5.106; 65.2

God, you really are a spin master. Those verses had nothing to do with authenticating quran..... How you take these verses to mean that the quran needs two verses to authenticate itself beats me. ( Of course we won't even talk about the logic of using verses from the quran to authenticate itself. ). This is what happens when you delegate logic to people like reza azlan.

You can't read things in their context and then build your own ludicrous deductions. Then what you said mirror back at you!

In 5.12 we read: ''and believe in My messengers and support them''. That's the Covenant: Believe in My messengers, support the Covenant/scriptures they brought. See?

Same blah. Quit making up things. The verse is very clear about what the covenant is - "establishing prayer, giving zakat, supporting the messengers". The verses that follow make accusations that have nothing to do with this covenant.

You're hilariously in denial. As if supporting the messengers didn't mean support the Covenant they've established.

The insistence on parity in the Quran was a significant step away from customary Arab law. By uniformly evaluating the lives of all men as well as all women and even slaves, the new Islamic ethic was moving toward a principle of social equality,

By posting such nonsense you show yourself to be a non serious debater. You know pretty well the lives of men, women and slaves were not uniformly evaluated in islam. That is why in islam even today the blood money for a woman is only 1/2 that of a man..... Who is the "them" here, cat? Again you whitewash. The quran here is relating what was prescribed for the jews. Why are you trying to show this verse to pretend that quran treats everyone with uniformity? Do you obfuscate facts deliberately or do you really not understand?

Ludicrous ignorance. The Koran treats the People of the Book through their own respective sacred books.

You're incredibly mixing everything up. To treat slaves as weak persons, enticing compassion,
manumission towards them, was indeed a significant step away from Bedouin's customary law.

The 'them' in 5.45 refers to the Jews (5.44), not to Muslims whom are encouraged very differently:
''but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him'' (Shakir). And it's limited to murder (2.178).

9.60: The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to
free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.

There would have been riots and bloodshed, if not civil war, about any changing unto the words of God. There wasn't...
2.79: woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase
a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

It is your assumption that there would have been riots and bloodshed. There is absolutely no reason why there should be any riots or bloodshed. The verses above do not call for riots or bloodshed for changing the quran.

What does it call to then? Tending the other cheek? What do you think 'woe unto them' could be? A rose garden?

This is indeed the crux of the matter, I'll expand this in my next answers to snb.

Even an idea that results out of a culture or custom can be subjected to a test of science, facts and logic. Your whole "presentism" defense is irrelevant in a test of ideas/concepts and you are simply clutching at straws.

Hilarious again. Even science, facts and logic are based on evolution and thus history. Science and logic were mainly born in the pedophile
Socratic Greece, thoroughly relying on harsh slavery. Thus, according to your own precept, even science and logic have a discrediting base!

[The Cat]

In the case of changing the words of God, they (Ali and others) wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!

2:159 doesnt talk about fighting at all. It merely says those who conceal Gods words they will incur God's curse upon them.

Hilarious team indeed, as if being accursed by God meant being destitute of dessert tonight!

2.59: But those who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying,
and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing.

6.33: evil-doers flout the revelations of Allah.
6.34: There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

So Dr. Ahmad Shafaat was right:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... reply.html

How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the
Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the
word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor?....

Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than
100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these
opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him
of changing the word of God....

Differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these
manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated
copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed. The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by
'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put
forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.

Which in turns bring us back to the very reason why a -second- recension was done under Uthman (the first under Abu Bakr/Omar).

B.6.61.510:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya
and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to
'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before."
So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa....

Here, Sham and Iraq represented by Kab (not a Quraysh but a Jew Khazraj) & Ibn Masud from the banu Huzail. We know that
the Bedouin was 1st of all totally loyal to his tribe, that's even why Uthman got problems for setting Quraysh at directions.
Or why Khadafi's tribe still helping him.

So there must be a strong suspicion that the hadiths mentioning that Muhammad preferred let say Masud originated from Kufa or his tribe,
and so on. Any Arab first belong to his tribe for loyalty as were the Bedouin's. Umar must have known this. This criteria was also crucial
because of the original missing dots and diacritical marks. The remarkable Edward Lane's Lexicon relied on this peculiar al-Qura dialect...

It was most obviously to please tribes that Muhammad had accepted readings in seven different Ahrufs (dialects).
But when it came to assemble one final text, the al-Qura dialect was selected and the others rightfully dismissed.

In compiling the Koran they readily defied the example set forth by their very prophet. It wasn't that compelling after all!

So, again, the fact that there was no recorded uprising in Kufa, or elsewhere, or that no such charge was made against Uthman by his
murderers are strong indications, along with the conduct of Ali, that the Shahada was overwhelmingly on the side of the standardization.

The counter answers have already been provided by me. Mere scribbling is not called answering. You seem to believe that when you type you answer everyone.

Now there's a bunch of replies where you state to have 'answered' my comments. I've provided fair links, easy to check, for them all...
while you haven't produce any. Until you fairly do that, I shall assume that these so-called 'answers' were but presumptuous hot air.

Thabit is concerned he was never considered reliable by Muhammad.... More ever if Muhammad had recited the last and standard version of quran why would there be so many discrepancies amongst muslims about quran??

Tell me again how he became his main scribe... for years and until the end.

Ubai and Masud disagreed with Thabits quran and they even criticized it and we also see Masud refusing to hand over the text and more ever people kept following Masud a long time after Thabits quran was made the standard quran. So this is a big fat lie which you are spewing.

Why in the world should we trust hadiths belonging to their respective tribes, especially those from Kufa?
We know by now that the members of each Bedouin's tribe had a basic 1st commitment to their own clans.

Not only do we have no recorded uprisings, history tells us that the Koran reunited Muslims in the middle of the Siffin battle!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin

Muawiyah did take Amr's second suggestion - he told his bodyguards to put pages from the Qu'ran on their lances, and shout "The law
of the Lord! That shall decide between us!" By this it was meant that the two sides should cease fighting and settle matters by peaceful
arbitration under Islamic law. Muawiyah and Amr did not necessarily think that all of Ali's army would accept an arbitration, but they were
sure that some of them would favour this, and so at the least it would cause dissension in Ali's army. It was soon after that that Ali cried
one of the most famous quotes in Islamic history, "For Allah!"

Ali's entire army quickly began chanting along with Muawiyah's men. Ali urged his army to fight on, saying that Muawiyah was simply using a
trick and was on the point of defeat, but the soldiers did not listen. Ali and al-Ashtar spent a long time arguing against their men, but they
could not change their minds. In fact the soldiers became impatient and attacked al-Ashtar with whips, calling him a warmonger; they even
threatened to send Ali to Muawiyah as a prisoner if he did not accept the arbitration. With his army in mutiny against him, Ali had no choice
but to accept the arbitration.

Certainly, in the case of changing the 'words of God', the army of Ali (mainly from Kufa) wouldn't have deserted him in such a way.

This to me is very concluding, the shahabas & soldiers, from both sides, recognized and chanted the same standard Koran.

I guess you'll be in straight denial once again. Still you can't disprove the overwhelming FACTS, overdoing the hadiths once again.

[Skenderbeg]

2.59: But those who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying,
and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing.

6.33: evil-doers flout the revelations of Allah.
6.34: There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

Hey Cat.. if there is none to alter the decision of Allah then why didn't Allah protect his earlier Revelations ? We are told Jews and Christians changed their bible, where was Allah ? did he just get serious with Quran and why not also protect his bible ?

The Quran says Jesus was a sign to nations and yet if we believe Muslims the bible was corrupted from the beginning and the only sign of Jesus was that he was the son of God which is attacked in the Quran. so Allah failed to make the true message of Jesus known to the nations.

I see nothing but confusion and contradictions in the Quran. if none can alter or change the words of Allah then why shouldn't we believe in Jesus as the SON OF GOD who was divine as the Bible tells us ?.

After All Allah went out of his way in the Quran to call Jesus a Holy son and his mother was chosen above all women of the world for what purpose ?

I just copied the most important parts of the of the verse of the Quran relating to the above..

'No, I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son.' She said, 'How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched
me, and I am not unchaste?' He said, 'So (it will be). Your Lord says, 'That is easy for Me, and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men, and a Mercy from Us. It is a matter (so) decreed'" (19:16-21, the Chapter of Mary)

"Behold! The angels said, 'Oh Mary! God has chosen you and purified you, chosen you above the women of all nations. " (3:42-43).

Why is Jesus called a Holy son and a sign to men and nations ? why was he born from a virgin through God's spirit unlike like all other humans ? Why is his mother purified and chosen above all women ? if Jesus was just another prophet like all the prophets before him ? and how was Jesus in his time a sign to men ? because if you believe the Quran Jews tried to kill him and Allah saved Jesus and took him to heaven and made Jews and others only think Jesus was killed on the cross by making another person look like Jesus/

I don't know as much as you and others here about Islam but I can't make sense out of anything the Quran says about either Jesus or none being able to alter the words of Allah..

on one hand the Quran says Jesus is just like any other prophet before him and on the other hand we can clearly see this cannot be true when we read all the other verses in the Quran making Jesus far superior to all the other prophets in the Quran. I can go on and on with this but ill stop here...

[The Cat]

Hi Skendenberg...
I do understand and share your Christian concerns.

Many of my threads in Resource Center are a must for preliminary knowledge, please get familiar with them...


Was the Bible corrupted?
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8273


Imam Abraham & the son of the Promise
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8369


The Koranic -ISA (son of...)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769


Not (yet) in Resource center but still a study of much interest...

Nasara (for Christians) in the Koran
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225

Is Allah and ar-Rahman the same?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5738

Hoping that these will clarify some profound distortions...

[darth]

You and Darth railed over Reza Aslan, but you talked without checking...

Irrelevant how many people praise his book. His logic like yours is quite faulty.

It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.

Really? I thought the koran was in tablets in heaven. Here is a chance for you to use the quran to authenticate itself. Koran says it came from the heavens, so it must be true

Now there's a bunch of replies where you state to have 'answered' my comments. I've provided fair links, easy to check, for them all...
while you haven't produce any.

Links to rubbish are not acceptable. Sky's answers are much more well thought, logical and to the point.

You can't read things in their context and then build your own ludicrous deductions.

Ludicrous deductions is taking a verse that talks about witnesses in a financial transaction and claiming that the rule applies in validating quranic verses.

You're hilariously in denial. As if supporting the messengers didn't mean support the Covenant they've established.

Not necessarily. All it means is that allah expects followers to provide material support for messengers, hence the loaning to allah stuff. It does not talk about any covenant that the messengers established. Quran clearly tells what the covenant is, so let us not go on and on with this.

What does it call to then? Tending the other cheek? What do you think 'woe unto them' could be? A rose garden?

Woe unto them is similar to "may god curse them", not a call for them to go rioting. If this is your crux, then you are in big trouble because your claim is nonsensical. Quran has a number of verses where it asks followers to kill or maim or something like that. Other verses simply curse. This one is a cursing verse.

You're incredibly mixing everything up. To treat slaves as weak persons, enticing compassion,
manumission towards them, was indeed a significant step away from Bedouin's customary law.

First of all, the few verses in the quran that calls for compassion are insignificant in number.They do not support your ridiculous assertion that quran promoted social equality. The ignorant bedouins too had rules on compassion towards slaves and the weak. That did not equate to "social equality". So did other cultures before islam and contemporary to islam. In fact some, like the Persian culture promoted more social equality than islam. And there certainly was no "social equality" for slaves. The few verses that suggest freeing of slaves (after the numerous ones that allow slavery) as a good act was not enough to eradicate slavery in islam. The founder and the companions of the founder were all slave traders. Even today muslims consider it their right to have slaves. So much for social equality.
Secondly, don't try to pass of quranic verses that repeat jewish stories to claim that islam promotes "social equality"

Hilarious again. Even science, facts and logic are based on evolution and thus history. Science and logic were mainly born in the pedophile
Socratic Greece, thoroughly relying on harsh slavery. Thus, according to your own precept, even science and logic have a discrediting base!

Your nonsensical logic is on display with this.
a) Science and logic are not dependent on the people that propose it.
b) Science, facts and logic are not based on evolution. They are the tools for determining the truth. What has evolved is that methodologies have improved so we can be confidant of the results of the analysis.
Again, you are unable to show why ideas and concepts cannot be tested with science, facts and logic

This to me is very concluding, the shahabas & soldiers, from both sides, recognized and chanted the same standard Koran.

First of all, the soldiers did not recite the entire quran. What they did is recite a few known verses. That does not prove that quran was standardized from the beginning. Secondly, Sky has proven clearly that the "standardized" version was not followed by some people and their version had to confisicated and destroyed. This dissension is recorded. A riot is not needed to prove this dissension. People are not going to riot even for so called "allah's" words against a stronger enemy who can massacre them. Basically, the quranic verses were "selected" by a bunch of people after mohammad's death. We cannot be confidant that they standardized the wrong set of verses or that they did not make up some verses or throw away some verses.

[skynightblaze]

Quran doesnt mention the order and hence if quran alone approach is to be followed then Quran is only first 4 chapters and 3 verses from chapter 5 after which it needs to be discarded.... The information about ordering of verses is not found in the quran at all.

You're like a kid that needs a hand to cross the street. Why do you think that sura 96 is known to be the opening sura (etc)?The first to present it in some chronological order was Theodor Noldeke back in 1860... based on both external & internal evidences.
From him, at the very least, we could differentiate between 3 Meccan periods and the Medina ones.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter7.html
Further researches made a reliable, chronological account. So chapter 5 is indeed the 112th sura, followed by sura 9.

All your researchers took help of islamic traditions to determine chronology of quran so my point stays valid i.e if you are a quran alone muslim you need to accept the order of quranic surahs as it is .You cant refer to islamic traditions to determine the order of quran which you reject otherwise. Now lets see how your researchers in the link relied on islamic traditions for their chronology.

In respect of chronology Nöldeke assumed a progressive change of style from exalted poetical passages in the early years to long prosaic deliverances later. He followed the Islamic tradition in recognizing a division into suras mainly revealed at Mecca and those mainly revealed at Medina, but further divided the Meccan suras into three periods.

Like all those who have attempted to date the quran QurŸån Bell accepted the general chronological framework of muhammad Muøammad's life as this is found in the sira Særa or biography by hisham Ibn-Hishåm (d. 833) and other works.

Régis Blachère in his French translation. 6 The suras are printed in a chronological order which deviates from Nöldeke's only at a very few points, and fully accepts his idea of three Meccan periods,

Hubert Grimme's also made 2 groups of Meccan surahs but again to know which ones are meccan and which one aren't we can't rely on quran.Source other than quran have to be consulted.Hartwig Hirschfeld's tried establishing chronology of quran but his wasn't considered reliable.

In short none of your quoted researchers could make findings about chronology of quran without using islamic traditions i.e. books other than quran and hence if you are a quran alone muslim you can't know the revelatory sequence of surahs.

Lo! Quran is only 4 chapters and 3 verses which means more than 95% quran is unreliable if you are a quran alone muslim!

That ahadith (on stoning) is a mutawatir as well as Tawatur typ. Oh your source is quran.

Even the Last Sermon is tawatur, yet contains three different versions of Muhammad's sayings. Umar himself declared that he would
be accused by the people of adding to Allah's word if to put it. So the end criteria even for tawatur hadiths is their Koranic accord.
The stoning verse isn't there so, most obviously, he lacked the required two testimonies, thus ALL these hadiths are forgeries.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Read the part in red! You yourself prove that Tawatur or Matawatur have no significance and they can be false inspite of many witnesses.2 witness test is therefore not a sound test to guarantee reliability and therefore quran cannot be trusted even if we have 2 witnesses(though that is not the case as I have proven in this debate).

Now the 2 witness test cannot be a sure shot test as seen above from your own statements. Relying on 2 witness test can also result into fallacy of appealing to popularity. Now let me use a different logic and still show you that quran missed the verse of stoning when it was supposed to have. SEE what Umar says in the following hadith...

Spoiler! :

(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816)
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) IN THE HOLY BOOK,’ and consequently they may GO ASTRAY by leaving AN OBLIGATION that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

Umar himself was a witness to the act of stoning and he himself so if Umar relied on criteria of 2 witnesses then he was a fool because he basically resorted to appealing to popularity fallacy(which you love to accuse others of). Its not that Umar merely heard from someone and was relating to us. He himself was a eye witness and had experienced it live and he therefore should have included it in the quran and therefore witnesses of other people don't count because that's basically a fallacy. Something doesn't become false just because no of people disagree.

Again we are back to the conclusion that verses of stoning are missing from the quran!

More ever You yourself have said that Mutawatir or Tawatur type narrations don't necessarily have the mark of reliability! so I guess quran should be dismissed as a hearsay because there is no guarantee even if we assume its of mutawatir type!

Now, as I've said, stoning IS koranically allowed but -for the Jews alone- since it's a Torah precept Muhammad had to apply when judging
them (5.48-49; B.4.56.829). The very word 'hadith' comes from the Hebrew 'hadash' (novelty, new). Religious novelties are forbidden in
Islam! They were compiled so to copy the Jewish Mischna, not by Arab natives... but by far removed Khorasan people in north-east Iran.
http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/11 ... adiths.htm
Omar carried on his reaction against Abu Hurayra and Kab who continued transmitting hadiths.
And this is why both Omar and Uthman chastised hadiths writings, both of them ordering their burning.
That's why too we have no -authoritative- hadiths before about 250 years after Muhammad. Full stop!

This rubbish piece of sh!t i.e Muhammad forbid writing down of ahadith is answered in the resource center by me as well as here partly. The detailed response to this can be checked in the link below..You cant selectively pick things from ahadith. You need to see all the ahadith regarding writing down of ahadith before making any conclusion.

viewtopic.php?p=151900#p151900

More ever there is a ahadith where Uthman himself acknowledged writing down of ahadith.
Read below..

Spoiler! :

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 161:

Narrated Humran:

(the slave of 'Uthman) I saw 'Uthman bin 'Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. then he washed his face and forearrlns up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, "Allah's Apostle said 'If anyone Performs ablution like that of mine and offers a two-rak'at prayer during which he does not think of anything else (not related to the present prayer) then his past sins will be forgiven.' " After performing the ablution 'Uthman said, "I am going to tell you a Hadith which I would not have told you, had I not been compelled by a certain Holy Verse (the sub narrator 'Urwa said: This verse is: "Verily, those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance which we have sent down...)" (2:159). I heard the Prophet saying, 'If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers the compulsory congregational prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it.

More ever Umar, ALi and ABu Bakhr also narrated ahadith in Bukhari.Obviously you will say all these ahadith are forgeries but you cant call ahadith which dont support your position as forgeries and only selectively pick up ahadith which claim that no book other than quran should be written. Anyway I have provided a detail response in the resourc

The committee which you named came into picture after 20 years. I am asking you why Umar didnt collect the quran himself .

First, there was TWO recensions: the first under Abu Bakr which gave the Hafsa codex and then a 2nd one, ordered by Uthman.
Second, your question is ludicrous. The task required years and Umar had, first of all, to rule over vast conquered territories...

Uthman merely delegated the responsibility to others so Umar could have done the same. Umar doesnt have to personally collect the quran and waste all his time. He could have hired quraish men and at the same time managed his territories. The task of verifying a book like quran also would take hardly an hour or two of his time. He doesnt have to devote 24 hours of time to put the book in place.

This is a laughable excuse- A person who was incharge of collection of quran was interested more in conquests rather than collecting the eternal word of GOd - the quran! and yet we are told that his quran is trustable.

Spoiler! :

You and Darth railed over Reza Aslan, but you talked without checking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_god_but_God
The book was chosen 'Best Book of the Year' in its category by The Financial Times. The Los Angeles Times dubbed it a “favorite book
of the year”. Journalist Fareed Zakaria called the book "a textured, nuanced account that presents a living, breathing religion shaped
by centuries of history and culture." Islamist author Noah Feldman called it "elegant, accessible, and informed by historical scholarship"
and "a wonderful view into the rich world of early Islam."

Appeal to popularity is not an argument. Where are the evidences to what Reza Aslan claims? There are none! We wont believe anyone without evidences. The fact that you cant quote anyone other Reza Aslan shows talks volumes otherwise you would have found plenty of evidence confirming what Reza Aslan said.

Spoiler! :

Which mentality is confirmed by our very wikiislam
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Mind_of_t ... Chapter_II
[spoiler]The Bedouin has not changed..... When a pasture is found, he must make sure of its possession against other rivals, and, on occasion, use violence. It is a life of fever and of fighting, a rough and dangerous life. But seldom can the Bedouin satisfy his hunger; he has everything to fear from nature and from man. Like a wild beast, he lives in a state of perpetual watchfulness. He relies chiefly upon robbery. Too poor to satisfy his desires, devoid of resources in an ill-favoured country, he is always ready to seize any chance that offers — a camel strayed from the herd provides him with a feast of meat: a sudden dash upon a caravan or the douar (camp) of a sedentary tribe furnishes him with dates, spices and women.

The practice of arms and the hard training he has always to live in have developed his warlike faculties; and, as it is these that enable him to triumph over the dangers of his wandering life and to procure the only satisfactions possible in the desert, he has come to consider them as his ideal. The coward and the cripple are doomed to contempt and death. The respect of his neighbor is in proportion to the fear with which he inspires him. To win the praise of poets and the love of women, he must be a brilliant horseman, skilled in the use of sword and spear.....

Necessity compels him to be selfish. The available pasturage is too scanty to be shared, he keeps it for himself and his own people; it is the same with the watering place. He kills his infant daughters, who are the source of difficulties; and sometimes even his little boys, when the family is becoming too numerous. Hard on himself, he is hard upon others too; holding his life so cheap, he thinks nothing of his neighbor's. "Never has lord of our race died in his bed," says a poet. "On the blades of swords flows our blood, and our blood flows only over sword-blades. ".....

The Bedouin lives for himself and his tribe, beyond it he has no friends; his neighbor is the man of his tribe, his relation. Faithfulness to his pledged word, honesty and frankness only concern members of the tribe, the contribules. Each tribe selects as its chief the most intelligent habits of sobriety and plunged into the worst debauchery.

From what has gone before, we may sum up the characteristics of the Bedouin in a few essential traits: he is a nomad and a fighter, incessantly preoccupied by the anxiety of finding some means of subsistence and of defending his life against man and nature; he leads a rough life full of danger. His faculties of struggle and resistance are highly developed, namely physical strength, endurance and powers of observation. Necessity has made him a robber, a man of prey; he stalks his game when he espies a caravan or the douar (camp) of some sedentary tribe. Like a wild beast, he sees a chance when it arises.

So, indeed, Muhammad was a product of his time and so the Koran doesn't depict him as a role-model at all!

That quote from wiki talks about Bedouins. It doesnt talk jews , christians. For claiming that stealing to be a norm you need to show that all kinds of people living in arabic practiced it and not just Bedouins. IF this was common Bedouins then it only means Bedouins were the odd men out which would mean they were the only thieves and others considered the act of stealing as immoral. More ever quran does depict him a role model so quit playing games .

:16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying):
Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.
Read again the underline part.
The word translated 'religion' is Millata, meaning path, trace, way of example. The word 'nature upright' is the Arabic Hanifa (Hanif).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif

-It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.

and poor show continues! Islam is older than koran because quran says so ! Damn that Darth for helping you against me by providing another quranic verse (quran being preserved in a heavenly tablet) in your defense

--2.124 gives the title of IMAM solely to Abraham; Isaac, Jacob (21.72-73) and Moses (46.12)!

Which was -wrongly- translated so to hide it...
46.12: When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an example and a mercy (Imāmāan), a world leader;
and this is a confirming Scripture in the Arabic language...

This verse is talking about a time before Muhammad so obviously Muhammad will not feature in it and people other than Muhammad are the focus of attention. This verse no way establishes that Muhammad shouldnt be followed .

Spoiler! :

The very title of Imam is never accorded to Muhammad, the deviant, only exemplary in his redemptive trust unto Allah.
I'm not even talking about those un-koranic imam Shafi'i; imam Bukhari, etc. All blasphemous titles!

Muhammad can't be, as a person, someone to follow anywise. That's why there's NO Shahada in the Koran!
2:272: The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guideth whom He will.

41.43: Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

46.9: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers, nor know I what will be done with
me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

And as a secular leader he is to rule through councils (3.159; 4.59; 42.38), and over non-Muslims according to their own books (5.48)

I can show contradictory verses to it. Take for e,g 2:151 or 16:44.

2:151
A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Apostle of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge


[color=#FF0040][016:044]
( (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

[/color]
These contradictions occure because Muhammad changed his revelations to suit the need of the time. When he wanted to pretend that it was Allah that was telling him the quran he disassociated himself saying he was only a warner and he wasnt here to guide people onto true path however when he wanted some power he proclaimed in 2:151 and also 16:44 that he himself was sent to instruct,sanctify and teach mankind the quran and new things.

More ever Its clearly written in the quran to "obey the messenger" which is sufficient to prove that Muhammad should be obeyed. Who Muhammad obeys is irrelevant as far as obeying Muhammad is concerned. If the title of Imam was never accorded to Muhammad then how can he instruct, guide , sanctify mankind and explain quran in a clear way to people as many quranic verses claim??

Btw I explained it to my team leader that I aint going to follow what he says because he himself is commanded or supposed to follow the manager in charge of our entire project and guess what he was stunned ! He has become a fan of you and wants to touch your holy feet

[The Cat]

You and Darth railed over Reza Aslan, but you talked without checking...

Irrelevant how many people praise his book. His logic like yours is quite faulty.

Your denial is ludicrous. The Bedouin's behaviors are well attested. Even our wikiislam depicts them as rubbers by traditions.
Then Muhammad's conduct was within their norms and cultures. Razzias and ghazwas were customary for desert Bedouins. Get it?

You can't read things in their context and then build your own ludicrous deductions.

Ludicrous deductions is taking a verse that talks about witnesses in a financial transaction and claiming that the rule applies in validating quranic verses.

We were talking about how 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2 invalidates the ahaad hadiths, nothing to do with your jumpy assertion.
You're fey-talking... As above.

It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.

Really? I thought the koran was in tablets in heaven.

Read 3.7 and please stop skipping these questions...
1. What is the Koranic Islam?
2. Who are the Koranic Muslims?
3. What does 'DIN' really mean?
4. Why is it that the trees and stars abide?

You're hilariously in denial. As if supporting the messengers didn't mean support the Covenant they've established.

It does not talk about any covenant that the messengers established. Quran clearly tells what the covenant is

Hilarious... What do you think that messengers established?

You're incredibly mixing everything up. To treat slaves as weak persons, enticing compassion,
manumission towards them, was indeed a significant step away from Bedouin's customary law.

The few verses in the quran that calls for compassion are insignificant in number.They do not support your ridiculous assertion that quran promoted social equality. The ignorant bedouins too had rules on compassion towards slaves and the weak. That did not equate to "social equality".

Prove me first that the Bedouin's had rules on compassion towards slaves and the weak. Don't shy off as always...
For they were even burying alive infants (16.58.59; 81.8-9), which the Koran condemned.

Then that only a few verses, ''insignificant in number'' is trash sophistry. The importance is that they EXIST. It's not even so in the NT.

Even science, facts and logic are based on evolution and thus history. Science and logic were mainly born in the pedophile Socratic Greece,
thoroughly relying on harsh slavery. Thus, according to your own precept, even science and logic have a discrediting base!

Your nonsensical logic is on display with this.
a) Science and logic are not dependent on the people that propose it.
b) Science, facts and logic are not based on evolution. They are the tools for determining the truth. What has evolved is that methodologies have improved so we can be confidant of the results of the analysis.
Again, you are unable to show why ideas and concepts cannot be tested with science, facts and logic.

a) They can't be independent of the people and cultures initiating them. E=MC2 is Einstein's, not Sophocles.
b) The tools for determining the truth, the methodologies, are of necessity conditioned by cultures and evolution.
Again, you're unable to dismiss that anything taken out of its historical context, such as Muhammad's behavior, is Presentism.

What does it call to then? Tending the other cheek? What do you think 'woe unto them' could be? A rose garden?

Woe unto them is similar to "may god curse them", not a call for them to go rioting.

And what do you think Allah's curse means? And how do you think Muslims would respond to accursed people? Rocking the chair...

And Muhammadans will riot for much less than blasphemously changing god's words.

This to me is very concluding, the shahabas & soldiers, from both sides, recognized and chanted the same standard Koran.

First of all, the soldiers did not recite the entire quran. What they did is recite a few known verses. That does not prove that quran was standardized from the beginning. Secondly, Sky has proven clearly that the "standardized" version was not followed by some people and their version had to confisicated and destroyed. This dissension is recorded. A riot is not needed to prove this dissension. People are not going to riot even for so called "allah's" words against a stronger enemy who can massacre them. Basically, the quranic verses were "selected" by a bunch of people after mohammad's death. We cannot be confidant that they standardized the wrong set of verses or that they did not make up some verses or throw away some verses.

First, this is irrelevant. The battle of Siffin was indecisive, with a slight advantage to Ali, thus the tactic used by Muawiya.
If there was dissensions over the text of God, the army of Ali (from Kufa, the city of Ibn Masud) would have catapulted it in.

This is -again- underlined by -the fact- that Uthman's critics and murderers never criticizing him on his standardization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn ... _sentiment

Second, the only thing that comes out from snb 'demonstrations' is that the standardization was totally justified.
The more it would be going unchecked, the more sectarian versions would have multiply. Thus Hudhaifa request.

What we can be confidant thus is that the dialect of Muhammad was rightfully selected through many scholars.

[The Cat]

All your researchers took help of islamic traditions to determine chronology of quran so my point stays valid.... You cant refer to islamic traditions to determine the order of quran which you reject otherwise.

You keep confusing everything. First, the Islamic traditions is the SUNNA (ancestral practices) to be differentiated from
the hadiths (reports). Then, you keep forgetting that I've always rejected the law-binding hadiths, as blasphemous...
never those of historical contents which I've said must be dealt with on their own values. Get it this XXm time?

The chronological order was based on the order of revelations, the style and orthography within the Koran.
Without such a knowledge, the theory of abrogation (right or wrong) wouldn't even have a leg to stand on.
Any witch way, any verse after 5.3 (5.33 or sura 9) cannot abrogate what's before 5.3! They're contextuals.

You yourself prove that Tawatur or Matawatur have no significance and they can be false inspite of many witnesses.2 witness test is therefore not a sound test to guarantee reliability and therefore quran cannot be trusted even if we have 2 witnesses...

What a contrived 'logic': Most obviously Umar lacked a second witness so it wasn't incorporated into the Koran.
So Umar had refrained from fear of being accused to add to Allah's word. Why so if it was common practice?

What you fail to understand, yet again, is that this must apply because we have no -authoritative- hadiths before 830,
while the Koran at the time of its compilation had its witnesses still alive and sharp. Will you get anything straighten?
I've said that even the tawatur hadiths must be judged if in accordance with the Koran. The ones about stoning aren't.

This rubbish piece of sh!t i.e Muhammad forbid writing down of ahadith is answered in the resource center by me as well as here partly. The detailed response to this can be checked in the link below..You cant selectively pick things from ahadith.

The rubbish piece of sh!t is your ludicrous thread in Resource center...

This all thoroughly debunked by the fact that there was no AUTHORITATIVE hadiths until Bukhari around 830, that is two hundred
(200) years after the prophet died. All your cranky Sunnite's assertions are debunked by the fact that, if authorized right from
Muhammad, we'd have thousands of first hand hadiths. WE DON'T, thus the fuzzy Chinese Whispers' chain of narrators.

Will you ever get simple things straighten in your mind? Your confusion is all over your Sunnite Resource thread!

Uthman merely delegated the responsibility to others so Umar could have done the same. Umar doesnt have to personally collect the quran and waste all his time. He could have hired quraish men and at the same time managed his territories. The task of verifying a book like quran also would take hardly an hour or two of his time. He doesnt have to devote 24 hours of time to put the book in place.

More loopy assertions.
Umar delegated. And the task of verifying the Koran taking ''hardly an hour or two'' just shows your imbecility.

The fact that you cant quote anyone other Reza Aslan shows talks volumes.

Another imbecility, disproven by... yourself in the next answer:

That quote from wiki talks about Bedouins. It doesnt talk jews, christians. For claiming that stealing to be a norm you need to show that all kinds of people living in arabic practiced it and not just Bedouins.

As hilarious as barmy: Jews and Christians weren't even nomads.
And there are plenty of sources available. You're too lazy to search yet pontificate in denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin_systems_of_justice

You're so out of it all.... except for displaying one zany answer after the other.

This verse no way establishes that Muhammad shouldnt be followed.

Someone to be followed should at least be an Imam. Find me one verse stating that Muhammad is such an IMAM.

I can show contradictory verses to it. Take for e,g 2:151 or 16:44.

2.151: Even as We have sent unto you a messenger from among you, who reciteth unto you Our revelations and causeth
you to grow, and teacheth you the Scripture (al-Kitab) and wisdom, and teacheth you that which ye knew not.

Both Shakir, Pickthall, and many others corrected Yusuf Ali's and his 'and in new knowledge'.
Now, 'which you knew not' cannot refers to your ludicrous 'follow Muhammad'. They KNEW him.

16.44: With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou
mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect.

1. What's the Koranic 'Remembrance' (16.43: Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not!)?

2. How explaining what ''has been revealed'' could possibly mean the siras and hadiths? Where they then revealed too?

More ever Its clearly written in the quran to "obey the messenger" which is sufficient to prove that Muhammad should be obeyed. Who Muhammad obeys is irrelevant as far as obeying Muhammad is concerned.

If the title of Imam was never accorded to Muhammad then how can he instruct, guide , sanctify mankind and explain quran in a clear way to people as many quranic verses claim??

1. That's far from being sufficient.
72:20 Say: I pray unto Allah only, and ascribe unto Him no partner (such as in the Shahada)
72:21 Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you.
72:22 Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him.
72:23 (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages;
and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger.... (Messenger = message)

2. You've answered yourself. Now find me where is the title of Imam ever given to Muhammad in the Koran...

As for 'Obey the Messenger'...
viewtopic.php?p=129119#p129119

[marduk]

This is a protest against freedom of expression. Muslims are very diligent in combating human rights. I think they have an organization called Non-amnesty International, where they lobby for more unjust prosecutions and mistreatment of legal detainees in Islamic countries. The day after this they protested against people being allowed to criticize the government. Things really get out of hand when people can actually disagree with anything their government decides for them and express it to another person. That could lead to such evils as disagreeing with something that Muhammad said. Once you allow disagreement to be expressed on any subject, people will start to wonder why Islam is above questioning or disagreeing with. Soon, they'll be deciding themselves what food to eat, whether or not it's on the approved list. Then they'll start wiping their bums with paper and the whole house of cards will collapse and the world will descend into anarchy, all because somebody allowed expression of contrary opinion. Boy was that a crazy idea.

[skynightblaze]

2:159 doesnt talk about fighting at all. It merely says those who conceal Gods words they will incur God's curse upon them.

Hilarious team indeed, as if being accursed by God meant being destitute of dessert tonight!

Enough of your shitty arguments and I am not going to reply to the same arguments again and again!! 2:159 doesn't ask muslims to wage war on those who corrupt the sayings of the book.

2.59: But those who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying, and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing.

I These verses talk about Allah doing something from heaven. This verse doesnt suggest that muslims take up the task. Only a muslim can believe that Allah would have send punishment from heaven if quran was corrupted by Muhammads successors.

6.33: evil-doers flout the revelations of Allah.
6.34: There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

Are you again suggesting quran is true because it says so?

So Dr. Ahmad Shafaat was right:

Your argument is Dr. Ahmad Shafaat is right about quran not being corrupt because quranic verses say so. Its more than obvious that you are a muslim in disguide. You may as well disclose it openly here. There is no point in hiding it.

Spoiler! :

B.6.61.510:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya
and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to
'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before."
So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa....

Here, Sham and Iraq represented by Kab (not a Quraysh but a Jew Khazraj) & Ibn Masud from the banu Huzail. We know that the Bedouin was 1st of all totally loyal to his tribe, that's even why Uthman got problems for setting Quraysh at directions. Or why Khadafi's tribe still helping him.So there must be a strong suspicion that the hadiths mentioning that Muhammad preferred let say Masud originated from Kufa or his tribe, and so on. Any Arab first belong to his tribe for loyalty as were the Bedouin's. Umar must have known this. This criteria was also crucial because of the original missing dots and diacritical marks. The remarkable Edward Lane's Lexicon relied on this peculiar al-Qura dialect...

How many times should I repeat myself MR TROLL?? Why would people from Kufa praise Ubai or Abu Musa or Salim if they wanted to bring forth Ibn Masud as the only official collector of quran?? Mate,If you cant even understand this then you are not fit for debating.

More ever if we are to follow massively stupid argument of yours that Bedouins are always first loyal to their tribes then Lo Quran is 100% unreliable because finally the 3 quraish's word was taken to be the word of God. If they disagreed with Thabit's quran then they had the right to change the quran. Now the problem for you is quran claims that its for entire mankind and not just for Quraish but Quraish being loyal to their tribe must have written quran to suit the needs of their own tribe which means Quran of today is untrustable

So, again, the fact that there was no recorded uprising in Kufa, or elsewhere, or that no such charge was made against Uthman by his
murderers are strong indications, along with the conduct of Ali, that the Shahada was overwhelmingly on the side of the standardization.

This is the last time I am explaining you that we don’t need conflict to happen. Mere disagreement is sufficient proof for existence of discrepancy. As Darth said , If people of Kufa went against Uthman they would be crushed with a mighty army .

The counter answers have already been provided by me. Mere scribbling is not called answering. You seem to believe that when you type you answer everyone.

Now there's a bunch of replies where you state to have 'answered' my comments. I've provided fair links, easy to check, for them all...
while you haven't produce any. Until you fairly do that, I shall assume that these so-called 'answers' were but presumptuous hot air.

Let me tell you a secret. I have received PMS from people telling me that they can clearly see that you are a pathetic loser. Now I am obviously not going to take the names here but surely you need to know that people are considering you as a lost case.I don't care whether you trust me on this or not but this is true.

Spoiler! :

Muawiyah did take Amr's second suggestion - he told his bodyguards to put pages from the Qu'ran on their lances, and shout "The law
of the Lord! That shall decide between us!" By this it was meant that the two sides should cease fighting and settle matters by peaceful arbitration under Islamic law. Muawiyah and Amr did not necessarily think that all of Ali's army would accept an arbitration, but they were sure that some of them would favour this, and so at the least it would cause dissension in Ali's army. It was soon after that that Ali cried one of the most famous quotes in Islamic history, "For Allah!"
Ali's entire army quickly began chanting along with Muawiyah's men. Ali urged his army to fight on, saying that Muawiyah was simply using a trick and was on the point of defeat, but the soldiers did not listen. Ali and al-Ashtar spent a long time arguing against their men, but they could not change their minds. In fact the soldiers became impatient and attacked al-Ashtar with whips, calling him a warmonger; they even threatened to send Ali to Muawiyah as a prisoner if he did not accept the arbitration. With his army in mutiny against him, Ali had no choice
but to accept the arbitration.Certainly, in the case of changing the 'words of God', the army of Ali (mainly from Kufa) wouldn't have deserted him in such a way.

This to me is very concluding, the shahabas & soldiers, from both sides, recognized and chanted the same standard Koran.

I guess you'll be in straight denial once again. Still you can't disprove the overwhelming FACTS, overdoing the hadiths once again.

First of all the source which you quote your argument is wikipedia whose primary reference is Tabari… Here is the same quote

At length, Muawiya made his mercenaries tie copies of Holy Koran to their lances and flags, demanding for the decision of arbitration. Tabari (6th vol., p. 46) writes that, "The defeat started Muawiya in the face. Amr bin al-A'as, however, had a trick up his sleeve for this emergency, and it was the raising of the Koran aloft on spear-heads, and announcing, "Brethren, this Book of God alone will decide between you and us." It will be recalled that even before the commencement of the battle, Ali had invited Muawiya by sending his three men to turn to the Koran for a decision, but his offer was declined by telling, "Go away from here, only the sword will decide between us." (Tabari, 5th vol., p. 243)

LO! This quote belongs to a writer from Abbasid dynasty which you reject thoroughly so PISSY CAT you shouldn’t be quoting this quote because you have already labeled Tabari was unreliable !

More ever Sahih Bukhari is considered much more reliable than any other author in islamic history . The sources that you are using now are otherwise accused of forgery by you and hence you are a hypocrite who is again selectively picking. Now I will just show you the possibility of this event being forged!.

Upon arrival in Siffin, Ali's army found its access to the water-front barred by a strong contingent of the Syrian troops. Ali sent Sa'sa' ibn Sauhan, a companion of the Prophet, to Muawiya, asking him to withdraw his pickets from the river, and to allow free access to water, to everyone. Muawiya, of course, refused to do so whereupon Ali ordered his troops to seize the water-front by force. His troops routed the Syrians, and captured the water-front. Now there was consternation and panic in the camp of Muawiya. He conjured up the specter of death in the desert by thirst. But Amr bin Aas assured him that Ali would never deny water to anyone.

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/64.htm

The above link is the source for wikipedia article and it describes the events in the battle of Siffin. Now the story of this event tells us that Ali;s troops routed Syrians and captured the water front and therefore muawiya army would die of thirst but its impossible to cover the whole Euphrates to start with.The river Euphrates is approximately 3,000 Km long so how could Ali's army act as a guard to cover the entire river and prevent Muawiya access to the river water?? If a particular patch of the river bank was blocked by Ali then Muawiya army could just travel a few miles along the bank and get water elsewhere along the river so start with ,the events of this battle appear fictitious and hence we cant rely on them 100 %.

More ever as said above, Why in the world is anyone supposed to believe that the quran is authentic based on 1 quote and that too from a less reliable writer whose story seems to be in doubt ?? We have plenty of different quotes from much more reliable writers which clearly establish that Thabit's quran wasn't acceptable to others. Why should we ignore them and instead prefer less reliable people?

[Multiple]

Who cares the Koran is all HEARSAY far more so than any Hadith. But what it comes down to is 'do you believe in Mohammad or not" as the ONLY person to talk to Jibril was Mohammad so we only have HIS word that he did and only HIS word that Jibril brought the HEARSAY from allah.
To argue as he does The CAT obviously believes in MOHAMMAD'S trustworthiness so is probably a Muslim as you say SNB.

[The Cat]

2:159 doesn't ask muslims to wage war on those who corrupt the sayings of the book.

Wrong...
2:159 Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear
to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.
Get it?

6.33: evil-doers flout the revelations of Allah.
6.34: There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

Are you again suggesting quran is true because it says so?

Are you again suggesting that you can't understand any given context at all?

Your argument is Dr. Ahmad Shafaat is right about quran not being corrupt because quranic verses say so. Its more than obvious that you are a muslim in disguide. You may as well disclose it openly here. There is no point in hiding it.

You're completely out of your mind... Your old lying delusion is worsening by the day! Btw, what's a 'muslim in disguide?

Then, Ahmad Shafaat never said so in what I've quoted from him here...
viewtopic.php?p=159480#p159480
http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... reply.html

Now there's a bunch of replies where you state to have 'answered' my comments. I've provided fair links, easy to check, for them all...
while you haven't produce any. Until you fairly do that, I shall assume that these so-called 'answers' were but presumptuous hot air.

Let me tell you a secret. I have received PMS from people telling me that they can clearly see that you are a pathetic loser.

I wrote: ''Until you fairly do that, I shall assume that these so-called 'answers' were but presumptuous hot air.''
And you dare to answer my asking with this kind of lousy Argumentum ad Populum!

Do they know that you're also in the habit of fabricating false testimonies in absentia?
viewtopic.php?p=154146#p154146

This quote belongs to a writer from Abbasid dynasty which you reject thoroughly so PISSY CAT you shouldn’t be quoting this quote because you have already labeled Tabari was unreliable!..... he sources that you are using now are otherwise accused of forgery by you and hence you are a hypocrite who is again selectively picking.

Wake up!!! The argument we had over Tabari concerned his hadiths, while this is coming from the history part.
viewtopic.php?p=157739#p157739

You REALLY are out of your mind. Confusing everything once again. So I shall remind you AGAIN,
that historical contents must be dealt with according to their own values. Get it this XXn2 time?

You are clearly the hypocrite here for bringing up falsities, one zany after the other.
viewtopic.php?p=154146#p154146
viewtopic.php?p=154305#p154305
viewtopic.php?p=154433#p154433

More so, in the arbitration led by Abu Musa (for Ali) and Amr ibn al-Aas we don't hear of such disputation over such codex (Musa had one)!
Another stone leading your arguments to drown.

If they disagreed with Thabit's quran then they had the right to change the quran.... Quraish being loyal to their tribe must have written quran to suit the needs of their own tribe which means Quran of today is untrustable.

Ludicrous imbecility all over again. The Uthman's codex came after, as a reaction to this kind of proliferation, not before.

Then, the Koran was revealed in Muhammad's al-Qura dialect, not the Huzail dialect of Ibn Masud, nor the Khazraj's of Kab. See?

Mere disagreement is sufficient proof for existence of discrepancy. As Darth said, If people of Kufa went against Uthman they would be crushed with a mighty army.

You've got no proof for such a disagreement except a bunch of hadiths from Kufa known to be a forgery mill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa

Kufa was associated with "variant" readings and interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud and often
.... as if they were part of the Qur'an itself..... But a faction in Kufa preserved the readings "of `Abd Allah / Ibn Mas`ud",
whence Mujahid and his fellow mujtahids compiled them along with other readings and interpretations. From there these
readings entered the vast repository of Near Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.

And I think its the other way around: Uthman got assassinated by rebels, some from Kufa. He then obviously wasn't that strong...
Yet accusations of changing the Book of Allah was never part of their griefs. So you have failed to bring up -any- historical context.
Thus you rely on nothing but a bunch of spurious hadiths, probably fabricated by his supporting tribe. What else is new from you?

We have plenty of different quotes from much more reliable writers which clearly establish that Thabit's quran wasn't acceptable to others. Why should we ignore them and instead prefer less reliable people?

What you've clearly established is that you confused the unreliable Tabari's hadiths with his history, to be judged independently.

You've also established that you've got nothing to substantiate your position other than a bunch of hadiths from the Kufa forgers.
If you can't link such accusations to Uthman's death, or any historical context at all, then they & you are emitting bubble babbles...

Yes, we hear of codex from Kufa/Masud, Basra/Musa, Damascus/al-Aswad, Syrian/Kab at variances with the chosen one. This is
exactly what was terrifying Hudhaifah in B.6.61.510 and the very reason why a second recension became necessary, carried under
the expertise of many, three of them experts in the Quraysh dialect, that of Muhammad.

We shall notice here that such a committee, and consensus over the text supervised by two oral testimonies, never existed for these
codex at variances. They were all constructed around the sole testimony of their mere protagonists. So none of them can even meet
the requirement of 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2 of the two testimonies required to legally validate anything. You're into another dead-end!

It's not Masud, or Kab, or al-Aswad, or Musa (sole testimoners yet contradicting each other) against Ibn Thabit...

It's uncorroborated self-memory, from other dialects, against: The Hafsa Codex,
+ Abu Bakr, + Umar, + Uthman,
+ Zaid bin Thabit,
+ Abdullah bin Az Zubair, + 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham, +Said bin Al-As,
+ 2 oral confirmations from those who had memorized the Koran for EACH and every verse!!!

In other words, the very authenticity of the other codex have no ground at all.
Some easy to forge hadiths, by later interests, MUST be strongly suspected...

None of the other codex are so corroborated by ''men of authority'' (4.59),
Nor by the standard minimum of -two- corroborating testimonies... None!

Sahih Bukhari is considered much more reliable than any other author in islamic history.

Who corroborates what narrator D presumably said to narrator E? Or what narrator F reported to Bukhari? No one!!!
So... What exactly is 'Sahih' about Imam Bukhari?

Btw, where is the verse stating that Muhammad is such an Imam?
I also must conclude your admission over all the items you left out...

[Multiple]

From the 'You couldn't make it up files" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... kings.html

Hitler CAT 'overlooked for adoption because of markings'
Staff at an animal charity have named an abandoned kitten "Kitler" - because she bears an uncanny resemblance to the Nazi leader.
Kitler was found alone and close to death at the side of the A421


The six-week-old cat - which was abandoned at the roadside - earned the moniker because of her distinctive black moustache.

Staff at Wood Green animal shelter in Godmanchester, Cambs., say they are struggling to find her a loving home because of her unusual markings.

Spokeswoman Tara Dundon said: ''Kitler is an adorable little girl who will make a wonderful addition to the right family. She is really playful and a typical sweet kitten.

''We rehome five and a half thousand animals every year but we cannot find a loving owner for Kitler. We think her unusual markings are putting people off.

''She is not a specific breed and we don't know where her black and white patches came from because we have no idea who her parents are.

''We think Kitler was either dumped by someone who didn't want her or couldn't look after her or she could have been a wild cat who was left by her mother.

''Sadly, Kitler is just one of hundreds of stray cats we take in every year. Last year we took in 1,294 cats and kittens, of which 422 were strays.''

Kitler was found alone and close to death at the side of the A421 near Kempston, Beds., by a member of the public on July 21.

The severely malnourished kitten would have died but recovered her health after receiving food and treatment at the Wood Green animal shelter.

Staff at the centre nicknamed her Kitler after noticing that the black markings on her top lip look like the Nazi leader's moustache.

However, hundreds of people visiting the centre looking for a pet have ignored Kitler and chosen more conventional looking kittens instead.

[skynightblaze]

Who cares the Koran is all HEARSAY far more so than any Hadith. But what it comes down to is 'do you believe in Mohammad or not" as the ONLY person to talk to Jibril was Mohammad so we only have HIS word that he did and only HIS word that Jibril brought the HEARSAY from allah.
To argue as he does The CAT obviously believes in MOHAMMAD'S trustworthiness so is probably a Muslim as you say SNB.

I can see parallelism between him and the greatest troll of the century - the great BMZ. The whole thread is a classic example of that. Both these gentlemen can troll the entire forum single handedly with their postings and exhaust all their opponents . I just read the latest post by CAT which is crafted so smoothly and perfectly that it contains the finest and pure extract of a troll.Now what I would love to see is a debate between CAT and BMZ . I think the forum's limit to a pages of a thread will be reached and yet each of them would have something to say.

It's more than obvious that he is a muslim and he argues exactly like a muslim too. I think I have achieved my purpose i.e to expose this conman and everyone can see for themselves how poor his responses and logic are.

[The Cat]

To argue as he does The CAT obviously believes in MOHAMMAD'S trustworthiness so is probably a Muslim as you say SNB.

It's more than obvious that he is a muslim and he argues exactly like a muslim too. I think I have achieved my purpose i.e to expose this conman and everyone can see for themselves how poor his responses and logic are.

Translation: I can't disprove him, thus I'm left with Poisoning the well and Argumentum ad Populum as 'arguments'!

As far as responses are concerned, yours are a bunch of cranked opinions, like above, never ever supported by proofs.

You're the one here defending the traditional imam Muhammad, like the blasphemous Shahada, etc!
Or imam Bukhari as in your barmy Resource center thread...

[skynightblaze]

Translation: I can't disprove him, thus I'm left with Poisoning the well and Argumentum ad Populum as 'arguments'!

I have a committee of 7 people(like Zaid BIn Thabit;s committee) who are vouching for you being a troll and therefore you must indisputably be a troll . Case closed ! You don't have evidence! .

Mate I have a liking for trolls because I think even trolling is an art. You and BMZ are masters at trolling and are very unique at it. That's a skill mate and not everyone can troll the same way you do . I must say you guys are really pros at trolling because not only you post finest of gibberish but you zoom your idiocy by adding smilies to your post. It's like giving your opponent a tight slap and challenging or daring him to be more stupid than you.

Also you don't understand the jargon you use. please get a book on logical thinking. What I have said about you is indisputable and everyone can see it..Lets see how poor you are at understanding things...

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

I have presented the information about you after the debate and not pre-emptively.More ever what I said can also be verified from your posts and a lot of people have already agreed with me on whatever I said about you not based on what I merely said but based on the content of your postings so fallacy of appealing to popularity doesn't hold in our case but alas you are a troll and I know you wont understand a single thing being said ! .

As far as responses are concerned, yours are a bunch of cranked opinions, like above, never ever supported by proofs.

If one wants to know whether their arguments are sound or atleast not useless there are 2 ways:

1) Ask an intelligent person who would give his/her opinions honestly
2) Ask a troll . If he says your opinions are useless then you can be atleast sure that you are making somewhat sense. Now its a confirmed that you are one of the gigantic trolls (I am not even saying you are an ordinary troll) and the proofs is quran is true because it says so

MAte guess what 2nd condition has atleast been satisfied . In future if I need to test my arguments I am going to ask you for your opinions to satisfy the 2nd condition .

You're the one here defending the traditional imam Muhammad, like the blasphemous Shahada, etc!
Or imam Bukhari as in your barmy Resource center thread...

That's called using common sense. I am not even saying that I have written some great stuff. My posts will appeal to anyone who has common sense. Since you are a massive troll those posts are going to go above your head.

[The Cat]

Snb is nothing but fallacies: his 'logic' and arguments are fallacious and, when cornered, he ends up with... logical fallacies!

Let us see...

I have presented the information about you after the debate and not pre-emptively.

His reading is shattered...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result.

First, the so-called 'information about me' is still... Poisoning the well!

Then, he came with it to preemptively escape from answering the numerous pending questions he still had to answer.
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768

More so, the deceiver brought this logical fallacy way before right here...
viewtopic.php?p=159286#p159286

Stating that ''the debate is over'' is just his way to dismiss and avoid answering, much like AB was doing or his... fellow Sunnites.

My posts will appeal to anyone who has common sense. Since you are a massive troll those posts are going to go above your head.

This is plain infatuation. You're still within Argumentum ad Populum and Poisoning the well. What's else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is
poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.

You're the one trolling the Sunnite's point of view over Bukhari, which you've shameless copied to make your point.
You share this other point with Muhammadans: You can't ever be self-critical.

___________________
Resuming my points about the historicity of the Koran.

--The collecting of the Koran is a matter of hundreds of first hand testimonies, unlike the hadiths.
The Uthman's codex relied on a collegia of scholars and was based on the Quraysh dialect, so to
stop the multiplication of the already going sectarian versions. No historical contest is recorded,
although many occasions happened, like the murdering of Uthman, the arbitration at Siffin, etc.
More so, the other versions were based on one uncorroborated memorizer, not a scholarly team.

--There's not a single source stating that the Koran was revealed to any other than Muhammad.

--Muhammad is depicted as a deviant, only exemplary in ''looking forward unto Allah' (33.21),
to avoid idolatry and follow Imam Abraham (2.124), the former prophets and Jesus (3.59-61).
Muhammad isn't recorded as to ascent unto Allah as Jesus was (3.55). He's a plain mortal...

--Throughout the Koran Muhammad isn't given the title of Imam (timeless leader),
solely reserved for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses (2.124; 21.73; 46.12).
Thus he ain't a timeless model to be followed as snb's cherished Sunnites' hadiths hold.

[skynightblaze]

Then, you came with it to pre-emptively escape from answering the numerous pending questions you had to answer

So you think you made some valid points and thats why I aint answering?? What a pathetic troll you are! You cant even understand that your arguments are pathetic and repetitive and I ain't interested in arguing about same things again and again with an idiot and a sh!t head who can t even grasp simple things. I have answered sufficiently every single thing about your useless arguments and keep your repeating the same things again and again. When people are tired of answering the same nonsense again and again you claim that people are not answering you and you convince yourself that you have made some valid points. The above arguments in the latest post have already been debunked thoroughly .
One more thing, you simply need to F!CK off with your fallacy crap . You don't even understand what those fallacies mean.

[The Cat]

The above arguments in the latest post have already been debunked thoroughly .

Where? By Poisoning the well and Argumentum ad Populum fallacies...

you simply need to F!CK off with your fallacy crap . You don't even understand what those fallacies mean.

And I've just shown you how it's the opposite...