The Cat wrote:NOTE: I've been uniting some answers pertaining to the same view...Absurd. Unless you can prove that the Koran wasn't revealed in Muhammad's dialect. Which by the way is that of Edward Lane' Lexicon.Uthman's decision makes much sense, that's why I hold it. Not the hadiths you blindly believe.skynightblaze wrote:those "many" people who compiled quran had different opinions of quran and hence the quran is unreliable.... Who gave Uthman the permission to rely on Quraish texts?This criteria is least perfect because we have plenty of ahadith which make a mention that quran was revealed in 7 different ways of recitation and they make a mention that any of the way was correct so going as per Al- Qura criteria alone is incorrect.
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.390)
Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one, not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden.
Quran was revealed in 7 different readings and if Uthman destroyed other versions and kept only 1 then he has altered the word of God and hence it would mean he tampered with original quran.
Btw you are claiming here decision of Uthaman made sense and you know this from the same ahadith which you call corrupt! Do you see that you are a hypocrite? You reject the ahadith when it doesn't support your point but you accept them immediately when they support your case.
Here is what you wrote a few posts back...The Cat wrote:Same as above. Was the Koran revealed in Basran, Kufa or Damascus?skynightblaze wrote:Infact this quote shows that there was no biasedness here because the narrator gives equal importance to 4 different people from 4 different places.
Learn! There was a huge rivalry between Basran, Kufa, Damascus and Medina, both political and religious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the first decades of Islam, Kufa was prominent in literacy and politics.... and it was opposed to the central authorities of Medina and
Damascus. From the perspective of 8th-century CE (2nd-century AH) Medina and Damascus, Kufa was associated with "variant" readings
and interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud.... From there these readings entered the vast repository of Near
Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.
One example would be Ali choosing Kufa instead of Medina as a capital, the Umayyads preferring Damascus.
You simply don’t comprehend what is written. If this ahadith was from a biased narrator who favoured Ibn Masud who belonged to Kufa then why would he say that narrators from Syria, Basran all were reliable teachers?? Wouldn't he merely prefer one person whom he loved over others and glorify that person alone??You wrote: Ibn Mas'ud wasn't a Quraysh but from Kufa (Iraq), Abu Musa from Basran and Ubayy ibn Ka'b was from Syria.
Btw Thabit was from Medina which was in rivalry to other states so going by your own argument we shouldn’t be trusting Thabit's because he could possibly have had a motive to corrupt the quran so I have to thank you for bringing this argument .
To summarize ,if the narrator was a biased person favoring a particular person then he wouldn’t have mentioned all these 4 experts on the quran. He would have been biased and mentioned say only Ubayy Kab or only Ibn masud. Get it ?? So this would mean that quran is not even from a source considered as reliable by Muhammad i.e Ibn Masud, Ubayy or Salim .
Further what is your source for this argument?? The same ahadith(not jusT Bukhari but sources other than bukhari too) which you call corrupt! You certainly don’t know these things from the quran. In short when it suits your need you selectively pick from ahadith and at the same time call them unreliable and reject them when they don’t suit you. Are you even fit for a debate? This is a question that you must ask yourself.
So sequence doesn't matter? Really ?? 5:3 says religion of islam is complete so no verse after 5:3 is valid in that case. The whole of quran should be dismissed but chapter 5 was second last chapter to be revealed if I am not wrong. Do you see why sequence is important atleast now? More ever sequence is important in any work because it may alter the meaning of the content or even create confusion. There is something called as flow. The moment you change the sequence you lose that flow and power of the message is lost.The Cat wrote:The fact that the Shias and Sunnites have the very same Koran, word to word, states otherwise. It also emphasizes that the order of the chapters aren't important, since mainly he had a different one. This manipulation has no effect on reliability. For example, it is taught that sura 96 was a first revealed. We find it the 96th now. But the sura is exactly the same.skynightblaze wrote:The fact that Ali's version differed from Uthamic version is a proof that quran is not at all transmitted from muhammad word to word.
Sadly for you its indeed mutawatir i.e we have narrators for this at each level . Check the link below for mutawatir ahadith. It mentions the punishment of stoning. Sorry CAT the quran has been proven as unreliable. I know you are hurt by hearing this.The Cat wrote:How many times will I have to repeat that many different chains of narrators never meet the criteria of 2 witnesses AT EACH LEVELskynightblaze wrote:Its not just the order but even also the content that is missing. The verse of stoning or the event of stoning is mentioned plenty of times in the ahadith by different narrators and hence there are plenty of testimonies confirming that verse so this is corruption of quran
OF THE NARRATION to meet 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2? By definition no ahaad hadith (single line of narrators) meets this basic criteria,
http://web.archive.org/web/200606250956 ... eng&ID=824" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
More ever your lover Malik Muwatta too mentions this fact and I guess you said previously it was well researched so here you go down the drain PUSSY CAT with your crap quran!
Here are some questions for you if you claim that 7 people verified the standard version of quran.The Cat wrote: Then again, count if you can't read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1) Zaid bin Thabit,
2) 'Abdullah bin AzZubair,
3) Said bin Al-As
4) 'AbdurRahman bin Harith
All those people checked each verse, more so corroborated by 2 oral testimonies (6-7).
Thus, at least 7 persons verified the standard version to be correct and in the al-Qura dialect.
1)How come the verse of stoning is missing then as proven above if 7 people had attested quran???
2)How come the verses 9:128-129 were missed by these 7 people and only added to the quran during uthaman’s time?? After Umar was dead uthman finally took up the task and it was then Khuzaima came up with the missing verses.
3) If quran was standardized by these 7 people then why wasn’t it released into the public? If you know the history then you will see that the first collected quran by Thabit rested with Abu Bakhr and then with Umar and then with Hafsa and then finally Uthaman took upon the task to finalize the version of quran. So why was quran hidden from the public for so many years until the time of Uthman???
The only reason could be that these people were not confident of what they had produced. It was just like many of the other version floating around otherwise it doesn’t make sense for them to hide this quran from others without making it public especially when you have 7 authoritative people supervising quran.
4) Why would Uthaman not trust these 7 people and further ask for a review of the quran collected by Thabit and also alter some content from it ??? See below..
5) On one hand you claim that ahadith are corrupt and on other hand you use the same ahadith to prove authenticity of quran. dO you see a problem in this? You are a hypocrite. The above information was obtained by your from sources other than quran. Wikipedia has documented that from Islamic sources which you consider unreliable.
Now lets see what Utham did with the work of these 7 people..
Visit the link below and see for yourself that Uthaman edited the quran after Umar and all other thugs had collected the quran..
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read the following topics from the link above..
3.THE REVISION OF ZAID'S CODEX OF THE QUR'AN.
4. THE QUR'AN TEXT AS STANDARDISED BY UTHMAN.
Ofcourse Bukhari because he was considered and is still considered more reliable than any other hadith compiler but even if you take Abu Dawud as true it still doesn’t solve the problem for the quran.The Cat wrote: About 9.128/129:
In Abu Dawood 2.30 we read that the 2 ending verses were reported by Ubayy ibn Kaab, while neither Zaid, or Khuzaima, are mentioned.
And ibn Kaab was reciting from his own Mushaf. Thus, how could Zaid find them only with Khuzaima as per Bukhari? More so Dawood 2.30
tells us that Umar acknowledged these last verses and... Uthman in 2.31! So who's right here: Bukhari or Dawood?
If you trust Abu dawud on this then you also need to accept what Ubayy said on Thabits quran. He dismissed it as unreliable so either way you go quran is proven unreliable.