Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

[skynightblaze]

NOTE: I've been uniting some answers pertaining to the same view...

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.

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.

(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.

Infact this quote shows that there was no biasedness here because the narrator gives equal importance to 4 different people from 4 different places.

Same as above. Was the Koran revealed in Basran, Kufa or Damascus?

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.

Here is what you wrote a few posts back...

Ibn Mas'ud wasn't a Quraysh but from Kufa (Iraq), Abu Musa from Basran and Ubayy ibn Ka'b was from Syria.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

How many times will I have to repeat that many different chains of narrators never meet the criteria of 2 witnesses AT EACH LEVEL
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,

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.

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!

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
5) Umar
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.

Here are some questions for you if you claim that 7 people verified the standard version of quran.

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.

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?

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.
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.

[The Cat]

I'll answer this last one first as it is fresh....

You reject the ahadith when it doesn't support your point but you accept them immediately when they support your case.

Rectification: I reject religious law-binding hadiths, as in the Shariah, but always maintained that those of historic
interest are to be judged on their own values. That's why, here, I hold Uthman's decision to make the most of sense.

Similarly, I reject those 7 versions because the Koran must have been revealed in Muhammad's own dialect, that of al-Qura.
Same goes about that Masud/Ka'ab thing, only translating partisan dissensions.

The moment you change the sequence you lose that flow and power of the message is lost.

It's true that the flow is lost but it doesn't affect the message. And since 5.3 states that Islam as a religion is completed then all
the better. It means that what follows can't be law-binding but understood contextually. It means that verses like the dreaded
9.5 for example can't supersede any verse before 5.3, as per the abrogation theory, which is then furthermore garbaged.

Sadly for you its indeed mutawatir i.e we have narrators for this at each level .

If truly so then how come Umar was interdicted to put it from the lack of enough corroborations (hey only 2 !!)?

As I've said the mutawatir type is just a first degree of selection, which by itself invalidate 95%
of all the hadiths. Then again, the final criterion must accord with the Koran. This one doesn't.

If quran was standardized by these 7 people then why wasn’t it released into the public?

You should be aware of the complexity of editing a book back then. To give you an idea, one single manuscript could worth 50,000 camels.
So even when governor al-Hajjaj brought all the copies to add the dots, in 710, only a pocketful of them were still in existence, maybe 5 or
6 I think. And it took 'an army of scribes' to get it done for even copying was a task requiring years.

Visit the link below and see for yourself that Uthaman edited the quran after Umar and all other thugs had collected the quran..

Thanks for the link. I've read it thoroughly and with much interest.

Sa'id ibn al-As was regarded as an expert in the Arabic language and he and the other two redactors were chosen because they came
from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca from which Muhammad too had come, whereas Zaid was from Medina. Uthman wanted the standardised
Qur'an to be preserved in the Quraysh dialect in which Muhammad had originally delivered it. Accordingly, if these three found themselves
differing with Zaid's text at any point, it was to be corrected and rewritten in the original dialect.

This is sound to me for, if allowed, the partisan variations would have spread as unchecked as the hadiths. They did the right thing...

In the context of widely dispersed bits and pieces, on different materials, hold in different places by numerous people, we must appreciate
the herculean task of gathering it together. That some human errors happened along the way is only natural, yet they are minimal. And if
33.23, 9.128-129 are 'disputable' it means that 99.9% of the Koran is of indisputable origin. A remarkable preservation, don't you think?

[The Cat]

-- I never said Shakir was a dishonest translator. Why do you think i use him?"...
-- Which verse are you talking about?? Let's take a look at the other translators.
-- I never quoted Asad you incompetent moron.

Liar. You certainly didn't quote Shakir, nor Ali or Pickthall, in the plethora of verses you brought.
You've quoted 3.32; 4.13; 4.80; 5.92 among many others always with 'apostle', not 'messenger'.
viewtopic.php?p=158608#p158608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Translations? Help yourself: Asad is about the only one using 'Apostle' instead of 'Messenger'
http://www.islamawakened.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You said that messengers are directly linked with Gabriel and thus with God and then said that they aren't apostles,
merely propagandists, advertisers. See?? You don't even know what you write.

I've explained the difference between the Semitic 'rasul' and the Greek 'apostolos' (apostolic).
viewtopic.php?p=158703#p158703" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

33:21. Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar
for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

Where do we get Muhammad's example from?? Certainly not the Quran.

See how you're relying on a strange translation, certainly not Shakir, Ali or Pickthall.

Shakir: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

Prove us that you didn't forge it on your own, since even Asad is slightly different too.

He said Muhammad was the last and mightiest of messengers and that Allah commanded that Muhammad be obeyed.
How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron.

Let's find who's the moron here!
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him...!!!

There goes Khatir's reliability down the drain.... and illustrate your 'Sunnite' credulity.

24:56. And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Apostle, so that mercy may be shown to you.

Shakir: And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/24/56/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even among the parsimonious few who used 'apostle' your wording isn't found anywhere. So you
either forged the line or quoted a bad translation and certainly didn't use Shakir as you've said...

In all cases, you've have proven to be a deceitful fellow, unworthy of respect.

I consider them (Socrates & Jefferson) discredited. Jesus, on the other hand, was not.

Matthew 10.34-36:
''Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law''. Does it discredit Jesus too?

You're the one who has thoroughly discredited himself herein once again.
In fact not to answer you is showing compassion for some pitiful fellow...

[The Cat]

You cannot claim that the bedouins were not aware of the golden rule but still used the golden rule for intra tribe affairs.

As I've shown to 'sum' Lev.19.18 is also tribal, corrected by Jesus.
viewtopic.php?p=158702#p158702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you realize how ''stupid and desperate'' your own line of argument is?
They didn't know the GR at all! It wasn't part of their cultural background.

And all those transgressions are related to breaking the covenant,
the continuous tradition set by the Torah and Gospel.

Nope. The quran does not say that. That is your assumption.

Ignorance isn't uplifting your debating skill... It's plainly there in 5.13-19.

We don't even need to go to the morality of the question, simply test if these ideas are medically,
scientifically, factually, logically correct. And on these grounds these ideas can be proven false.

But, if you were to consider morality, slavery was not considered a noble thing even in mohammad's time.

You first should learn about what is an idea, for it's a disputed concept and they too are related to personal experiences,
traditions and customary morality (from Latin moralitas, proper behavior; from mores: norms, values, custom, practices).
Ideas aren't a source of things but rather a reaction to them. When you have the 'idea' to eat, it's because you're hungry.

Again... Cultures and customs aren't ideas, get over that red herring. They are collective behaviors.

Spoiler! :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
In the most narrow sense, an idea is just whatever is before the mind when one thinks. Very often, ideas are construed as
representational images; i.e. images of some object. In other contexts, ideas are taken to be concepts, although abstract
concepts do not necessarily appear as images. Many philosophers consider ideas to be a fundamental ontological category
of being.

The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human
beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflex, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for
example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.

-----In the words of Samuel Johnson (as reported by J. Boswell): We may have an idea or image of a mountain, a tree,
a building; but we cannot surely have an idea or image of an argument or proposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Celia Green made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality. She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative
and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or
interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour
does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective
on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules
which are universal and absolute

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed, slavery is far from being noble in the Koran, except for the 'slaves of God'' that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to Brockopp, the idea of using alms for the manumission of slaves appears to be unique to the Qur'an, assuming
the traditional interpretation of verses 2:177 and 9:60. Similarly, the practice of freeing slaves in atonement for certain sins
appears to be introduced by the Qur'an (but compare Exod 21:26-7). The forced prostitution of female slaves, a Near Eastern
custom of great antiquity, is condemned in the Qur'an.

Murray Gordon notes that this ban is "of no small significance." Brockopp writes: "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm
a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak
members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is
to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most
progressive legislation on slavery in its time."....

For example we even have the Mamluks, these slaves soldiers who came out to rescue their very masters!

So the Koran portrays him as a deviant, time again in 33.50. But then, for the Bedouins tribes, child-bride was customary.
Until the 19th century, in the US the age of consent, often regulating marriages, was 10 years old, pushed to 18 in 1920.

Show that it was the norm in bedouin tribes for 53 year old men to marry 6 year olds

Irrelevant. I hold that law was medically wrong.

First he married Ayesha when she was nine. Second his age is a matter of wide discrepancies starting at his age of birth.
Third, I don't accept hadiths. Forth, child-bride were Bedouin's custom and still on-going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fifth, the norms of medicine were also different. Until 1745 barbers were also... surgeons.
By judging its back then norms from our time values, you're still engaging into Presentism.

As an example, just because racial prejudice was the norm in the time of Hitler does not mean that we should never say anything against Hitler's racial hatred (which is the manifestation of the original idea that some races are superior to others)

Nazism itself based its racial belief upon Social Darwinism & eugenics, only discredited through the ADN discovery in 1945.
To an anthropologist, its another outcome of the Particularism vs Universalism wide topic. Nothing to do with an 'idea'.

Is there is nothing to prove that the quran is any more reliable than the hadiths?
Do you agree that the quranic verses could be as much of made up nonsense as the hadiths.

The simple fact that its collection was supervised by many first hand witnesses makes it MUCH more reliable indeed.
And through ALL the testimonies we've got -not a single one- gave its paternity to someone else than Muhammad.

And you won't understand the Koran until you can answer these basic questions:
1. What is the Koranic 'Din'?
2. What is the Koranic al-Islam?
3. What is the Koranic 'Shariah'
4. Who is a Koranic 'Muslim'?

Until one can answer this -properly-, the Islam you're fighting is nothing but a Sunnite Strawman.
Their defense, as herein, is in stubborn blind denial of the Koran itself from cognitive dissonance.

The recordings of mo's life (the example to be followed) are not mere frivolous hadiths, get it?

Yes they are since, according to the Koran, Muhammad was to follow Abraham. Get it?

2.130: And who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?
Verily We chose him in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he is among the righteous.


Note: some answers to snb are still pending and I won't be able to answer too many people, so it'll be snb...

[darth]

As I've shown to 'sum' Lev.19.18 is also tribal, corrected by Jesus.
viewtopic.php?p=158702#p158702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you realize how ''stupid and desperate'' your own line of argument is?
They didn't know the GR at all! It wasn't part of their cultural background.

What you told Sum was nonsense. Knowing GR (even intra tribally) amount to knowing it. Not applying it properly is irrelevant. Bottom line, they knew it and it can be used as a standard to judge them.

Ignorance isn't uplifting your debating skill... It's plainly there in 5.13-19.

Don't miss on 5.12. What is the covenant mentioned here ?
To - establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan
In return allah will - wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath;

Let us examine verse 3.78. Here the accusation is made that people of the book are liars and distorted the scriptures. Note that the accusation here has nothing to do with the "covenant" as mentioned above (praying, charity, giving prophets gold etc.)

Thus the "transgressions" are not related to "breaking of the covenant" as you claim. (Maybe mo missed all the covenants or had forgotten what the covenant was at this point?

Again... Cultures and customs aren't ideas, get over that red herring. They are collective behaviors.

Cultures and customs are the result of ideas/propositions/beliefs each of which can be separately examined to determine their validity. It seems very difficult for you to understand that I am not examining the behavior at all, but the thoughts/ideas behind it. The "presentism" excuse does not apply.

Indeed, slavery is far from being noble in the Koran, except for the 'slaves of God'' that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article you quote is dhimmi rubbish. Quran is one of many "religious books" that actually legtimizes slavery, so stop white washing it. That aside, the fact is that quran (like other religious texts) does provide for the freeing of a slave (as equivalent good deed) to atone for a transgression. Buried in that is the innate idea that the author of the quran is aware that slavery is not a noble act while freeing a slave is. That tosses aside your opinion that discussion of slavery in that era amounts to presentism. Customs that exist inspite of the people of the culture knowing that custom as wrong is not a fit case for your "presentism" nonsense.

First he married Ayesha when she was nine. Second his age is a matter of wide discrepancies starting at his age of birth.

So, mo was a deviant whose age was unknown. Ok, he was only a 11 year old kid who should not have been taken seriously
(Ayesha was 6 when he married her and he consummated the marriage when she was 9)

Third, I don't accept hadiths. Forth, child-bride were Bedouin's custom and still on-going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is ongoing now thanks to your prophet. Your link does not show anything that indicates that marriage of a 9 year old to a 53 year old was very common at the time your prophet did it. (Why do you provide us with these useless links that do not answer the question we seek?)

Fifth, the norms of medicine were also different. Until 1745 barbers were also... surgeons.
By judging its back then norms from our time values, you're still engaging into Presentism.

People of the 7th century thought earth was flat. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven. Just because the 7th century bedouins did not know it does not mean the earth was flat in those days. (Simply means the bedouins were wrong)
People of the 7th century thought sun revolved around the earth. Just because the 7th century bedouins thought it so does not mean sun was revolving around earth in those days. (Simple means the bedouins were wrong)
People of the 7th century did not know that both the egg and the sperm were involved in child creation. Just because they did not know it, does not mean that in those days a child was created from a sperm (It simply means the bedoiuns were wrong).
People of the 7th century thought it was okay to have sex with underage girls. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven medically today. Simply because they did not have the medical knowledge does not mean it was okay (it simply means that they were wrong)

and so on...

(In other words your presentism rubbish is only applicable in recording of history)

Nazism itself based its racial belief upon Social Darwinism & eugenics, only discredited through the ADN discovery in 1945.
To an anthropologist, its another outcome of the Particularism vs Universalism wide topic. Nothing to do with an 'idea'.

"Social darwinism" was not a thought/idea/proposition?

The simple fact that its collection was supervised by many first hand witnesses makes it MUCH more reliable indeed.
And through ALL the testimonies we've got -not a single one- gave its paternity to someone else than Muhammad.

I don't need to answer this. Read through sky's detailed and very informative posts. After reading that I started to wonder how many verses came from the successors.

Until one can answer this -properly-, the Islam you're fighting is nothing but a Sunnite Strawman.

Actually the quran you are defending is a figment of your imagination. You would be better off writing a whole new book instead of depending on the error prone nonsense from the 7th century. You can call it "Musings of The Cat"

[Multiple]

As I've shown to 'sum' Lev.19.18 is also tribal, corrected by Jesus.
viewtopic.php?p=158702#p158702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you realize how ''stupid and desperate'' your own line of argument is?
They didn't know the GR at all! It wasn't part of their cultural background.

What you told Sum was nonsense. Knowing GR (even intra tribally) amount to knowing it. Not applying it properly is irrelevant. Bottom line, they knew it and it can be used as a standard to judge them.

Ignorance isn't uplifting your debating skill... It's plainly there in 5.13-19.

Don't miss on 5.12. What is the covenant mentioned here ?
To - establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan
In return allah will - wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath;

Let us examine verse 3.78. Here the accusation is made that people of the book are liars and distorted the scriptures. Note that the accusation here has nothing to do with the "covenant" as mentioned above (praying, charity, giving prophets gold etc.)

Thus the "transgressions" are not related to "breaking of the covenant" as you claim. (Maybe mo missed all the covenants or had forgotten what the covenant was at this point?

Again... Cultures and customs aren't ideas, get over that red herring. They are collective behaviors.

Cultures and customs are the result of ideas/propositions/beliefs each of which can be separately examined to determine their validity. It seems very difficult for you to understand that I am not examining the behavior at all, but the thoughts/ideas behind it. The "presentism" excuse does not apply.

Indeed, slavery is far from being noble in the Koran, except for the 'slaves of God'' that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article you quote is dhimmi rubbish. Quran is one of many "religious books" that actually legtimizes slavery, so stop white washing it. That aside, the fact is that quran (like other religious texts) does provide for the freeing of a slave (as equivalent good deed) to atone for a transgression. Buried in that is the innate idea that the author of the quran is aware that slavery is not a noble act while freeing a slave is. That tosses aside your opinion that discussion of slavery in that era amounts to presentism. Customs that exist inspite of the people of the culture knowing that custom as wrong is not a fit case for your "presentism" nonsense.

First he married Ayesha when she was nine. Second his age is a matter of wide discrepancies starting at his age of birth.

So, mo was a deviant whose age was unknown. Ok, he was only a 11 year old kid who should not have been taken seriously
(Ayesha was 6 when he married her and he consummated the marriage when she was 9)

Third, I don't accept hadiths. Forth, child-bride were Bedouin's custom and still on-going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is ongoing now thanks to your prophet. Your link does not show anything that indicates that marriage of a 9 year old to a 53 year old was very common at the time your prophet did it. (Why do you provide us with these useless links that do not answer the question we seek?)

Fifth, the norms of medicine were also different. Until 1745 barbers were also... surgeons.
By judging its back then norms from our time values, you're still engaging into Presentism.

People of the 7th century thought earth was flat. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven. Just because the 7th century bedouins did not know it does not mean the earth was flat in those days. (Simply means the bedouins were wrong)
People of the 7th century thought sun revolved around the earth. Just because the 7th century bedouins thought it so does not mean sun was revolving around earth in those days. (Simple means the bedouins were wrong)
People of the 7th century did not know that both the egg and the sperm were involved in child creation. Just because they did not know it, does not mean that in those days a child was created from a sperm (It simply means the bedoiuns were wrong).
People of the 7th century thought it was okay to have sex with underage girls. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven medically today. Simply because they did not have the medical knowledge does not mean it was okay (it simply means that they were wrong)

and so on...

(In other words your presentism rubbish is only applicable in recording of history)

Nazism itself based its racial belief upon Social Darwinism & eugenics, only discredited through the ADN discovery in 1945.
To an anthropologist, its another outcome of the Particularism vs Universalism wide topic. Nothing to do with an 'idea'.

"Social darwinism" was not a thought/idea/proposition?

The simple fact that its collection was supervised by many first hand witnesses makes it MUCH more reliable indeed.
And through ALL the testimonies we've got -not a single one- gave its paternity to someone else than Muhammad.

I don't need to answer this. Read through sky's detailed and very informative posts. After reading that I started to wonder how many verses came from the successors.

Until one can answer this -properly-, the Islam you're fighting is nothing but a Sunnite Strawman.

Actually the quran you are defending is a figment of your imagination. You would be better off writing a whole new book instead of depending on the error prone nonsense from the 7th century. You can call it "Musings of The Cat"

What the PEDANTIC CAT cant get its head around is that the ONLY proof we have that allah passed his HEARSAY Koran to jibril who passed the HEARSAY message to Old Mo is Old Mo his ILLITERATE SELF's word, and we all know how reliable Old Mo was after all the RELIABLE Hadiths tell us what an EVIL man he was, he then passed it by HEARSAY and CHINESE WHISPERS to the scribes who only assembled it NON CHRONOLOGICALLY from BITS AND PIECES of writing on BONES and HIDES (how many such UNRELIABLE pieces were LOST, SPOILED, DESTROYED or CORRUPTED in the intervening DECADES one must LEGITIMATELY wonder) and without any ISNAD at all YEARS AND YEARS later. This book elevates Old Mo to Godlike status and as Aisha said "allah rushes to approve your every desire Mo" so the story of Old Mo, allah, jibril and the Koran must be very very suspect indeed. far more suspect of course than a Sahih Hadith with irrefutable ISNAD but then the truth never bothered a PEDANTIC CAT.

[The Cat]

Malik Muwatta mainly includes legal traditions and not the sunnah of muhammad and Bukhari wanted to collect the history of Muhammad and islam .Two authors had different aims and hence the differences. Its not that Bukhari and Malik were collecting the same thing i,e history of islam.

It says that up to the time of Malik, the importance of Muhammad wasn't clearly established or else that his interdiction
of written down hadiths has been respected.

Now, tell me who authorized Bukhari? Tell me how the former 138 hadiths of Hurairah multiplied into more than 5000?
Does Bukhari explained his sources thouroughly as any scholar should do, especially after a break of 2 hundreds years?
He said it would be too lenghty and you grab that! Who said Bukhari was sound? Muhammad maybe? No, just some from
the Abbasid forgery mill.

Finally, prove me that Muhammad REALLY said this and done that, as in Bukhari and al.
Now may I remind you that reports about his year of birth varied. Oh these Chinese Whispers!

Obey the messenger is same as saying obey muhammad..... if Muhammad was deviant then why in the world should anyone trust him on his claim that he was the messenger of GOd?

Even if you were to obey Muhammad, then there shouldn't be the hadiths for he interdicted their writing down. Those stating
the contrary came much later, of course to legitimize the lese-majesty. The proof of this is that we've got not one single hadiths
before around 750, and it took much more time for them to reach any authoritativeness. The simple fact that they only started
to be authoritative -200 years- after the prophet clearly underlines that.

2) That a simple, erring, human was chosen also triggered much resentment at the time.
Still the Koran confirms Muhammad and hundreds of first hand testimonies...

Show me where in the world does 2:151 talk about people of the book?? ....
Scripture would mean quran and new things i.e the sayings of muhammad.

You're embarassing yourself, but what else is new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
People of the Book (Arabic: أهل الكتاب‎ ‎ ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-Muslim adherents to faiths
which have a revealed scripture called, in Arabic, Al-Kitab (Arabic: الكتاب ‎ "the Book" or "the Scripture").

Scripture in 2.151 is written 'Al-Kitāb' thus refers to the People of the Book, called Ahl al-Kitāb.
So it refers to them whom, according to 5.45-49, the prophet had to settle inner disputes.
In 6.90 and 10.94 Muhammad is even asked to follow their guidance, not his own... theirs!

10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee,
then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from
thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

Then, most obviously, the 'new thing' in town was the Koran, still being delivered. See?

In case of a king sending a sealed message to a vassal we know the king exist but in case of Muhammad we cant 100% be sure that Allah has sent a message with Muhammad.

Like it or not the Koran confirms Muhammad. And that the revelations came through Gabriel. You are much welcome
to disbelieve the Gabriel part, but myths are the natural language of the religious truth. By definition the Unseen, how
one feels it, the experience of it, isn't under the grasp of reason. It's called Faith...

Can anyone become a muslim without believing muhammad as a prophet?

Why then is the Koran mentions Abraham as a Muslim (3.67) or the disciples of Jesus (5.111)?
Do you think they had to recite the Shahada even before it existed?

Bukhari does repeat the same story and Sahih Muslim repeats the same story. Now narrators of each of these stories were different. Now how in the world can the stories match if someone had lied in between?

Answered above...

Even if there exist some verses which say Allah alone should be followed there are counter verses which say Muhammad should be followed and hence following Muhammad is also a part of Allah's sunnah.

Where is it written to follow Muhammad? It would be ludicrous since he himself was commanded
to follow Abraham (2.130; 4.125) and guidance from the People of the Book (6.90;10.94). See?

Then when will you differentiate Hadiths (reports) from Sunna (ancestral practices)?

[The Cat]

your quote says that raiding and stealing OUTSIDE THE TRIBE was not a crime BUT NOT INSIDE IT!

Can't you read? It says (Reza Aslan):
''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, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the stability of the tribe.''

So razzias and ghazwas were customary for desert Bedouins

Now Muhammad was a pagan and he stole the pagan wealth SO basically Muhammad looted i.e. a discontinuity and WITHING HIS OWN TRIBE and NOT OUTSIDE HIS TRIBE.

You'd have to explain how looting pagans could be performed within his own tribe since his tribe became that of Allah.

Lo Muhammad was a thief even by the standards of his time. More ever quran also condemns stealing and hence even as per quranic standard Muhammad was a thief.

You really can't read and then jump on your own balloon...
''Stealing, killing, or injuring another person was not considered a morally reprehensible act
per se, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the stability of the tribe.''

So you failed to answer my request:
it's your turn of -proving- that razzias and ghazwas weren't by traditions, or else you're into... Presentism.

If Golden rule was timelessly recognized then it was present even during Muhammads time and hence by the virtue of Golden rule Muhamamd can be condemned for stealing.

Oh that damn reading again... and then more bullying bubbles!
To 'darth': The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins.
To 'sum': The GR was reserved within the tribe, not applying outside.

By virtue of his own tribal customs he wasn't 'stealing'. Get it now? Read again Reza Aslan...

Nevertheless quran itself claims stealing is bad and hence quran by its own standards refutes the conduct of Muhammad as unacceptable. Btw if Muhammad was deviant then there is no reason as to why anyone should believe that he didnt deviate while dictating revelations of quran. CASE closed! Lo quran is unreliable

Aren't you the one you said: ''Since the hadiths portray Muhammad in bad light, they must be true.'' If the Koran would depict him as a
perfect example, you'd have a point. But it depicts him as a deviant, only exemplary through his redemptive trust in God (33.21).

So the prophet was himself ordered to follow the examples set forth by the former prophets, mainly the Din/Millata of Abraham.

6.161: Say: Lo! As for me, my Lord hath guided me unto a straight path, a right religion,
the community of Abraham, the upright, who was no idolater.

Yet Abraham didn't have the Torah, Gospel or... Koran, which means that even those books aren't necessary for the perfected.

Quran mocks the ways of their forefathers and hence quran essentially judged the the ways of forefathers of people to whom the new prophet was sent by the new standard each prophet was supposed to set i.e discontinuity in standards and hence quran can be accused of engaging in a fallacy of presentism.

That spurious reading again:

I've wrote...
The Koran condemns the people of the book for not respecting their own covenants, its continuity, which is something that
hasn't change up to now. Thus the presentism criteria doesn't apply, like it does in the case of slavery or pedophilia.

So the Koran condemns the People of the Book for inventing things outside their sacred books:

5.13: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words
from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from
all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly.

5.14: And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished.
Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.

Thing is though that the Muhammadans of Bukhari and al made exactly the same discontinuity.
Thus they are cursed too, ie. God's Grace has been taken away from them, leaving only hatred.

Sectarian enmity and hatred being Allah's curse...

Con men like CAT should be exposed and refuted every single time they make an argument.

When will you start in earnest then?

It's getting late... as bullying bubbles are the only thing you've 'exposed' this far.

[sum]

Hello The Cat

Your quote -
So the Koran condemns the People of the Book for inventing things outside their sacred books:

5.13: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words
from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from
all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly.

5.14: And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished.
Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.

Allah/Muhammad are frequently accusing others of breaking covenants without usually being specific in the way that they break covenants. It would appear from the above quote that Muhammad was creating circumstances so that he could continue with his hatred of non-muslims and perpetuate the division of people into non-muslim and muslim. Doesn`t 5:13 refer to the Jews who allegely sold Muhammad knowingly inaccurate info about their scriptures or is it relating to the Christians but if it is relating to the Christians it does not tell us what words were changed from their context.

sum

[skynightblaze]

In the context of widely dispersed bits and pieces, on different materials, hold in different places by numerous people, we must appreciate
the herculean task of gathering it together. That some human errors happened along the way is only natural, yet they are minimal. And if
33.23, 9.128-129 are 'disputable' it means that 99.9% of the Koran is of indisputable origin. A remarkable preservation, don't you think?

I will answer this one first and then reply to the remaining part which is obviously flawed . 99.9 % quran is of indisputable origin? What crap was that? The version of Thabit was not the only one that was in float. You think quran of Thabit had credibility because it had been backed up by 7 people??? That's stupid ! Read below...

The whole of Kufa backed Ibn Masud's text and the whole of Syria backed Ubai's text and even Umar himself acknowledged in one of the hadith that Ubai was the best of the man as far as quran was concerned so 7 witnesses really mean nothing because every single version of quran in existence can be said to have that kind of backing from other muslims so what's so special about Thabit's quran having 7 witnesses ?? As a matter of fact Ubai and Masud's quran had even more acknowledgment as the entire people of Syria and Iraq accepted them as standard texts. Also its not true that every single verse had 7 witnesses in case of Thabit's quran. Thats a false claim as already show above!

Ibn Masud learned quran from Muhamamad even before Thabit was born so common sense tells us that Masud knew quran better than Thabit. Ubai also compiled a text on his own and guess what it matched with Ibn Masud very much with very minor discrepancies even when these 2 people belonged to different states who had rivalry (According to yourself)!!!. Read the following link from answering islam. It documents plenty of proofs for similarity between the 2 masters of quran i.e. Ubai and Masud and it also shows how Zaid's quran varied significantly from their texts.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


You somehow try to dismiss Ibn Masud and Ubai;s reading because you know it exposes your dearest quran. I can quote here plenty of different sources which support the claim that Masud and Ubai were among the top knowledgeable people of the quran. You ignore this fact comfortably because deep down inside you are a muslim and you don't want quran to lose at any cost.

This should be sufficient to bury your claim that quran of today has any reliability. To start with its not even from reliable companions which Muhammad himself considered and these reliable companions of Muhammad disagreed significantly with Thabit's quran!. You are simply a dishonest person who picks what he likes from hadith and reject the same when it exposes you. When the ahadith mentioning Ubai and Masud as masters of quran was presented you simply dismissed because quran had to be true at any cost and hence you started inventing excuses that this hadith must be fabricated but sadly excuse presented by you didnt even make any sense. Btw Its not just Bukhari who talks about scholarship of Masud and Ubai . There are other works which confirm that .

Anyone wishing to know about Ubai and Masud' s compilation of quran as against Thabit's should read the above article from answering islam.

[Multiple]

Hello The Cat

Your quote -
So the Koran condemns the People of the Book for inventing things outside their sacred books:

5.13: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words
from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from
all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly.

5.14: And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished.
Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.

Allah/Muhammad are frequently accusing others of breaking covenants without usually being specific in the way that they break covenants. It would appear from the above quote that Muhammad was creating circumstances so that he could continue with his hatred of non-muslims and perpetuate the division of people into non-muslim and muslim. Doesn`t 5:13 refer to the Jews who allegely sold Muhammad knowingly inaccurate info about their scriptures or is it relating to the Christians but if it is relating to the Christians it does not tell us what words were changed from their context.

sum

To me yet more PROOF that Old Mo the INVENTOR of the CULT just had his sock puppet allah say anything to his Mohammad's OWN advantage or needs at the time. A point that even the little girl Aisha could see quite clearly when she commented to him' allah rushes to fulfill your needs" when Old Mo wanted to screw his adopted sons wife and allah suddenly remembers Adoption was EVIL.

[The Cat]

what's so special about Thabit's quran having 7 witnesses ??

Repeating, three of them were experts in the al-Qura dialect, to correct Thabit if necessary. The final criterion was rightful.

Ibn Masud resided in Kufa, which became Ali's capital. He too had his own version, which he happly gave up for the standard version.
The people of Kufa being almost his sole supporters. Why didn't he upheld Masud's which would have been a good political move?
The fact that he didn't uphold either his own or Masud's version talks volume.

He had personal notes written on his Mushafs so to give it up was a sensible issue more than objecting to join the standard version.
He had variant readings like in 2.19 (kulla ma instead of kullama); in 2.70 al-baqira instead of al-baqara and 2.98 sal in place of ud'u.

His codex didn't even include suras 1, 113 and 114 recognized by all others as factuals. So his memory wasn't that accurate. What about
then small points of interpretations, of subtle variations? He also mixed up some of Muhammad's morning prayer for revelations, which
had to be rectified. Same about Abu Musa and Ubbay bin Ka'ab. Their sole memory couldn't be trusted thoroughly. They cried

Finally, people would have hidden their precious versions, to the price of their life, instead of giving it to Uthman like they all did. That
would be in line with 2.79 and 2.159-160! IF, IF the standard was incorrect. They didn't so they were destroyed. This talks volumes too!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... reply.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada

Spoiler! :

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....

It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For 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.

In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same.

[darth]

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, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the stability of the tribe.

For your information, there were inter tribal rules as well which is why so many tribes lived in relative peace with each other. Your contention that GR was only an intra tribal thing is utter gibberish.

Now Muhammad was a pagan and he stole the pagan wealth SO basically Muhammad looted i.e. a discontinuity and WITHING HIS OWN TRIBE and NOT OUTSIDE HIS TRIBE.

You'd have to explain how looting pagans could be performed within his own tribe since his tribe became that of Allah.

You are really, serious, right, with this nonsense?

Let us try to understand your point -

X belonged to tribe A. Members of tribe A had rules - they were kind to each other and did not loot from one another.
One day X got angry with tribe A. He stopped being nice to them and started looting from them.

Now which part of this is the "continuity"? Can someone point this out to me? Perhaps you mean it was a continuous tradition that tribal member when they got angry with each other would loot each other?

BTW, you cannot use presentism to defend your case because the bedouins did not know it and it is not a "continuous" tradition.

per se, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the stability of the tribe.

Which it did. That is why the meccans tried to fight him.

To 'darth': The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins.
To 'sum': The GR was reserved within the tribe, not applying outside.

Your statements contradict each other. As you say bedouins knew the GR. That is quite enough. How they may have applied it is irrelevant as long as they know it.
You have not shown us how attacking ideas is "presentism", nor have you shown us how presentism is applicable in any circumstances other than historical recording.

By virtue of his own tribal customs he wasn't 'stealing'. Get it now? Read again Reza Aslan...

Good god! If reza azlan is your source, you are totally lost.
Mo's tribe certainly thought him a thief and looter. That is why they took up arms against him. Don't try to counter by claiming his tribe of muslims did not think him a thief. That is like asking a bunch of dacoits if they considered each other thieves.

That spurious reading again:

I've wrote...
The Koran condemns the people of the book for not respecting their own covenants, its continuity, which is something that
hasn't change up to now. Thus the presentism criteria doesn't apply, like it does in the case of slavery or pedophilia.

The quran makes accusations against the people of the book which have nothing to do with the covenant. If the covenant was broken, it means either they did not establish prayer or obey/enrich prophets/give zakat. But the quran accuses them of treachery, of deceit, of forgery etc. None of these have anything to do with any "covenant". Thus the quran is not making any accusation against any lack of "continuity" nonsense. When are you going to stop spinning these tall tales?

[skynightblaze]

Quite true when reading the CAT's supposed rebuttals I am reminded of the way Mohammedans argue . For me there is very little difference between a PEDANTIC Mohammedan and a PEDANTIC CAT. I notice the CAT never raises any doubts that the Koran is from God or on the HEARSAY that must obviously exist if that were so between allah and Jibril and Jibril and Mohammad not to mention the unimaginable amounts of HEARSAY that clearly exists when ILLITERATE Mohammad disseminated HIS Koran by HEARSAY and CHINESE WHISPER, far more HEARSAY than ANY aHADITH. In my opinion the Hadith's are FAR more trustworthy than the HEARSAY Koran. He accepts Mohammad's word too that that is where he got it from but Old Mo had NO WITNESSES at all to verify HIS account of the HEARSAY dissemination from allah VIA Jibril. Another point of great issue is why didn't allah speak DIRECTLY to Old Mo after all he did to ALL the other Prophets.

Sorry for late reply as I missed this. What you said is Very much true.If two witness criteria is valid then we may as well ask as to where are the 2 witnesses for transmission of message between Allah to Gibril and also from Gibril to Muhammad. All one has to do is apply the same argument to quran and quran also goes down the drain. Now what these people will do is try to accuse you for shifting the goal and by all that useless jargons of logical fallacies(to be honest I dont even know the names of fallacies other than 1 or 2).

Using common sense ,If some of the arguments create a problem for ahadith then its wise to accept that and that way you cant be accused of any fallacy . The moment you accept any argument creating problem for ahadith you are not bound to commit to the opponent on the topic that he is discussing and hence you are free to attack the quran and then just dismiss the quran too with the ahadith by using the same argument.

I have found that every single argument these people make applies to quran and quran also is dismissed. This is because there is close association between ahadith and quran. They are complementary things and one cannot exist without the other.

[skynightblaze]

what's so special about Thabit's quran having 7 witnesses ??

Repeating, three of them were experts in the al-Qura dialect, to correct Thabit if necessary. The final criterion was rightful.

Ibn Masud resided in Kufa, which became Ali's capital. He too had his own version, which he happly gave up for the standard version.
The people of Kufa being almost his sole supporters. Why didn't he upheld Masud's which would have been a good political move?
The fact that he didn't uphold either his own or Masud's version talks volume.

Who told you Masud didnt uphold his version? He very much uphold his version and even the people of Kufa still uphold the Masud;s version but Uthaman being the caliph had the command at his disposal. If Masud hadn't obeyed Uthaman he would be killed. More ever If Masud really agreed with Thabit's quran then he wouldn't dismiss it as we have seen him doing plenty of times.

Spoiler! :

2. IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE.

When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur'an other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's initial refusal to hand over the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44), but Siddique, in his article, prefers to leave the impression that no such objection from the distinguished companion of Muhammad ever took place, saying instead, "There is no indication that he ever objected to the 'text of Hafsah' during the entire Caliphate of Umar" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.1). But why should he have raised any objection to Zaid's codex at that time? His own codex had become well-established at Kufa while Zaid's had receded into relative obscurity, simply being retained by the Caliph without any attempt whatsoever to establish it as the standard text for the Muslim community.

It was only when this codex suddenly came into prominence and was decreed to be the official text during Uthman's reign that Ibn Mas'ud found his codex being threatened. He immediately refused to hand it over for destruction and we are told by Ibn al-Athir in his Kamil (III, 86-87) that when the copy of Zaid's text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard text, the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas'ud's text. It must be quite obvious to any objective scholar that, just as Zaid had copied out a codex for Abu Bakr, so Ibn Mas'ud simultaneously compiled a similar codex and, given the latter's exceptional knowledge of the Qur'an, his text must be considered to be as accurate and reliable as that of Zaid. The two codices were of probable equal authority and reliability.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He had personal notes written on his Mushafs so to give it up was a sensible issue more than objecting to join the standard version.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That gibberish which you copied from muslim writers is already refuted in the answering islam link.

O father of Quranites! Thou should stop posting gibberish here from muslim sites.

He had variant readings like in 2.19 (kulla ma instead of kullama); in 2.70 al-baqira instead of al-baqara and 2.98 sal in place of ud'u.

What about different variant readings from Thabit's text?? There were plenty of variants and not just 1 or 2. Thabits text didn't match with any of the available versions of quran. Btw Masud;s text differed with whom according to you?? Its no surprise if it varied with Thabit.

Also isn't it surprising that you are dismissing Masud;s quran on one or two evidences of discrepancy and yet upholding Thabit;s quran even when it differed multiple no of times? There are plenty of variant readings in Thabit;s quran and not just 1 or 2.

His codex didn't even include suras 1, 113 and 114 recognized by all others as factuals. So his memory wasn't that accurate.

He didn't include those surahs deliberately and not because he forgot about them so you dishonest attempt at trying to throw mud at him has failed miserably.

Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex, along with 2 others. The additional 2 surahs are prayers recited by Muslims even today which many believe to be divinely revealed, but not part of the Quran)

Enough of gibberish from you! Masud knew the quran better than anyone you me or even Thabit for that matter. Its laughable that a person from 21st century is telling what should be the part of quran. More ever its also said that Ubai included these surahs and additional 2 surahs which muslims recite today but they aren't a part of quran! lo Thabits quran has missing pieces

What about
then small points of interpretations, of subtle variations? He also mixed up some of Muhammad's morning prayer for revelations, which
had to be rectified. Same about Abu Musa and Ubbay bin Ka'ab. Their sole memory couldn't be trusted thoroughly. They cried

WHo are you or even Thabit to declare their quran improper when Muhammad himself acknowledged them as the best of people for learning quran? Abu musa , Ubai and Masud the top narrators had the same quran as against Thabit. Your quote only goes to show that Thabit was the odd man out!
You have no way of proving whether what these people did wasnt authentic. You rely on Thabits quran to judge them which is stupidity because Thabits text itself under scrutiny. If Thabit's text was unreliable then its stupid to judge others using that.

You don't even understand that you shoot yourself in the foot every now and then. The whole of Kufa agreed with Masud and the whole of Syria agreed with Ubai and same with Abu Musa and yet you say their memory cant be trusted ?? To add to their credibility ,Muhammad himself said that they are trustable!

AS a matter of fact what you said above is correct as far Thabit;s quran is concerned. The quote you brought in your previous posts clearly says that umar and Thabit had memorized only portions of quran and not the complete quran!! IF anyone is untrustable its Thabit and not Masud ,Ubai or Abu Musa because we see no mention of doubts being expressed over Masud's or others' memory!. Thabit is the odd man out

Finally, people would have hidden their precious versions, to the price of their life, instead of giving it to Uthman like they all did. That
would be in line with 2.79 and 2.159-160! IF, IF the standard was incorrect. They didn't so they were destroyed. This talks volumes too!

Please see the quote that I brought above in the spoiler and I have highlighted that part.Read "IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE" in the spoiler. It clearly says that even after Uthaman made a standard copy of quran people of Kufa didn't give up their version. They stuck to it ! Now the only question is why their version didn't survive today. so see below..

Uthman was the caliph and he had the power at his disposal and he made sure that the copies with others were thoroughly destroyed. 1400 years have passed and muslims have made sure that every single copy of quran other than uthamic copy was destroyed and hence its unlikely that any copy other than uthamanic would survive.More ever lets not forget the time factor. With time many things are lost .

Now even if these people had protected or preserved their copies its unlikely that their copies would survive the test of time because one day or other they would be caught and beheaded for blasphemy.

Now lets see how your argument horribly backfires against you. The current copy of quran doesn't have manuscript evidence for every single verse of the quran.Now using your own logic people would have preserved the complete manuscripts of quran(today we dont have manuscript evidence for every single verse of the quran) Thabit quran wasn't precious at all to people and hence its unreliable . Note that we don;t have manuscript evidence for every single verse of the quran. All we have is pieces.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... reply.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada
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?....

I am not accusing Uthaman for corrupting the quran with malicious intentions. What I am saying he made a mistake of selecting the wrong source for compiling the quran just like Umar.

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....

The fact that Uthamanic quran was dismissed by others is a sufficient proof . What more proof does the author of this article want?? WE clearly see a lot of opposition to Thabit's quran! I myself have quoted plenty of quotes showing exactly that. Now please refer to the articles from answering islam that I have put forth here. Infact answering islam has provided even more proofs and I merely read a few articles and took a gist of it for the sake of brevity so this argument is stupid to the core.

There are not just 1 but atleast 20 odd proofs which clearly demonstrate the opposition to Thabit;s quran.

Rest of the stuff from the article is not even worth replying. They are merely justifying how burning of other texts was correct to have a standard copy but how does that prove that the copy being standardized was the correct one??

[Multiple]

Quite true when reading the CAT's supposed rebuttals I am reminded of the way Mohammedans argue . For me there is very little difference between a PEDANTIC Mohammedan and a PEDANTIC CAT. I notice the CAT never raises any doubts that the Koran is from God or on the HEARSAY that must obviously exist if that were so between allah and Jibril and Jibril and Mohammad not to mention the unimaginable amounts of HEARSAY that clearly exists when ILLITERATE Mohammad disseminated HIS Koran by HEARSAY and CHINESE WHISPER, far more HEARSAY than ANY aHADITH. In my opinion the Hadith's are FAR more trustworthy than the HEARSAY Koran. He accepts Mohammad's word too that that is where he got it from but Old Mo had NO WITNESSES at all to verify HIS account of the HEARSAY dissemination from allah VIA Jibril. Another point of great issue is why didn't allah speak DIRECTLY to Old Mo after all he did to ALL the other Prophets.

Sorry for late reply as I missed this. What you said is Very much true.If two witness criteria is valid then we may as well ask as to where are the 2 witnesses for transmission of message between Allah to Gibril and also from Gibril to Muhammad. All one has to do is apply the same argument to quran and quran also goes down the drain. Now what these people will do is try to accuse you for shifting the goal and by all that useless jargons of logical fallacies(to be honest I dont even know the names of fallacies other than 1 or 2).

Using common sense ,If some of the arguments create a problem for ahadith then its wise to accept that and that way you cant be accused of any fallacy . The moment you accept any argument creating problem for ahadith you are not bound to commit to the opponent on the topic that he is discussing and hence you are free to attack the quran and then just dismiss the quran too with the ahadith by using the same argument.

I have found that every single argument these people make applies to quran and quran also is dismissed. This is because there is close association between ahadith and quran. They are complementary things and one cannot exist without the other.

Thats right SNB so we can dismiss all this "he said she said " the hadith says this the Koran says that nonsense because the Koran, Old Mo's INVENTION, is a totally busted flush in the first place so no more needs be said.

[The Cat]

If Masud hadn't obeyed Uthaman he would be killed. More ever If Masud really agreed with Thabit's quran then he wouldn't dismiss it as we have seen him doing plenty of times..... He didn't include those surahs deliberately and not because he forgot about them so you dishonest attempt at trying to throw mud at him has failed miserably..... To add to their credibility, Muhammad himself said that they are trustable! ..... Thabit is the odd man out

1) Repeating:
--Why didn't Ali upheld Masud's which would have been a good political move?
The fact that he didn't uphold either his own or Masud's version talks volume.

2) a. Answering muslims wrote:

a. Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God
for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex....

b. when the copy of Zaid's text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard text,
the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas'ud's text.

A-- Exactly like I've said his memory couldn't be trusted anymore. Maybe it was reliable still for Muhammad (?), but much memory is lost
with old age. More so he wasn't a Quraysh (but a Huzail) and the Koran collaged in the al-Qura dialect was the rightful and final criterion.

B-- Of course the people of Kufa, when the standard arrived, were still adhering to what they had. But we hear of no uprising or riots to
challenge the switch. And Masud would have hidden his codex,to the price of their life, instead of giving it to Uthman like they all did.
That would be in line with 2.79 and 2.159-160! IF, IF the standard was incorrect. This talks volumes too!

3) He wasn't a Quraysh and often memory fails with old age. B.6.61.525 doesn't even recognized him as a scribe.

4) You always refer to the Thabit's codex, still Muhammad's PRIMARY scribe, while it was a full-fledged committee. Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1) Umar
2) Hafsa codex (for basic, + anything written that was retracable).
3) Uthman
4) Zaid bin Thabit,
5) 'Abdullah bin Az Zubair,
6) Said bin Al-As and
7) 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham
Each and every verse being furthermore corroborated by 2 oral witnesses. That's even why Umar's stoning wasn't kept!
That a few (33.23, 9.128-129) maybe disputed, it does NOT mar the rest.

I am not accusing Uthaman for corrupting the quran with malicious intentions. What I am saying he made a mistake of selecting the wrong source for compiling the quran just like Umar. The fact that Uthamanic quran was dismissed by others is a sufficient proof

That reading problem still... So read again since it disproves your allegation, before you even made them!

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...

No uprising, no riots or bloodshed on this issue, from the otherwise overreacting Muslims for much, much less than this.

O father of Quranites! Thou should stop posting gibberish here from muslim sites.

Now think how this backfires at you. Relying on Western studies you'd know by now that your cherished hadiths are garbage.
So far, you've been the Sunnite's parrot in ALL of our debates, dismissing ALL studies debunking hadiths to rely on... Bukhari!

Now, all you have in defense of Masud are so a pocketful of partisan hadiths from Kufa... known for both forgery and extremism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kufa in Islamic Theology and Scholarship

Spoiler! :

Kufa was associated with "variant" readings and interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud and often (it was claimed) read from the pulpit as if they were part of the Qur'an itself. It became said that Uthman had sent an exemplar of the text to Kufa, but that it was burnt during the wars of Mukhtar and Ibn Zubayr.... 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.

The Kufa Hadiths
http://www.darolhadith.net/modules.php? ... ge&pid=158" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of the noticeable subjects in Kufi hadiths was transmission of the virtues of Imams (p.b.u.th.) which, because of extremists in this period, such hadiths caused narrators to be sentenced on the charge of extremism. The reason of extremism attributed to such narrators many times was the rijalis' quotes who commanded on their extremism, using their hadiths and judging independently. Its worth mentioning that a study of views of a rijalI group, who stated the weaknesses of narrators, shows that the theologian believes affected on their judgments.

If two witness criteria is valid then we may as well ask as to where are the 2 witnesses for transmission of message between Allah to Gibril and also from Gibril to Muhammad.

Now, do you realize how ludicrous you are here? We were just talking about Thabit, Masud, Musa and Kaab (+ + +) as such witnesses!

And yes, TWO witnesses are required to validate any testimony (2.282; 5.106; 65.2), still in all Islamic Court decisions.

B.6.61.525: Narrated Qatada:
I asked Anas bin Malik: 'Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the prophet?' He replied, "Four,
all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid".

What! No Masud?

Face it, your duck is dead.


BTW, you've got many answers to me pending and your red herring darth-chihuahua won't do.

[darth]

BTW, you've got many answers to me pending and your red herring darth-chihuahua won't do.

1) You have not shown us why ideas cannot be tested with logic, facts and science. You have not shown me how "presentism" can be applied to the evaluation of any idea
2) You have not shown us how attacks on people of the book that lived in the past on matters unconnected with this so called "covenant" shows "continuity". You have not shown us how the breaking of "covenants" in the quran is an example of this "continuity"
3) You claim that mo's actions can be judged as "wrong" only if the contemporaries of mo thought it wrong. But then quran gives us evidence of this in the case of mo's hots for zaid's wife. That verse shows beyond a reasonable doubt the mo would have been considered a womanizer and the quran allows him to be one.
4) You have managed to help Sky prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the quran could be as much of hearsay as the hadith. It seems to all boil down to which set of 7th century pirates would you believe. I am now completely convinced that many of the verses could have been made up by guys other than mo.

The Cat, allow me to inform you that without providing us the proofs we ask for, resorting to personal attacks makes you an idiot.

[The Cat]

You have managed to help Sky prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the quran could be as much of hearsay as the hadith.

Where? How? Bring proofs instead of blind assertions. This shows your thoroughly way of 'reasoning'.

without providing us the proofs we ask for, resorting to personal attacks makes you an idiot.

What does it make you then?

[skynightblaze]

BTW, you've got many answers to me pending and your red herring darth-chihuahua won't do.

Your arguments are not worth replying to start with but I will reply to them nonetheless for the sake of others who might get fooled by your acrobatics and crafted fanciful writing with the help of which you have managed to fool many of the FFI members and people from other forums too.I know for sure that arguing with you is a waste of time because you don't have the guts to accept that you can be wrong . Secondly I am always reminded of Ixolite's previous signature advising not to debate with idiots but yet I am debating you only for others to know this.

Now it seems that are not even concerned about practicing dishonesty as you did in the case of 2:151. If you are honest about 2:151 then really you are not fit for a debating forum. That argument is way below poverty line and anyone who reads 2:151 can clearly see that.One doesn't have to be genius to see that. I have never met a non muslim making such a poor argument in my life .

As far Darth is concerned he has clearly refuted you and I agree with every single thing he has said here . It's a tragedy to know that you can't even understand that you have lost miserably to him and you should not keep arguing here. Your condition is a like a man whose pants have been stolen and yet refusing to accept that he is naked and wonders why the world is laughing at him.