Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:45 pm

I missed one of the quotes here from Abu Dawud..

It was variants such as this that led to Hafsah's codex being destroyed when Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina some time after the death of `Uthman. While Hafsah was still alive she refused to give it up though he anxiously sought to destroy it (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.24) and it was only upon her death that he got hold of it and ordered its destruction fearing, he said, that if it became well-known the same variant readings `Uthman sought to suppress would occur again.

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hafsa had the original copy of quran collected by Thabit and Umar . Uthman made changes to copy possessed by Hafsa. Now the question is why would Hafsa refuse to hand over her copy of quran if it wasn't changed drastically by 3 Quraish whom Uthman appointed?? More importantly why would Marwan want to destroy the copy possessed by Hafsa if it was the same as Thabit and Umar had collected?.

Marwan answers this question saying that people would again go astray with variant readings which means the copy of quran today had variant readings as compared to the copy prepared by Thabit and Umar! Lo ! Quran is not even from Umar and Thabit

Its from 3 quraish men. Marwan destroyed Hafsa's copy after she was dead i.e after 665 Ad.

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:31 am

skynightblaze wrote:I missed one of the quotes here from Abu Dawud..

It was variants such as this that led to Hafsah's codex being destroyed when Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina some time after the death of `Uthman. While Hafsah was still alive she refused to give it up though he anxiously sought to destroy it (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.24) and it was only upon her death that he got hold of it and ordered its destruction fearing, he said, that if it became well-known the same variant readings `Uthman sought to suppress would occur again.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hafsa had the original copy of quran collected by Thabit and Umar . Uthman made changes to copy possessed by Hafsa. Now the question is why would Hafsa refuse to hand over her copy of quran if it wasn't changed drastically by 3 Quraish whom Uthman appointed?? More importantly why would Marwan want to destroy the copy possessed by Hafsa if it was the same as Thabit and Umar had collected?.

Marwan answers this question saying that people would again go astray with variant readings which means the copy of quran today had variant readings as compared to the copy prepared by Thabit and Umar! Lo ! Quran is not even from Umar and Thabit Its from 3 quraish men. Marwan destroyed Hafsa's copy after she was dead i.e after 665 Ad.

Yep Mohammedan HYPOCRISY reigns supreme they claim the Torah and the Old Testament have been corrupted when in reality it is their own HEARSAY, CHINESE WHISPER Koran that has actually been interfered with.

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:33 am

skynightblaze wrote:why would Marwan want to destroy the copy possessed by Hafsa if it was the same as Thabit and Umar had collected?. Marwan answers this question saying that people would again go astray with variant readings which means the copy of quran today had variant readings as compared to the copy prepared by Thabit and Umar! Lo ! Quran is not even from Umar and Thabit. Its from 3 quraish men.

Let us see...

--Are you that sure that the Uthman's codex ONLY came from three (3) Quraysh men?

--Aren't you mixing up the first and second recension? For the first never seemed to be that defining or official as to be imposed.
It was gathered after the battle of Yamana to assure some written basic, going contrary to the very example set by the prophet...

--Can you prove that drastic changes was made to her -quite unknown- codex, and not only slight, likely dialect adjustments?

--Is this thing about Marwan confirmed apart from Dawud? In Bukhari, Muslim or historians like al-Tabari for example...

yeezevee · Post by **yeezevee** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:43 am

The Cat wrote: ...............
It was gathered after the battle of Yamana ..

That word the battle of Yamamah is an interesting history of early Islam., let me briefly write about it as many readers know very little about early Islamic history..

wiki says The Battle of Yamama was fought in December AD 632 in the plain of Aqraba in the region of Yamama between the forces of Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr and Musaylimah, a self-proclaimed prophet. After the death of Muhammad many Arab tribes revolted against the State of Medina. Caliph Abu Bakr organized 11 corps to deal with those Rebels. Abu Bakr appointed Ikrimah as the commander of one of the corps. Ikrimah's orders were to advance and make contact with the forces of Musaylimah at Yamamah, but not to get involved in battle with him. Abu Bakr knew the power and ability of Musaylimah, and did not wish to risk fighting him with insufficient forces. Since Khalid ibn al-Walid was his finest general, the Caliph had made up his mind to use him to deal with Musaylimah after he had finished with the other enemies of Islam. Abu Bakr's intention in giving Ikrimah this mission was to tie Musaylimah down at Yamamah. With Ikrimah on the horizon, Musaylimah would remain in expectation of a Muslim attack and thus not be able to leave his base. With Musaylimah so committed, Khalid would be free to deal with the Apostate tribes of North-Central Arabia without interference from Yamamah. Ikrimah advanced with his corps and established a camp somewhere in the region of Yamamah.

on that Battle it is worth watching

and worth reading Khalid bin Al-Waleed..

Narrated Ibn Aun: Once Musa bin Anas while describing the battle of Yamama said. "Anas bin Malik went to Thabit bin Qais who had lifted his clothes from his thighs and was applying Hunut to his body. Anas asked. 'O Uncle! What is holding you back (from the battle)?' He replied. 'O my nephew! I am coming just now.' and went on perfuming himself with Hunut then he came and sat (in the row). Anas then mentioned that the people fled from the battle-field. On that Thabit said. 'Clear the way for me to fight the enemy. We would never do so (i.e flee) in the company of Allah's Apostle. How bad the habits you have acquired from your enemies!" Volume 4. Book 52. Number 98

also read http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_qu ... ection.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on the Collection of the Qur'an

And you guys and rest the world must realize Quran is a book baloney .. with part of copy/paste and part of war mongering on those who disagree with alleged Muhammad and the early Islamic rulers. No book is word of allah/god and hence Quran is NOT the word of Allah., forget Allah .. Quran is not even a book that was written by an intelligent fellow., The value the book lies because of these stupid people who kill any one who questions it..

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:08 pm

I will reply to the new things that you bring because I am here to demolish the claim that quran was narrated the same way as Muhammad recited or taught.You are free to refer to any damn islamic site and bring their claims in here.

The Cat wrote: --Are you that sure that the Uthman's codex ONLY came from three (3) Quraysh men?

Its a collective writing by Umar & Thabit and then the 3 quraish. It's a lie that all these members consulted with each other and then wrote the quran. It was Thabit and Umar at first.After that quran remained with Hafsa for 20 years. After then came the 3 quraish who made changes to quran . I can quote 3 changes to Hafsa's text by Uthman which I have quoted below.

The Cat wrote: --Aren't you mixing up the first and second recension? For the first never seemed to be that defining or official as to be imposed.

I am not mixing the first or second recension. Marwan is said to have destroyed the the manuscript of Hafsa after her death in 665 AD. By that time Uthman's copy was already standardized and the reason Marwan destroyed Hafsa copy was because it seems Hafsa's copy and Uthman's standard copy differed significantly which might again lead people astray. Uthman himself asked the 3 quraish to makes changes in the quran if they disagreed with any point in the quran so its obvious that changes are bound to take place in Hafsa's original copy.

The Cat wrote: It was gathered after the battle of Yamana to assure some written basic, going contrary to the very example set by the prophet...

After battle of Yamana, a significant portion of quran was lost with the death of people who memorized it . One of the scholar who was killed in the battle of Yamana was Salim and he was considered a top narrator of quran like Masud, Ubai and Abu Musa. Even there is a quote in Sahih muslim wherein Abu Musa confesses that a particular chapter was lost and he remembered only 1 verse out of it so the battle of Yamana was the cause for loss of original quran that came from Muhammads mouth.

The Cat wrote: --Can you prove that drastic changes was made to her -quite unknown- codex, and not only slight, likely dialect adjustments?
--Is this thing about Marwan confirmed apart from Dawud? In Bukhari, Muslim or historians like al-Tabari for example...

I dont know of any source other than Abu Dawud as far as this hadith is concerned however I can prove that least 3 changes made to Hafsa's quran by Uthman/Thabit/3 quraish.

1)

Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur'an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil 'asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64).

Aishah, a widow of the Prophet of Islam, stated that after the words wa salatil wusta ("the middle prayer") the scribe was to insert wa salatil asr ("and the afternoon prayer"), giving Muhammad himself as the direct authority for this reading. On the same page there is a very similar tradition wherein Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and another of Muhammad's wives, likewise ordered her scribe Amr ibn Rafi to make the same amendment to her text.

http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2) See that Hafsa;s copy varied with respect to Surah 112 with standardized Uthman's quran (present day quran).

http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_libra ... h2S3s5.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3)

Spoiler! :

More ever its obvious that Hafsa is not going to like Uthman's standardized quran because we see changes like addition of new verses were done to her copy. Hafsa was following the quran collected by her father Umar for 20 long years and she would naturally prefer her father's copy than Uthman's copy.

These 3 changes are merely recorded in history . Now we dont know exactly how many changes these scribes made however its clear that Hafsa's quran was changed and hence its serves as logical basis as to why she must have refused to hand over her copy or why Marwan wanted to destroy her copy badly.

Btw let me ask you a question here. Please answer it .

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:09 am

skynightblaze wrote:Its a collective writing by Umar & Thabit and then the 3 quraish. It's a lie that all these members consulted with each other and then wrote the quran. It was Thabit and Umar at first.After that quran remained with Hafsa for 20 years. After then came the 3 quraish who made changes to quran.... I am not mixing the first or second recension.

It was Thabit confirmed by 2 memorizers for each verse, finally checked by Umar for the first recension. Yet this original version
never seemed to have acquired any official status, something like a secured blueprint. That's what Hafsa received and kept.

It's later, as the versions of some -sole- memorizer (like Masud, Musa, Kab, Ali) multiplied that the decision of Uthman was made
to fix the text in the dialect of Muhammad, that of the Quraysh. As reported by Hudhaifa, people were starting to argue over them,
such or such variant being truer. Thus the decision made that Ibn Thabit be helped by three people, experts in that original dialect.
Which, under the circumstances, was sound and rallied the most of the shahaba, Ali included.

So all those 'changes' must have been determined by differences with the original dialect and needed adjustments.

skynightblaze wrote:Abu Musa confesses that a particular chapter was lost and he remembered only 1 verse out of it so the battle of Yamana was the cause for loss of original quran that came from Muhammads mouth.

So for Abu Masud who only remembered about 70 suras out of 114. Yet, as the prime scribe of Muhammad, Ibn Thabit was present
at least to the last -two whole recitations- of the Koran (B.6.61.620). In fact to every of Muhammad's Ramadan's yearly recitation.
As the official scribe he must have wrote it down, even many times. How can anything be lost then?

Only the Uthman's codex wasn't a sole testimony codex but the work of a team from 'men of authority'.

skynightblaze wrote:I dont know of any source other than Abu Dawud as far as this hadith is concerned however I can prove that least 3 changes made to Hafsa's quran by Uthman/Thabit/3 quraish.

So this uncorroborated thing about Marwan must be hold suspicious at the very least. Passing...

As I've said the 'changes' were merely corrections from dispersed dialects to fit the original one.

Being the product of a sole compiler, none of the other codex met the Koranic requirement of 2 testimonies,
Not even accredited by 'men of authority', shahada of old too. So says the very link you gave about verse 112.

skynightblaze wrote:Hafsa was following the quran collected by her father Umar for 20 long years and she would naturally prefer her father's copy than Uthman's copy.

Anyone give much sentimental value to such a gift. Yet even Ali gave up his, joining the consensus.

More so, Abu Musa was the leader for Ali (against his will) at the arbitration of Siffin. He was
chosen by the people of Kufa and had a codex of its own, right after the Muawiyah stratagem.
Yet we hear of no dissension over the burning of the other codex, including that of Hafsa...

Conclusion: The Uthman's codex was especially assembled to stop the dissensions. Since we don't even hear ANYTHING
against his codex in all the griefs leading to his murder, we must conclude that it was perceived as sound and rallying.

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:49 am

Well CAT

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

Seems like you have carefully avoided this question from SNB. What a surprise.

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:43 pm

The Cat wrote:It was Thabit confirmed by 2 memorizers for each verse, finally checked by Umar for the first recension. Yet this original version never seemed to have acquired any official status, something like a secured blueprint. That's what Hafsa received and kept. It's later, as the versions of some -sole- memorizer (like Masud, Musa, Kab, Ali) multiplied that the decision of Uthman was made to fix the text in the dialect of Muhammad, that of the Quraysh. As reported by Hudhaifa, people were starting to argue over them, such or such variant being truer. Thus the decision made that Ibn Thabit be helped by three people, experts in that original dialect.Which, under the circumstances, was sound and rallied the most of the shahaba, Ali included.

Firstly, if this copy was the most reliable copy of quran then people would have taken efforts to standardize the copy of Umar after first recension itself but they didn’t which means it was not at all considered the most reliable copy of quran.

Secondly, 2 witness criteria is completely flawed. Infact this establishes that Thabit’s quran is more of a hoax than the quran of others. Thabit was required to collect verses of quran from the memories of men.
In case of Thabit’s quran if we pick up any verse randomly, how do we know which 2 companions narrated the verse? What if both the companions were not so good with memorizing quran and they narrated incorrectly or made some mistake?? This verse would still go inside the quran. Now Umar himself hadnt memorized the entire quran and hence he cannot vouch for every single verse in the quran.

Now consider Ibn Masud or Ubai who were considered the most reliable narrators. In that case we can at least be sure that all the verses are coming from a single but IMPORTANTLY A RELIABLE NARRATOR! Certainly we don’t trust 2 unknown men who may or may not have been literate for say a lecture on science instead of trusting a literate person who is well known for his knowledge of science. More ever 2 witness criteria was also satisfied by other qurans because people would have known quran themselves in Kufa or Syria or Damascus and they readily supported the quran from these top narrators.

The Cat wrote:So all those 'changes' must have been determined by differences with the original dialect and needed adjustments.

It was not mere adjustments. I have shown you 3 significant variants from Hafsa’s quran in my previous post.

More ever here is a wonderful article from Dr William Campbell which explains as to what can go wrong while putting vowels or dots. Read from point 4..

http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now with this shitty arabic misplacement of dots or vowels could change the message altogether and to add to your misery even within quraish there was no complete agreement about the quran.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Abu Musa confesses that a particular chapter was lost and he remembered only 1 verse out of it so the battle of Yamana was the cause for loss of original quran that came from Muhammads mouth.
So for Abu Masud who only remembered about 70 suras out of 114. Yet, as the prime scribe of Muhammad, Ibn Thabit was present at least to the last -two whole recitations- of the Koran (B.6.61.620). In fact to every of Muhammad's Ramadan's yearly recitation.As the official scribe he must have wrote it down, even many times. How can anything be lost then?

If Zaid was present at the last recitation then why the hell was he required to collect the quran from memories of others?? Zaid merely copied some tit bits of the quran during Muhammad's time when he used to recite the quran otherwise why would he himself say that the task of collecting quran was more difficult than moving a mountain??

Secondly Even Ibn Masud was present during the last recitation and he recited quran before Muhammad before he died!

(Ibn Sa`d, vol. 2, pg.441)
Ibn Abbas asked, `Which of the two readings of the Qur'an do you prefer?' [The prophet] answered, `The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.' Verily the Qur'an was recited be fore the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas'ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.

Lo! Even the pesky Masud was present during the last recitation

. Another point to be noted here is that Masud never went to anyone to gather verses of the quran however Thabit went and had to collect verses from memories of others which shows that Thabit must have been a dumb kid!

As far as Masud is concerned the hadiths say that he RECITED MORE THAN 70 surahs in front of Muhammad. The hadith doesn't restrict the no to 70. All it says that Masud recited more than 70 Surahs in front of Muhammad . It doesn't mean that other Surahs were unknown to him. It only means that he didn't recite other surahs in front of Muhammad. Nice try at deception MR CON MAN.! Read the spoiler for proofs..

Spoiler! :

Its natural that Masud was superior in quranic knowledge as compared to Thabit. Thabit was born in 611 AD and to understand religion he atleast had to be 15 years old. So out of 22 years of islam ( 610 to 632 ) Thabit experienced first hand islam at the max for 7 years and that too if we assume that he started understanding islam at the age of 15. Now contrast that with Masud who started learning the quran right at the start of islam when Thabit wasn't even born.

The Cat wrote:Only the Uthman's codex wasn't a sole testimony codex but the work of a team from 'men of authority'.

A single literate person is far better authority than a gang of idiots who all depended upon each other for the collection of quran. How can you say that it was a team of authority? Take example of say 9:29 . Can you tell me which 2 companions gave us this verse and how can we be sure of that these 2 companions were indeed reliable?? Atleast in case of Masud’s quran we know that every single verse is coming from a reliable narrator.We don’t even know that in case of Thabits quran!

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I dont know of any source other than Abu Dawud as far as this hadith is concerned however I can prove that least 3 changes made to Hafsa's quran by Uthman/Thabit/3 quraish.

So this uncorroborated thing about Marwan must be hold suspicious at the very least. Passing...

I have already shown you that amendments were carried out to Hafsa’s quran and hence this serves as a base for the hadith being true rather than it being false because Its natural that Hafsa is going to resist giving up something that her heavenly father had collected and something which she was following for 20 long year so this hadith does have logical backing.

The Cat wrote: Being the product of a sole compiler, none of the other codex met the Koranic requirement of 2 testimonies,
Not even accredited by 'men of authority', shahada of old too. So says the very link you gave about verse 112.

Answered above! 2 witnesses is basically appealing to popularity fallacy which you happily accuse others of without even thinking for a second that this fallacy was committed by Thabit, Umar and others while collecting quran.

The Cat wrote: Anyone give much sentimental value to such a gift. Yet even Ali gave up his, joining the consensus.

That doesn’t mean quran of others was false .

The Cat wrote: More so, Abu Musa was the leader for Ali (against his will) at the arbitration of Siffin. He was
chosen by the people of Kufa and had a codex of its own, right after the Muawiyah stratagem.
Yet we hear of no dissension over the burning of the other codex, including that of Hafsa...

As far as battle of Siffin is concerned I have already answered you that this quote cannot over rule Bukhari and muslim which are considered more reliable. I also showed you that certain events of that battle can be seen as forged because its not possible to prevent someone from drinking water from the river Euphrates.

As far as Hafsa is concerned her copy was destroyed right after her death. Even at the time of her funeral her brother was asked by Marwan to surrender the copy so a case for dissension wouldn’t not arise because it was burned even before it reached the public.

The Cat wrote: Conclusion: The Uthman's codex was especially assembled to stop the dissensions. Since we don't even hear ANYTHINGagainst his codex in all the griefs leading to his murder, we must conclude that it was perceived as sound and rallying.

As long as I am here the above conclusion will always stand refuted.

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:16 am

skynightblaze wrote:2 witness criteria is completely flawed. Infact this establishes that Thabit’s quran is more of a hoax than the quran of others.... how do we know which 2 companions narrated the verse? What if both the companions were not so good with memorizing quran and they narrated incorrectly or made some mistake?? This verse would still go inside the quran.....

If Zaid was present at the last recitation then why the hell was he required to collect the quran from memories of others??.... Even Ibn Masud was present during the last recitation and he recited quran before Muhammad before he died!..... As far as Masud is concerned the hadiths say that he RECITED MORE THAN 70 surahs in front of Muhammad. The hadith doesn't restrict the no to 70..... Atleast in case of Masud’s quran we know that every single verse is coming from a reliable narrator.We don’t even know that in case of Thabits quran!

We learn from Bukhari that the 2 memorizers were brought in to confirm the search. That's what is asked in 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2.
More so this codex alone was gathered from 'men of authority' (4.59). Not any other one. You're a logical prestidigitator, a cartoon:

skynightblaze wrote:2 witnesses is basically appealing to popularity fallacy.... this fallacy was committed by Thabit, Umar and others while collecting quran.

The whole exercise of compiling the Koran, from Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit, through 3 Quraysh experts (especially al-As),
is called CORROBORATION, a notion which seems absent from your vocabulary and mind. Repeat after me: CORROBORATION....

Now, the hadith about Masud mentioned 'more than 70' and this is certainly less than eighty... still far from the whole Koran.
So he couldn't have been a scribe at the last recitations. B.6.61.525-526 doesn't mention him but Ibn Thabit + 3 other Ansars.

And you dare to state that he was a reliable narrator while he was a Huzail, not an Ansar or Quraysh, the dialect of Muhammad! :wacko:

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Conclusion: The Uthman's codex was especially assembled to stop the dissensions. Since we don't even hear ANYTHING
against his codex in all the griefs leading to his murder, we must conclude that it was perceived as sound and rallying.

As long as I am here the above conclusion will always stand refuted.

Go ahead... PROVE us that such variants over the 'corrupted' Koran was a motive in Uthman's murder....

More clownesque 'logical' contortions expected from our third grade sophist...

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:05 am

Multiple wrote:Well CAT

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

Seems like you have carefully avoided this question from SNB. What a surprise.

You are STILL avoiding SNB's very pertinent question I see CAT.

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:13 pm

The Cat wrote: We learn from Bukhari that the 2 memorizers were brought in to confirm the search. That's what is asked in 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2.

I ask you again. Why did Umar make his copy public if it was so was so reliable? You simply have no answer to this question. Now you should stop acting like an idiot here. 2:282,5:106 and 65:2 have got nothing to do with the issue at hand. The circumstances under which those verses were revealed were completely different.

I have also shown you how 2 witness test makes quran completely unreliable in the post above. I think you were never taught that if you dont have answers to something then you should keep silent rather than making a fool of yourself.

The Cat wrote:More so this codex alone was gathered from 'men of authority' (4.59). Not any other one. You're a logical prestidigitator, a cartoon:

Apart from Umar no caliph personally took any part in collection of quran. They merely delegated the task to others so stop bullsh!tting.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:2 witnesses is basically appealing to popularity fallacy.... this fallacy was committed by Thabit, Umar and others while collecting quran.

I have told you before that you multiply your stupidity by using those smilies especially when you have got no point. We already by now know that you are incapable of coherent debate. The whole thread is a proof of this.

The Cat wrote: The whole exercise of compiling the Koran, from Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit, through 3 Quraysh experts (especially al-As),
is called CORROBORATION, a notion which seems absent from your vocabulary and mind. Repeat after me: CORROBORATION....

The whole of Kufa backed Masud's quran, the whole Of Syria backed Ubai's quran and the whole of Damascus backed ABu Musa's quran so corroboration of Thabit;s quran by 4-5 people simply is not any significant or unique and hence there is no reason as to why special preference be given to Thabit's quran.

Certainly people of Kufa ,Syria and Damascus were witnesses to copies of Masud , Ubai and Abu Musa's respectively and hence their quran was also a result of corroboration. Thabit's quran had nothing unique about it as you desperately try to portray here. Infact quran of today is from the least reliable source which excludes the top narrators of quran like Masud, Ubai , Abu Musa or Salim as mentioned by Muhammad himself.

The Cat wrote: Now, the hadith about Masud mentioned 'more than 70' and this is certainly less than eighty... still far from the whole Koran.
So he couldn't have been a scribe at the last recitations. B.6.61.525-526 doesn't mention him but Ibn Thabit + 3 other Ansars.

That hadith says that Masud recited more than 70 Surahs in front of Muhammad. It doesn't say he only knew 70 odd Surahs so stop trolling!.

More ever I also showed you a quote from Ibn Sad which clearly says that Masud learned the entire quran from Muhammad after Gabriel recited in front of Muhammad. This means Masud knew the entire quran.

The quote from Bukhari which you brought merely makes a mention of who collected the quran.Again I repeat.... It merely says who all ran the race but it doesn't say how they ran the race. More ever Masud is mentioned some where else by Sahih muslim and Sahih Bukhari as one of the top collectors of quran . Now even if we assume that Masud wasn't mentioned in that hadith , we can see Ubai;s name in that hadith. Ubai disagreed with Thabit's quran so you should have no problem in accepting that Thabit's quran was unreliable but since you are a troll you wouldn't do that.

The Cat wrote: And you dare to state that he was a reliable narrator while he was a Huzail, not an Ansar or Quraysh, the dialect of Muhammad! :wacko:

I know you are hurt if quran is proven as a word of a man. The dialect has zero utility if the content is unreliable. Dialect cannot be a reason for something to be considered as reliable.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
As long as I am here the above conclusion will always stand refuted.
Go ahead... PROVE us that such variants over the 'corrupted' Koran was a motive in Uthman's murder....

More clownesque 'logical' contortions expected from our third grade sophist...

I didn't say that Uthman's murder was as a result of standardization of quran . I gave other reasons as to why Uthman;s codex was unreliable.

And look who is doing the name calling

.I have proven time and again that you are a con man and a gigantic troll . Readers can easily see that..

Btw here is the question for you again :

DO YOU BELIEVE QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

If you don't answer this question this time around then we can take that you are a muslim. Your posts indicate clearly that you are a muslim.There is nothing to hide about it.

yeezevee · Post by **yeezevee** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:21 am

Multiple wrote:
Multiple wrote:Well CAT

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

Seems like you have carefully avoided this question from SNB. What a surprise.
You are STILL avoiding SNB's very pertinent question I see CAT.

skynightblaze wrote: ................Btw here is the question for you again :
DO YOU BELIEVE QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

If you don't answer this question this time around then we can take that you are a muslim. Your posts indicate clearly that you are a muslim.There is nothing to hide about it.

are you guys threatening The Cat with these words dear SKB?? ..lol..

If you don't answer this question this time around then we can take that you are a muslim.

The Cat knows how to jump over the wall... lol.., Any ways speaking about early history of Islam and origin of Quran, what bother me from the posts of The Cat is statements like these

The Cat wrote: We learn from Bukhari that the 2 memorizers were brought in to confirm the search. That's what is asked in 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2. More so this codex alone was gathered from 'men of authority' (4.59). Not any other one.

What proof do we have to believe that Quran was collected by men of authority? Nothing., that is an assumption with the hope That Quran alone Islam could be a tamed beast without all those additional horrible hadiths/sunnah that puts Muhammad the prophet of Islam as "Criminal Character"

The Cat wrote: The whole exercise of compiling the Koran, from Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit, through 3 Quraysh experts (especially al-As), is called CORROBORATION , a notion which seems absent from your vocabulary and mind. Repeat after me: CORROBORATION....

And what proof do we have that CORROBORATED Quran by Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit is the correct version of Quran that came out of Muhammad's Mouth where Gabriel allegedly spoke through Muhammad and Muhammad was in trance?? .... NOTHING...

The Cat wrote:Conclusion: The Uthman's codex was especially assembled to stop the dissensions. Since we don't even hear ANYTHING against his codex in all the griefs leading to his murder, we must conclude that it was perceived as sound and rallying.

Again that conclusion is an assumption with NO PROOF., As far as Murder of of Caliphs Uthman'

Go ahead... PROVE us that such variants over the 'corrupted' Koran was a motive in Uthman's murder..

or Umar, Ali ibn Abi Talib is concerned, it is nothing to do with Quran it is all to do with infighting of clans for the sake of loot and booty...

So The Cat you got to come out with better counter argument to make Quran as word of Allah or even uncorrupted word of Muhammad.. otherwise Quran is as good as Hadith..

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:42 am

yeezevee wrote:
1) What proof do we have to believe that Quran was collected by men authority?
2) what proof do we have CORROBORATED Quran by Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit is the correct version of Quran?
3) Again that conclusion is an assumption with NO PROOF
4) it is nothing to do with Quran it is all to do with infighting of clans for the sake of loot and booty...

1) Weren't Bakr/Umar and Uthman/Ali so 'men of authority'?
2) You'd have to prove that it wasn't collected in Muhammad's own dialect, that of the Quraysh.
3-4) Uthman's murder wasn't based on dissensions over the standard text. There SHOULD have been some in that case!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn ... _sentiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Uthman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:45 am

yeezevee wrote:
Multiple wrote:Well CAT

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

Seems like you have carefully avoided this question from SNB. What a surprise.
You are STILL avoiding SNB's very pertinent question I see CAT.

skynightblaze wrote: ................Btw here is the question for you again :
DO YOU BELIEVE QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??

If you don't answer this question this time around then we can take that you are a muslim. Your posts indicate clearly that you are a muslim.There is nothing to hide about it.

are you guys threatening The Cat with these words dear SKB?? ..lol..

If you don't answer this question this time around then we can take that you are a muslim.

The Cat knows how to jump over the wall... lol..,

Any ways speaking about early history of Islam and origin of Quran, what bother me from the posts of The Cat is statements like these

The Cat wrote: We learn from Bukhari that the 2 memorizers were brought in to confirm the search. That's what is asked in 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2. More so this codex alone was gathered from 'men of authority' (4.59). Not any other one.

What proof do we have to believe that Quran was collectd by men authority? Nothing., it is an assumption with the hope That Quran alone Islam could be a tamed beast without all those hadiths.

The Cat wrote: The whole exercise of compiling the Koran, from Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit, through 3 Quraysh experts (especially al-As), is calledCORROBORATION ,a notion which seems absent from your vocabulary and mind. Repeat after me: CORROBORATION....

And what proof do we have CORROBORATED Quran by Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit is the correct version of Quran that came out of Muhammad's Mouth where Gabriel allegedly spoke through Muhammad and Muhammad was in trance?? .... NOTHING...

The Cat wrote:Conclusion: The Uthman's codex was especially assembled to stop the dissensions. Since we don't even hear ANYTHING against his codex in all the griefs leading to his murder, we must conclude that it was perceived as sound and rallying.

Again that conclusion is an assumption with NO PROOF., As far as Murder of of Caliphs Uthman'

Go ahead... PROVE us that such variants over the 'corrupted' Koran was a motive in Uthman's murder..

or Umar, Ali ibn Abi Talib is concerned, it is nothing to do with Quran it is all to do with infighting of clans for the sake of loot and booty...

So The Cat you got to come out with better counter argument to make Quran as word of Allah or even uncorrupted word of Muhammad.. otherwise Quran is as good as Hadith..[/quote]

The Koran is even less reliable than any Hadith at least the Hadith were written by REAL people not IMAGINARY ones . The ONLY person who ever saw Jibril was Old Mo the ONLY person who ever said Jibril got the Koran as HEARSAY from allah was Old Mo. The ONLY person to pass on this HEARSAY to the many many scribes was ILLITERATE Old Mo (how much HEARSAY did that entail???) . So to argue about the assembly years and YEARS later of all the bits and pieces( and who says they found them all???) the SCRIBES wrote on bits of bone and hides is IRRELEVANT. The Koran was already a CHINESE WHISPER before anyone did anything with it and the ONLY way it can be defended is if you start of from a point of ABSOLUTE BELIEF in Old Mo himself. So what is it CAT is Old Mo really a PROPHET who listened to HEARSAY from GOD via Jibril and can you PROVE IT?????? Because if you cant all this talk of who did what and this verse says this is completely IRRELEVANT.

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:48 am

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
1) What proof do we have to believe that Quran was collected by men authority?
2) what proof do we have CORROBORATED Quran by Abu Bakr/Omar to Uthman/Thabit is the correct version of Quran?
3) Again that conclusion is an assumption with NO PROOF
4) it is nothing to do with Quran it is all to do with infighting of clans for the sake of loot and booty...
1) Weren't Bakr/Umar and Uthman/Ali so 'men of authority'?
2) You'd have to prove that it wasn't collected in Muhammad's own dialect, that of the Quraysh.
3-4) Uthman's murder wasn't based on dissensions over the standard text. There SHOULD have been some in that case!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn ... _sentiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Uthman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope no answer to SNB's EXTREMELY pertinent question "DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN IS A WORD OF GOD??
here.
Why are you STILL trying to avoid it CAT???

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:57 am

I won't have much time for more clownesque 'logical' contortions from snb...

skynightblaze wrote: 1) Why did Umar make his copy public if it was so was so reliable?
2) 2:282,5:106 and 65:2 have got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
3) Apart from Umar no caliph personally took any part in collection of quran.
4) That hadith says that Masud recited more than 70 Surahs in front of Muhammad. More ever I also showed you a quote from Ibn Sad.
5) The quote from Bukhari which you brought merely makes a mention of who collected the quran...
Now even if we assume that Masud wasn't mentioned in that hadith , we can see Ubai;s name...

6)The dialect has zero utility if the content is unreliable. Dialect cannot be a reason for something to be considered as reliable.
7) I didn't say that Uthman's murder was as a result of standardization of quran . I gave other reasons as to why Uthman;s codex was unreliable.

8) Do you believe Quran is a word of God??

1) Your sentence is unreadable. Then the Hafsa Codex never was that official or widely distributed. It rested kind of private.

2) They have EVERYTHING to do with validating ANY Islamic testimonies. Nothing of the like to ANY other codex is found.

3) We know of Abu Bakr, Uthman and Ali, taking at least some part in its collection.

4) Read again B.6.61.622: ''By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle....''
So he admittedly wasn't -present- for many of them. So he couldn't be at the last recitations.
About Sa'd this hadith isn't even reported by Bukhari, nor even Malik! Don't copy/paste from second source.

5) Don't 'assume'. It's not in B.6.61.525-526! In B.6.61.527 Kab is left over by Umar. Again, he wasn't a Quraysh but a Khazraj.

6) The only reliable dialect to standardize the Koran was that of Muhammad's Quraysh as there were dozens of others in yet forming Arabic.

7) You came with NOTHING worthy and -disproven- by the fact that we don't hear about uprisings in Kufa, Damascus, Basra or Syria
about the major blasphemy that would have been changing the Koran, nor in the motives of Uthman's murder, not even that of Ali.
Instead what we have is an overwhelming consensus of most of the Shahabas, including Ali.

8) In the Koran the 'word of God' is Isa/Jesus (4.171), so what are you talking about? And then, who's a Koranic 'Muslim'?
The Koranic -Isa (son of...)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Cat · Post by **The Cat** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:01 am

Multiple wrote:The Koran is even less reliable than any Hadith at least the Hadith were written by REAL people not IMAGINARY ones.

Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...

Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people,
while narrator F (out of 6 or 7) in any isnad was real and authentically reproduced narrator C.

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:20 am

The Cat wrote:I won't have much time for more clownesque 'logical' contortions from snb...

You should be banned if you further use the word "Logic". That's a blasphemy to logic ! You don't even understand what logic means.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: 1) Why did Umar make his copy public if it was so was so reliable?
Your sentence is unreadable. Then the Hafsa Codex never was that official or widely distributed. It rested kind of private.

I am asking you why didn't Umar release his copy in the public especially when you claim that it was the most authentic of all? My question was obvious and the only mistake I made was I said "did" instead of "didn't".

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 2) 2:282,5:106 and 65:2 have got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
2) They have EVERYTHING to do with validating ANY Islamic testimonies. Nothing of the like to ANY other codex is found.

Backing some text is same as acting witnesses. Infact other text had more witnesses than Thabit's quran.Secondly I am not going to repeat things again and again. Those verses deal with different contexts and 2 witness test is a great flop show. I have already proven the problems with this 2 witness test and you did't even try to attempt to refute me.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 3) Apart from Umar no caliph personally took any part in collection of quran.
3) We know of Abu Bakr, Uthman and Ali, taking at least some part in its collection.

SOME PART cannot guarantee accuracy or reliability. Apart from Umar who also didn't know the entire quran none of the caliphs personally took initiative to validate the verses of the quran. Your dishonest attempt has been caught here. YOu try to somehow give legitimacy to Thabit's quran by claiming that 4 rightly guided caliphs took part in their collection. They didn't with the exception of Umar. MERE INCLUSION OF THEIR NAMES DO NOT VALIDATE THE QURAN! . Quran was written down from memories of men. Umar made an announcement that who ever has any verse should bring it to him with 2 witnesses.

. Umar used to include the verse in the quran based on testimonies of 2 people. Now the problem is we if we pick up any verse from the quran we don't even know which 2 testimonies were selected by Umar. We are left to assume that 2 witnesses who narrated this verse were actually trustworthy or they narrated accurately and didn't make any mistake. More ever we have seen that certain verses made way into quran without satisfying 2 witness condition.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 4) That hadith says that Masud recited more than 70 Surahs in front of Muhammad. More ever I also showed you a quote from Ibn Sad.
4) Read again B.6.61.622: ''By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle....''
So he admittedly wasn't -present- for many of them. So he couldn't be at the last recitations.
About Sa'd this hadith isn't even reported by Bukhari, nor even Malik! Don't copy/paste from second source.

AS far as Masud is concerned his reliability can also be seen in Sahih muslim. I have quoted the hadith in my previous post itself. Masud claimed that he knew the book of Allah better than anyone and the companions sitting nearby didn't disagree or say a single word in opposition. If Masud knew only 70 surahs then someone would have opposed his statement that he didn't the complete book of GOd. Look at the following narration from Sahih muslim...

Spoiler! :

Now you accused me of quoting secondary sources so I brought a primary source in my defense. Now please show us the primary source wherein it is said that Thabit was present at the last recital. Please show us proofs which indicate that Thabit knew all the 114 chapters of the present day quran using primary sources.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 5) The quote from Bukhari which you brought merely makes a mention of who collected the quran...
Now even if we assume that Masud wasn't mentioned in that hadith , we can see Ubai;s name...
5) Don't 'assume'. It's not in B.6.61.525-526! In B.6.61.527 Kab is left over by Umar. Again, he wasn't a Quraysh but a Khazraj.

Neither was Thabit a quraish. Thabit belonged to Medina . Umar could have got quran from Ubai and then asked Quraish to finalize so this excuse doesnt work for you unfortunately MR CON MAN.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 6)The dialect has zero utility if the content is unreliable. Dialect cannot be a reason for something to be considered as reliable.
6) The only reliable dialect to standardize the Koran was that of Muhammad's Quraysh as there were dozens
of others in yet forming Arabic.

Dialect has got no significance . The main thing is content. Dialect is of secondary importance. You missed the boat completely here.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 7) I didn't say that Uthman's murder was as a result of standardization of quran . I gave other reasons as to why Uthman;s codex was unreliable.
7) You came with NOTHING worthy and -disproven- by the fact that we don't hear about uprisings in Kufa, Damascus, Basra or Syriaabout the major blasphemy that would have been changing the Koran, nor in the motives of Uthman's murder, not even that of Ali.Instead what we have is an overwhelming consensus of most of the Shahabas, including Ali.

There was discontent among muslims. I have provided countless proofs of discontent amongst muslims because of Uthman;s quran being standardized so there was never a consensus of everyone about Thabit;s quran. Murder of Uthman and Ali was on account of different reasons. Mere disagreement about Quran within the muslims alone is a sufficient proof that quran of Thabit wasn't considered reliable at all.We don't need people to murder Uthman or Ali for that.

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: 8) Do you believe Quran is a word of God??
8) In the Koran the 'word of God' is Isa/Jesus (4.171), so what are you talking about? And then, who's a Koranic 'Muslim'?
The Koranic -Isa (son of...)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice attempt at diversion!.What you said is completely irrelevant and doesn't answer my question. My question to you ARE YOU A MUSLIM?? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QURAN CAME FROM GOD"S MOUTH???

YES OR NO would answer my question. So please answer the question again..

skynightblaze · Post by **skynightblaze** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:28 am

@Yeezevee

Don't fall for his trick. Notice how he is practicing deception by saying 4 Caliphs took part in the collection of quran. 3 out of 4 caliphs merely delegated the task of collection of quran. They didn't validate the verses at all. The only caliph who participate in the collection of quran in the real sense was Umar but again Umar wasn't aware of the complete quran. He had memorized only a few portions of the quran and Umar used to include verses in the quran merely on the basis of 2 testimonies . He asked people to come up with verses and 2 testimonies.Now pick up any verse from quran and we dont even know who the witness for each verse were and how reliable or accurately they narrated those verses. More ever if you have followed our debate then you would see that 2 witness criteria was also not followed strictly. Some verses made way into quran even without 2 witnesses. CAT Is a con man who is merely trying to make Thabit;s quran legitimate by trying show as if 4 caliphs actually verified the contents of quran.

Multiple · Post by **Multiple** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:50 am

The Cat wrote:
Multiple wrote:The Koran is even less reliable than any Hadith at least the Hadith were written by REAL people not IMAGINARY ones.
Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...

Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people,
while narrator F (out of 6 or 7) in any isnad was real and authentically reproduced narrator C.

How strange you seem by your ridiculous answer to be insinuating that Umar/Uthaman and Ali actually WROTE the Koran. HOW PECULIAR and how Islamically illogical .But then nothing needs to be proved regarding Umar/Uthman/Ali et al unless and until YOU can prove that Old Mo really spoke to Jibril and that Jibril REALLY spoke to Allah and of course you cannot so the whole ISNAD of the Koran depends on if you believe Mohammad or not. So come on CAT tell us do you unreservedly believe that Mohammad got his HEARSAY Koran from Jibril who got it by HEARSAY from allah and passed it by HEARSAY to many many scribes who wrote it down on scraps of hide and bone and then YEARS and YEARS later gathered all them up, at least those bits they could find ( actually this last part IS TRUE thats the REAL ISNAD of the Koran Hearsay, followed by more hearsay followed by even more hearsay

). Dont keep AVOIDING the issue and RUNNING AWAY and throwing out the AD HOMINEM's ( just like a MUSLIM would do. I agree with SNB you most certainly must be a Mohammedan) from this vital question which is the ROOT of the argument. If you dont believe the Koran is really from allah then what is the point of arguing about it. But if you DO believe the Koran is really from allah its up to YOU first to ADMIT it then to prove to us that it is. OLD MO the perverts word is I am afraid just not good enough.

Faith Freedom International

Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?