Winter Ramadan Investigation (as outlined by The Natural Republic)

Noon_waalqalami

Insulting only shows you are either upset or do not have a foundation to base your rhetoric upon. If you cannot bring evidence to support your efforts, then refrain from responding. You do yourself no favors by insulting a person you are in a discussion with.

It's you who started with accusations and insults when you stated I'm hiding information.

Also you write too much, all over the place put everything into a blender and lack focus one thing at a time...

Now let's look into what you've stated.

2255 http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wsn#(225510)
snh -- where is waw?

I want to point out something for you since you using corpus.quran.com as a resource.

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wsn#

"The triliteral root ww sn nn ( &#1606 occurs only once in the Quran, as the noun sinat (&#1577. The translation below is a brief gloss intended as a guide to meaning. An Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Click on the word for more linguistic information, or to suggestion a correction."

This is taken from the very top of the link you posted.

I would suggest you contact them as well with your claims. I have no doubt they would love to hear how they are incorrect so they can update their database. If this is an error in translation, it is a huge mistake that needs to be rectified as even the Arabic transliterations say (sinatun) in Surah 2255. Among other instances.

Surah 2255 ( &#1612
ww sn nn ( &#1606
waw initial (&#1608 medial (&#1608 final (&#1608
sin initial (&#1600 medial(&#1600 final (&#1587
nun initial (&#1600 medial (&#1600 final (&#1606
(&#1606

Six letters ( &#1575 don't have a distinct medial form and have to be written with their final form without being connected to the next letter. Their initial form matches the isolated form.

Take any Qur'an remove dialectical marks put in place 150 years after Qu'ran -- show us waw in the word?

raginggaijin

It's you who started with accusations and insults when you stated I'm hiding information.

Your earlier posts prove you have kept out information. That's not an insult, that was a statement of fact. When you were called out for it, you gave excuse. Yet by not bringing all the ayats that contain variations of the word (&#1611 you have kept ayats out that give your interpretation trouble.

Sanatin (&#1611 Surah 296, 526, 2247, 2914, 325, 4615, 704
Sunnat (&#1577 Surah 1513, 1777, 1855, 3338, 3362, 4823
Sinatun (&#1612 Surah 2255

An example is in Surah 3362.

"Course (sunnata)(&#1614 of The God (l-lahi) with (f&#299 those who (alladhna) preceded (khalaw) from (min) before (qablu), and not (walan) you will find (tajida) to course (lisunnati) (&#1616 of The God (l-lahi) any change (tabdlan)." Surah 3362

Using your 'age' interpretation

"Age of The God with those who preceded from before, and not you will find to age of The God any change."

There will be no change to the age of The God with those who preceded before? Really? How is the age of our Creator in any way, shape or form, have something to do with how He chastises the hypocrites? Read Surah 33;60-61.

Also you write too much, all over the place put everything into a blender and lack focus one thing at a time...

Invalidation. It's right up there with Insult. Avoid it, focus on evidence.

Evidence is brought that shows the issues with your interpretation in a linear format that breaks it down. If you cannot understand it, that's your issue.

Take any Qur'an remove dialectical marks put in place 150 years after Qu'ran -- show us waw in the word?

This is the system you want to use to interpret the Quran. I understand that.

What is bolded in your post is the strawman you set up.
What is underlined in your post is the claim you made. Show me in the Quran where this is stated. Bring your proof of this claim - or am I to take your word for it? You have already suppressed evidence.

Show me in the Quran where this system is taught.
When you do not - because you cannot - why do you insist upon it? Especially when your interpretation falls apart when all of the ayats are brought forth?

Remember The Quran was written during the time of revelation.

Surah 2948, 964, 681, 8011-16
?No indeed; it is a Reminder, and whoso wills, shall remember it, upon pages (suhufin) high-honoured, exalted (MarfooAAatin), purified, by the hands of scribes noble, pious.? Surah 8011-16

You've made a claim. Now back it up with evidence from the Quran.
When you cannot then why do you expect anyone to follow you instead of following Allah? I believe in the Book, all of it, even the dialectics. It is all from Allah.

"Those to whom We have given the Book and who recite it with true recitation, they believe in it; and whoso disbelieves in it, they shall be the losers." Surah 2121

"It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds." Surah 37

Remember you were shown using corpus.quran.com a way to view the Arabic revelation. Here's a direct link

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_255.png

See that?

http//img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/raginggaijin/2255.jpg

I get it. With the dialectics, your theory doesn't work. But is that a system Allah teaches?

I've posted the link to the Arabic revelation and provided directions on finding the letters within it. If you do not like it and refuse to accept it, there is nothing I can do. You made your choice.

Lunation - a period of time - (sanatin) (&#1611 Surah 296, 526, 2247, 2914, 325, 4615, 704
Course - a mode of action during a period of time - (sunnat) (&#1577 Surah 1513, 1777, 1855, 3338, 3362, 4823
Slumber - a period of rest - (sinatun) (&#1612 Surah 2255

All deal with periods of time.

Truth stands clear from falsehood.

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

Your earlier posts prove you have kept out information. That's not an insult, that was a statement of fact. When you were called out for it, you gave excuse. Yet by not bringing all the ayats that contain variations of the word (&#1611 you have kept ayats out that give your interpretation trouble.

Sanatin (&#1611 Surah 296, 526, 2247, 2914, 325, 4615, 704
Sunnat (&#1577 Surah 1513, 1777, 1855, 3338, 3362, 4823
Sinatun (&#1612 Surah 2255

An example is in Surah 3362.

"Course (sunnata)(&#1614 of The God (l-lahi) with (f&#299 those who (alladhna) preceded (khalaw) from (min) before (qablu), and not (walan) you will find (tajida) to course (lisunnati) (&#1616 of The God (l-lahi) any change (tabdlan)." Surah 3362

Using your 'age' interpretation

"Age of The God with those who preceded from before, and not you will find to age of The God any change."

There will be no change to the age of The God with those who preceded before? Really? How is the age of our Creator in any way, shape or form, have something to do with how He chastises the hypocrites? Read Surah 33;60-61.

How would lunation / 29.530589 days make sense and why would His age change?
Likewise, show lunation in any Arabic dictionaries or anything close to its meaning?

OK again you really need to focus one word/verse at a time...

Remember you were shown using corpus.quran.com a way to view the Arabic revelation. Here's a direct link

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_255.png

See that?

http//img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/raginggaijin/2255.jpg

Where did you get the above?

What 3 letters exactly are in the word highlighted "red" and please translate with the word prior?

raginggaijin

How would lunation / 29.530589 days make sense and why would His age change?

I am not the one saying the word is lunation. I translate it in as 'course'. You were even shown this in the reply.

Course - a mode of action during a period of time - (sunnat) (&#1577 Surah 1513, 1777, 1855, 3338, 3362, 4823

Likewise, show lunation in any Arabic dictionaries or anything close to its meaning?

I don't go by Arabic dictionaries. The Quran contains an explanation and description for everything. Do you disagree?

"In their stories is surely a lesson to men possessed of minds; it is not a tale forged, but a confirmation of what is before it, and a distinguishing of every thing, and a guidance, and a mercy to a people who believe." Surah 12111

"And the day We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst them, and We shall bring thee as a witness against those. And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender." Surah 1689

"We have appointed the night and the day as two signs; then We have blotted out the sign of the night, and made the sign of the day to see, and that you may seek bounty from your Lord, and that you may know the number of the years, and the reckoning; and everything We have distinguished very distinctly." Surah 1712

"Now We have sent down to you signs making all clear, and an example of those who passed away before you, and an admonition for the godfearing." Surah 2434

What hadith will you believe in after Allah and His revelation?

You are given images from the Arabic revelations. You see exactly what is shown, but refuse to acknowledge it.

The waw (&#1608 is right between the words, but you omit it. It doesn't matter if it's small, it's there.

Suppression of evidence once again.

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

I am not the one saying the word is lunation. I translate it in as 'course'. You were even shown this in the reply.

Course - a mode of action during a period of time - (sunnat) (&#1577 Surah 1513, 1777, 1855, 3338, 3362, 4823

I see now like during a period of time or age its?

I don't go by Arabic dictionaries. The Quran contains an explanation and description for everything. Do you disagree?

No, I agree it?s obvious that you don?t go by Arabic dictionaries.
No, I agree that the Qur?an ?in Arabic? contains an explanation.

121 Alif Lam Ra these verses the book the clear
122 indeed We We sent it Qur?an Arabic that may use reason

You are given images from the Arabic revelations. You see exactly what is shown, but refuse to acknowledge it.

The waw (&#1608 is right between the words, but you omit it. It doesn't matter if it's small, it's there.

Suppression of evidence once again.

No, it cannot be between the words else it would be an initial; so to which word exactly does it belong?

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_255.png
http//oi46.tinypic.com/mstbm.jpg

Again please translate in context the word highlighted in red?

2255 ? not seizes Him (snh) and not sleep?
11102 ? indeed seize its painful severe

Now tell us which word does this tiny dialectical mark ?waw? belongs to ? seize its or painful?

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/11_102.png
http//oi46.tinypic.com/23r5lyt.jpg

Peace

raginggaijin

I see now like during a period of time or age its?

And why not? If the words are similar but different in dialectic, then the basal meaning will reflect that root word. Do you disagree?

As for 'age' the term is used to denote how long something has existed, an era of history. This is an era, an epoch. In this we disagree on the meaning.

The word root denotes a period of time - an amount. What that amount of time is will be known by the dialectics.
Is it a period of being tired? We are not fatigued for an epoch.
Using the corpus.quran translation of 'slumber' for a period of sleep. We do not slumber for an era.
Is it a season? Seasons are annual, not spanning an era.
It is a course of events? These span numerous eras as Allah is Living, Undying. Allah does not change, nor does He change His course (sunnati Allahi) Surah 6124, 6115, 1064, 1777, 1827, 3030, 3362, 4815, 4823, 673-4

No, I agree it?s obvious that you don?t go by Arabic dictionaries.
No, I agree that the Qur?an ?in Arabic? contains an explanation.

Then why do you go to other books and Lexicons to find meanings for the Quran?

121 Alif Lam Ra these verses the book the clear
122 indeed We We sent it Qur?an Arabic that may use reason

There are 28 letters in the arabic language. Are you saying the other 14 not used as Quran initials are suspect? What exactly are you striving to say here?

No, it cannot be between the words else it would be an initial; so to which word exactly does it belong?

You ignore the Arabic language rules, stated earlier for you.

Six letters ( &#1575 don't have a distinct medial form and have to be written with their final form without being connected to the next letter. Their initial form matches the isolated form.

As well, that's a question I will have to put to corpus.quran.com, as our discussion has led me to the Arabic revelation - I own the printed Arabic Quran - but the corpus.quran.com website has the word attached to the previous word, while their own discussion adds it to the following word.

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=5182

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wsn#%28225510%29

From their link "The triliteral root ww sn nn ( &#1606 occurs only once in the Quran, as the noun sinat (&#1577."

Now, you've brought the corpus.quran.com as a resource for your argument, yet you reject it when it suits your desires. Why is that?

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_255.png

Again please translate in context the word highlighted in red?

2255 ? not seizes Him (snh) and not sleep?
11102 ? indeed seize its painful severe

The word is 'fatigue' (&#1612 (sinatun); you remove the dialectics but that does not mean they are not in the Arabic Quran. Allah even describes later in the same ayat how sustaining the heavens and the earth does not tire Him at all. This is from my own translation I am working on

"The God, no God except Him, the Living, the Sustainer. Not overtakes Him a fatigue nor sleep. For Him is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. Who is one of the ones who intercedes with Him except by His permission? He knows what is between their hands and what succeeds them. And they encompass not anything of His knowledge except what He wills. His Throne encompasses the heavens and the earth, and guarding those tires Him not. And He is the High, the Great." Surah 2255

Are you saying that is not true?

Are you claiming that the Quran has been changed or altered by these dialectics? By upholding this strawman theory, you back yourself into a corner you profess the Quran has been changed and is not protected. If the dialectic marks are not from Allah, then how are they in the Arabic revelation?

If that is your belief, I do not believe as you do. Allah protects the Quran. Falsehood does not enter it, in the past or in the future. Surah 159, 4141-42, 1339, 4224, 8521-22, 1827, 7227, 181

"Those who disbelieve in the Remembrance when it comes to them -- and surely it is a Book Sublime; falsehood comes not to it from before it nor from behind it; a sending down from One All-wise, All-laudable." Surah 4141-42

I'll post the reply from corpus.quran.com if and when they reply to this issue.

Peace. )

Noon_waalqalami

Then why do you go to other books and Lexicons to find meanings for the Quran?

Qur'an is in Arabic! Therefore.

There are 28 letters in the arabic language. Are you saying the other 14 not used as Quran initials are suspect? What exactly are you striving to say here?

Point was to show the "waw" you posted belongs to word prior not to

As well, that's a question I will have to put to corpus.quran.com, as our discussion has led me to the Arabic revelation - I own the printed Arabic Quran - but the corpus.quran.com website has the word attached to the previous word, while their own discussion adds it to the following word.

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=5182

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wsn#%28225510%29

The "waw" belongs to end of the prior word. No word in Qu'ran what you posted..

You still insist should be written as ?

This was clearly shown and you're still not convinced?

http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_255.png
http//oi46.tinypic.com/mstbm.jpg

2255 ? not seizes Him (snh) and not sleep?

Peace

raginggaijin

Qur'an is in Arabic! Therefore.

Therefore why do you seek Lexicons to give you descriptions to words that the Quran contains descriptions for? Especially when you bring a Lexicon that speaks of camel urine and has no bearing on the word in question?

"Therefore" is not a valid reason. In what hadith will you believe in after Allah and His revelation?

Point was to show the "waw" you posted belongs to word prior not to

Then why is the "waw" not part of the previous word - even in transliteration?

Here's a link to corpus.quran.com that details the word prior

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Ax*#%2822559%29

From the link

The triliteral root hamza kh dhl ( &#1584 occurs 273 times in the Quran, in seven derived forms

127 times as the form I verb akhadha (&#1614
nine times as the form III verb yukhidhu (&#1615
124 times as the form VIII verb ittakhadha (&#1614
six times as the verbal noun akhdh (&#1584
three times as the active participle khidh (&#1584
once as the form VIII verbal noun ittikhdh (&#1584
three times as the form VIII active participle muttakhidh (&#1584

Was a mistake made on corpus.quran.com? I do not know.
All I know is what the Arabic revelation upholds, and it matches the trilateral root ww sn nn ( &#1606, especially when the Arabic language rules confirm the stand-alone script of waw (&#1608.

The "waw" belongs to end of the prior word. No word in Qu'ran what you posted..

That statement falls apart when the previous word ( ) is brought to bear, as shown above. Yet as proven by the Arabic language rules, waw (&#1608 fits in with the following word (&#1577.

You still insist should be written as ?

This was clearly shown and you're still not convinced?

Here is what is clearly shown

(&#1612 does not mean 'age'. The word alone - ignoring your conflict with me concerning where waw (&#1608 is located - the word does not mean 'age'
Dialectics are part of the Arabic revelation.
waw (&#1608 is in Surah 2255 and in between the two words ( )and (&#1577.
The triliteral root ww sn nn ( &#1606 occurs only once in the Quran, as the noun sinat (&#1577 in Surah 2255 according to corpus.quran.com. This waw (&#1608 is associated with (&#1612 but not associated with ( ) according to corpus.quran.com. This fits Arabic language rules.
The Quran is complete and fully detailed, with an explanation for everything.
The Quran is untampered; pure and error-free.

What is also clearly shown

You have suppressed evidence.
Your translation theory of using only trilateral roots is proven invalid and not supported by the teachings within the Quran.
You rely on outside sources for explanation of the Quran.

With all these reasons why you are incorrect, why would I be convinced of anything you say?

This exercise has been useful in refuting your translation theory and to show your deceitful actions in suppressing evidence that conflicts with your translation theory.
Your theory is proven wrong, multiple times. Based on Arabic language rules the words work out. It is only when you bring your fallible theory into play that there arose issues.

You are more than welcome to believe whatever you desire. As for me, your points have been thoroughly refuted. You are unable to refute what is shown. Your counting system is flawed, your numbers are incorrect, and your translation is errant.

You have an issue with corpus.quran.com. Take that up with them, I am not their spokesperson.
Unless you have something new to bring, this conversation is over.
Your points are refuted. Move along.

Peace. )

Noon_waalqalami

Therefore why do you seek Lexicons to give you descriptions to words that the Quran contains descriptions for? Especially when you bring a Lexicon that speaks of camel urine and has no bearing on the word in question?

"Therefore" is not a valid reason. In what hadith will you believe in after Allah and His revelation?

I question now your logic -- the Qur'an is in Arabic not in Albanian or Zulu or whatever language.
Therefore, a person needs to understand Arabic language to understand Qur'an -- this is simple.

Then why is the "waw" not part of the previous word - even in transliteration?
Here's a link to corpus.quran.com that details the word prior

Now I'm questioning your vision. It is clear "it is" present in the word prior...

http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=255

overtakes/seizes Him
http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=5182

Likewise as already stated I've stripped all markings and use cross reference and context each word along with study of Arabic Lexicons and language since those markings were added much later to promote a certain interpretation.

That statement falls apart when the previous word ( ) is brought to bear, as shown above. Yet as proven by the Arabic language rules, waw (&#1608 fits in with the following word (&#1577.

What you wrote is nonsense -- "and snh/sunnah" word does not exist in Qur'an!

Here is what is clearly shown

(&#1612 does not mean 'age'. The word alone - ignoring your conflict with me concerning where waw (&#1608 is located - the word does not mean 'age'

2255 The God not deity except He The Living The Sustainer of all not seizes Him snh/age His and not sleep ....

The above fits perfectly within context and again there is no "waw" in the word nor does it start with waw/and which would sound senseless in Arabic or any language; "not seizes Him and snh and not sleep"...

Here is an example from recent events...
28 ""
Said Pope Benedict XVI's announcement Monday that he will resign as of Feb. 28, he no longer has the "power" required to stay on top of the church because of his age.

Dialectics are part of the Arabic revelation.
waw (&#1608 is in Surah 2255 and in between the two words ( )and (&#1577.
The triliteral root ww sn nn ( &#1606 occurs only once in the Quran, as the noun sinat (&#1577 in Surah 2255 according to corpus.quran.com. This waw (&#1608 is associated with (&#1612 but not associated with ( ) according to corpus.quran.com. This fits Arabic language rules.
The Quran is complete and fully detailed, with an explanation for everything.
The Quran is untampered; pure and error-free.

It is clear dialectic marks were not in oldest texts of Qur'an and shown that waw was inserted in the word prior not what you state nor would it make any sense -- see reply in other thread...

Peace Alleycats,

Yes Kufi, dialectical markings to preserve a particular pronunciation in writing and verse numbers, etc., were introduced much later. The first 150 years early copies of Qur'an were without vowel marks and dots to distinguish between different letters which look the same when written and one needs to use context and careful cross-reference examination to distinguish correct meaning, e.g.

the male/reminder (use context)
411 directs you The God in your children lildhakari/to the male like share the two (feminine)
159 indeed, We We have descended alththikra/the reminder and indeed for it surely Guardians

http//www.unesco-ci.org/photos/showphoto.php/photo/3355/title/highlights3a-letter-po/cat/837
End of chapter 9129 and start chapter 101 to verses 103 and part of 104
Script Kufi Masahif
Copying date 2nd Century
http//www.unesco-ci.org/photos/data/837/10big.jpg

The only dots are red/green hamza markings as shown below?
Qur'an 1st/2nd centuries Chapter 60 part 4 to 8 and part of 9

http//oi50.tinypic.com/20hldo0.jpg

What is also clearly shown

You have suppressed evidence.
Your translation theory of using only trilateral roots is proven invalid and not supported by the teachings within the Quran.
You rely on outside sources for explanation of the Quran.

With all these reasons why you are incorrect, why would I be convinced of anything you say?

This exercise has been useful in refuting your translation theory and to show your deceitful actions in suppressing evidence that conflicts with your translation theory.
Your theory is proven wrong, multiple times. Based on Arabic language rules the words work out. It is only when you bring your fallible theory into play that there arose issues.

You are more than welcome to believe whatever you desire. As for me, your points have been thoroughly refuted. You are unable to refute what is shown. Your counting system is flawed, your numbers are incorrect, and your translation is errant.

You have an issue with corpus.quran.com. Take that up with them, I am not their spokesperson.
Unless you have something new to bring, this conversation is over.
Your points are refuted. Move along.

The only thing clear is --- well I'll be nice and refrain. Therefore goodbye and peace to you.

raginggaijin

I question now your logic -- the Qur'an is in Arabic not in Albanian or Zulu or whatever language.
Therefore, a person needs to understand Arabic language to understand Qur'an -- this is simple.

You can understand Arabic without relying on Lexicons for translations. If the description given in the Quran is different than what is found in the hadith of Lexicons, reject the Lexicon and uphold the description in the Quran.

Now I'm questioning your vision. It is clear "it is" present in the word prior...

http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=255

overtakes/seizes Him
http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=5182

Feel free to question. It bothers me not. I let your words bear witness for you

So you use corpus.quran.com when it suits your purpose, but reject it when it doesn't. )

Again, take this up with corpus.quran.com. I am not their spokesperson.

As stated earlier, ignoring the controversy with corpus.quran.com the word (&#1612 does not mean 'age'.

Likewise as already stated I've stripped all markings and use cross reference and context each word along with study of Arabic Lexicons and language since those markings were added much later to promote a certain interpretation.

You've made this allegation again, yet you do not bring proof from the Quran of this statement. So why do you say about Allah that which you do not know nor can you prove.
Where in the Quran does it say it was only revealed in syllables? It does not.

Does the Quran state all of it comes from Allah? Yes, it does.

What you wrote is nonsense -- "and snh/sunnah" word does not exist in Qur'an!

2255 The God not deity except He The Living The Sustainer of all not seizes Him snh/age His and not sleep ....

The above fits perfectly within context and again there is no "waw" in the word nor does it start with waw/and which would sound senseless in Arabic or any language; "not seizes Him and snh and not sleep"...

You are welcome to believe as you desire. It matters not to me. Your interpretation theory is refuted and is not in accord with the Quran. In the End, Allah will judge between us in that which we differ. But I will restate I believe in the Quran, all of it. It is all from Allah.

Here is an example from recent events...
28 ""
Said Pope Benedict XVI's announcement Monday that he will resign as of Feb. 28, he no longer has the "power" required to stay on top of the church because of his age.

It is clear dialectic marks were not in oldest texts of Qur'an and shown that waw was inserted in the word prior not what you state nor would it make any sense -- see reply in other thread...

You post (&#1607. Google Translate translates this as 'age'.
The word in the Quran is (&#1612. It is not the word (&#1607 which you bring forth and translate as 'age'. Even in Google Translate, the word (&#1612 found in the Quran does not mean 'age'.

Point of this? You attempt deception yet again, saying one word from a newsletter - which you do not link or bring as evidence - is the same as found in the Quran, yet even the modern translators expose the issues you uphold.

When the Lexicons and translations do not uphold the descriptions in the Quran, you are to uphold what the Quran reveals, not what the Lexicons and newsrooms teach. The Quran is the furqan - the criterion - not the Lexicons and translation services.

Once more
I believe in the Book, all of it, even the dialectics. It is all from Allah.

"Those to whom We have given the Book and who recite it with true recitation, they believe in it; and whoso disbelieves in it, they shall be the losers." Surah 2121

"It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds." Surah 37

I understand you are saying it is not all from Allah. I do not agree with you.

Allah promises to protect the Quran. By your statement of saying the dialectics were not part of the Quran, you are saying the Quran has been corrupted - tampered with - which contradicts what Allah promised.
I will restate I do not believe as you do. Allah protects the Quran. Falsehood does not enter it, in the past or in the future. Surah 159, 4141-42, 1339, 4224, 8521-22, 1827, 7227, 181
I believe in it. It is all from Allah.

You bring hadith from other people with images that cannot be proven, and you expect me to believe you? Why would I believe you? Your words and suppression of evidence is manifest evidence against you.
You believe the Quran has been tampered with.
You believe not everything in the Quran is from Allah.
You believe in sayings - hadith - of men outside of the Quran.

I do not believe as you believe.

The only thing clear is --- well I'll be nice and refrain. Therefore goodbye and peace to you.

May Allah curse the liars and increase the defilers in nothing but destruction.

Peace.