Quran and Hadiths books, what is the difference ?

SearchingGod

Peace SearchingGod

You implied I said something different to what I really said, you have changed my words .

Everyone can see that what I said and your understanding of what I said are not the same.

Peace

If you apply the code 19 to 9128-129 there you find a problem regarding to .

Now you have 2 options

A)There is a problem in 9128-129
B)There is a problem in the code 19

IMPLIES

A)--->A&#039You share the idea that the Quran is altered
B)--->B&#039The code 19 in not relevant to the Quran because you can't apply it to some parts and not apply to other parts

B&#039--->B&quotThe code 19 is a fraud

Choice is yours.

Student_of_Allah

In my ? Reply #18 on Today at 084940 AM ? there are many unanswered questions and challenges of very basic level. If you can, give an answer to them.

As for comparing Quran's content and Hadiths, I have a serious argument which is the contradiction in Lot's 9 versions History.

Shalom Aleikhem,

O GOD !! Where did all of these come from ????????????

Ok, let me put it in simpler terms. It looks to me now, that this thread is not what this thread was. I would advice you to go and open up new thread discussing your correlation of hadiths and Qur'an. Make sure you open separate threads for all your points if possible. That will help keep the forum tidy.

Ohh.. and most of all, state your premises first hand. For example you can write

"Qur'an is just another public survey like hadiths according to my understanding. If you think I am wrong, please share the reason"

Then the person replying would not be forced to beat around the bush and waste their time.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Searching God

Your knowledge needs research and guidance.

159 confirms what I said . It does not contradict it.

You have not proved a single argument everyone asked of you. Your " Contradictions" are your lack of understanding the context.

i shall leave this conversation for others. you owe them some answers.
Peace

I

SearchingGod

Peace Searching God

Your knowledge needs research and guidance.

159 confirms what I said . It does not contradict it.

You have not proved a single argument everyone asked of you. Your " Contradictions" are your lack of understanding the context.

i shall leave this conversation for others. you owe them some answers.
Peace

I

Dude just read this. Maybe you will understand what I meant.

There exists a contingent amongst Muslims who attest to Dr. Rashad Khalifa's hypothesis that the Quran is protected by a mathematical code.

This theory has resulted in many further claims, one of which pertains to the claim that two verses of the Quran recited today were never revealed by God. This claim is the focus of this article.

The verses in contention are

009128 "There has come to you a messenger, from among yourselves, grievous to him is what you suffer, (he is) concerned over you, to the believers (he is) kind (and) merciful"

009129 "But if they turn back, say Sufficient for me is God. (There is) no God except Him. On Him I put my trust and He is the Lord of the Tremendous Throne"

Dr. Rashad Khalifa's translation of verse 9127 and his footnotes regarding the omission of verse 9128 and 9129 read below.

Translation

A Historical Crime Unveiled Tampering With the Word of God.* God Provides Irrefutable Evidence

Whenever a sura was revealed, some of them would look at each other as if to say "Does anyone see you?" Then they left. Thus, GOD has diverted their hearts, for they are people who do not comprehend.

Footnote

It represents an advance divine proclamation that the idol worshipers were destined to tamper with the Quran by adding 2 false verses (9128-129). (2) It demonstrates one of the functions of God's mathematical code in the Quran, namely, to guard the Quran against any alteration. (3) It provides additional miraculous features of the Quran's code.
Due to their extraordinary importance, the details are given in Appendices 24 and 29.
One immediate observation is that the number of occurrences of the word "God" at the end of Sura 9 is 1273 (19x67). If the two false verses 128 & 129 are included, this phenomenon--and many more--will vanish.

It is clear from the above claim that as the verses did not fit Dr. Rashad Khalifa's theory, so he chose to omit them.

It would be inconceivable for many Muslims that despite God's own testimony to protect the 'dhikr' (159), that He would allow two verses of the Quran to be read in His name en masse, for nearly 1400 years, until Rashad Khalifa put forward his PhD thesis in the latter part of the 20th century.

However, most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence in any recitation or any ancient manuscript that there was ever an omission of these two verses.

An example of an ancient manuscript is cited from the Sana Manuscripts which are considered as some of the earliest existent manuscripts of the Quran. In the following example, it is clearly noted that verse 9129 is present in the ancient manuscript and is no different to the manner in which it is recited today.

SearchingGod

You still didn't answer the key question.

What guidance do you think should be followed?
What is a proposed solution for what is claimed to be a problem?

Hope your are not a supporter of the principle of least effort or rational ignorance. Sticking to a message delivered in 7th century must be something weird, I guess, this is why I am so critical.

The Theory here, is that all verses talking about Quran as a "Book" is nothing more than a later addition to the original revelation. This addition is a man made fabrication mainly in response to the critics of Christians and Jews due to the fact they had already a book but Muslims not.

When would this purported fabrication have taken place, and by whom? If this is a claim that you support/theory you advance, provide your evidence. It takes more than a theory to convince others.

I agree with you ! But as I said this is a Theory so it's hypothetical. And what convince me for this theory is these facts that

-Muhammad never wrote down the revelations
-Muhammad never presented his book, in a strict sense to the polytheist, the disbelievers, the Nazarenes and the Jews
-Logic says that when you talk about something, specially if it's a book, your book, you don't simply talk about it, but you have to present it to your interlocutors
-The absence of any "Book" called Quran at the time of Muhammad

Were you there? How can you assert positively that AQ wasn't written? The most that can be said is that you don't know if it was written or not. To say otherwise is not logical and could be interpreted as bearing false witness.

If a book was written, then where is it ? Why Muslims had to wait 70-80 years before having an official "state Quran".
Also, how many copies is it possible to produce in 70-80 years given that Muslims had an official Quran after the death of Muhamamad ? (surely more than 100) Where are those Qurans or manuscripts. But the fact is that muslims didn't produce even one copy of the original Quran of Muhammad, that is a sufficient proof to say that nor at the time of Muhammad, nor at the time of uthmanian caliphate, Muslims had a book called "Quran". They had to wait concretely 70-80 years.

Explain this How is it possible that at the time of revelation Muhammad is supposedly talking about "Book" while he could never succeed to produce a book, mainly because his revelations were oral and not written one ?

Why could Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets) have not written down or directed the writing down of oral revelations? Writing existed, and is referenced throughout AQ.

8013 In scripts which are honorable.
8014 Raised and pure.
8015 By the hands of scribes.

It's impossible to say that these scripts (scribes=Angels?) are related to the complete Quran because it's a Meccan Surah. So the Quran was still not in it's complete form.

The time period it was written has nothing to do with the argument. The language in AQ is precise. The word used is , NOT . Is it angels in 2282 or 2283 too?

Leave apart temporarily the discussion about the nature of the scribes human or angel.

The timeframe here is very important, because if you support the fact that the revelation was written down simultaneously then at the revelation of these verses the Quran was still incomplete, so the scripts in refer to only what was already written and not the complete Quran or what will come after. So the Quran don't give any information about what happened after that. Maybe God should have revealed these verses at the endtime of Muhammad's life, means in Madina and not in Mecca.

Logical sense When you talk to someone about a book (here it's the Book of Muhammad), it is obvious that you have to produce something before whom you speak. Night and day, Muhammad was talking about book but he never presented his Book.

22 This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous.

It is the message that is the Book--not the medium.

If the message (oral one) is the book (written one) according to your interpretation and then why God used the word Book and not the word Message ? Do you think Arabs were so stupid to not make any difference between what is a message and what is a book ? Come on ! (Jahilliya is a myth.)

Conclusion Quran as you can see it today must be less bigger than the actual one in terms of its content.

I don't find any evidence supporting this conclusion.

You gave yourself a solid evidence to my arguments ! As you said, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place, then why time and again Muhammad was talking about a fictitious book. Were people around him so stupid and unintelligent to even not dare to ask him to present his book, the book he was talking about night and days.

This is a serious challenge !

It has yet to be proven that the book was fictitious. Although not everybody was able to read, neither was it the case that not anybody could read. There is no evidence about a larger or smaller Quran.

The challenge is still valid.

So how the content of the Quran was transmitted according to you and what are your sources for what you claim ?

AQ was memorized by some of those hearing it AND written down immediately upon being recited to others. My source is AQ for the writing part.

Your source (Quran itself) about the writing part says nothing as I showed you before. The Quran is clear about that and maybe this is in contradiction with Quran itself, supporting my idea of addition in the Quran.

This is a half truth. It completely ignores 8013-8015.

Maybe yes, maybe not. As I said before the timeframe is very important.

The timeframe here is very important, because if you support the fact that the revelation was written down simultaneously then at the revelation of these verses the Quran was still incomplete, so the scripts in refer to only what was already written and not the complete Quran or what will come after. So the Quran don't give any information about what happened after that. Maybe God should have revealed these verses at the endtime of Muhammad's life, means in Madina and not in Mecca.

1)If Muhammad claims that a book is revealed to him, then he has to present his book to the audience

2951 Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book that is being recited to them? In that is a mercy and a reminder for people who believe.

So according to this verse
1)Arabs were aware of the Book of Muhammad from wich he used to recite (Not proven)
2)If someone recites from a Book, this is what is claiming, then this book must exist in the physical realm (Not proven)

IMPLIES-->

2)But if Muhammad presents his book or claims that a book is revealed to him, then audience will say he is the author in this case the defense is

IMPLIES-->

3)However, is a self contradiction argument because if Muhammad claims that a book is revealed to him, then he has to present his book to the audience

IMPLIES-->

2)But if Muhammad presents his book or claims that a book is revealed to him, then audience will say he is the author in this case the defense is

....

1-->2-->3 but if 2-->3 then again if 2-->3 ... (a series of infinite repetitions)

Conclusion no book was revealed to Muhammad only some divine guidance. The whole story of a "divine book" called "Quran" is a later addition.

What is a book? Is a book something that is recorded, or something physically written? "No book" is only true if one takes a narrow view as to what a book actually is. There are digital books, audio books, engraved books, and so forth. An unchanging message was revealed. What is meant by "only" divine guidance, anyway?

I thought you were more perceptive than that.
Do you think that in the 7th century when someone was talking about a book they (Arabs) had many options (digital books, audio books, engraved books, and so forth) to understand what type of book it should be ?
Come on, your argument here is very poor and irrelevant.

Fourth,

1)There are no contradictions (hypothetical claim) in the Quran because there are no multiple versions of a same version (as you can find in Hadiths book).

There are no claims that the earth is flat or that camel urine cures cancer or other bad science in AQ. If a person or people had fabricated AQ, it would have errors of this type. Also, don't you refute this claim later with your "nine versions of Quran" discussion?

As I said it's a hypothetical claim that there are no contradictions in the Quran. And I showed later from the History of Lot that there are contradictions ! And therefore, Quran is in this way not superior to Hadiths.

Calling a wife (who is an old woman) an old woman is not a contradiction. Calling a (brown) dog brown is not a contradiction. A contradiction is indicating something other than what it is. Calling a man a woman is a contradiction.

Of course there is a contradiction.

contradiction
n

the act of going against; opposition; denial
a declaration of the opposite or contrary
a statement that is at variance with itself (often in the phrase a contradiction in terms)
conflict or inconsistency, as between events, qualities, etc.
a person or thing containing conflicting qualities
(Philosophy / Logic) Logic a statement that is false under all circumstances; necessary falsehood
Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged ? HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

When you use for 5 versions of Lot's History "his wife" and suddenly for 2 versions you use "an old woman, ajzan" , for sure there is a problem here. Semantically, the information given in "his wife" is more than in "an old woman" his wife > an old woman or im'ra-atahu > ajzan.

2)The absence of grammatical errors in the Quran must support its supremacy but can you show me some grammatical errors in Sahih Bukhari for example, if there are no grammatical errors then it's not a big deal if the Quran is also free from grammatical errors ?

This is a red herring. I'm talking about scientific facts, not grammar.

So your criterion to judge if a "Book" is divine or not is Science. If it goes against Science then it's not a divine book. What do you say about the conception of Issa b. Mariyam. Is not this history a contradiction to what Science teaches us about procreation in the human species. You will say that it's a miracle that's why it's a contradiction. Let's assume that your answer is valid. Then, you can put contradictions in the Quran, and you just have to say, "O these are miracles that's why there are contradictions with Science".

I don't need to understand everything. There has been nothing disproven in AQ. Nothing. Personally, I understand that the word "alma" meant young woman and not virgin. It is entirely possible that Mary had not YET been with a man at 347 but later was--after all, she was married! I can't speak for the custom of the day--but isn't it usual for a husband and wife to have coitus? In fact, can't it invalidate a marriage for this not to happen?

Here, your "I understand", is very subjective because you are interpreting the Quranic verse (= claiming that Quran is not clear). Claiming implicitly that Muhammad didn't know what was the nature of Mariyam, a virgin, is a total irresponsible move on your part, specially when you know very well that "virginity" of Mariyam was a sacrosanct belief of Nazarene. And these verses are very clear on that

1927 Then she came to her people carrying him. They said "O Mary, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!"
1928 "O sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!"

Abdul-Hadi

Greetings and Peace, all group

@SearchingGod Perhaps you didn't answer the questions at the end because you have no answers...only accusations and theories and an as-yet unnamed agenda. Muddying water accomplishes nothing productive.

It doesn't and shouldn't matter when truth is revealed. Truth that is thousands of years old is no less valid than truth recently discovered.

A position of uncertainty, of theories and maybes, is not a strong base to challenge from.

AQ was revealed in parts. When all of the revealing was done, AQ was complete. A book, as used in AQ, is not necessarily a thing with lettered pages. What is the literal meaning of Qur'an? Answer recitation. It can't be any simpler than that.

About the 70-80 year thing

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Quran

According to the article, this Qur'an dates 19 years after the death of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets). Given the passage of time, it is not surprising that so little has survived. Still

http//online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html

Book (in AQ) is synonymous with message and is perhaps idiomatic.

It is not an inconsistency to call Kool-Aid a liquid in one place and sweet in another, and neither is it an inconsistency to call Lot's wife a wife in one place and an old woman in another. There is no conflict.

1927 Then she came to her people carrying him. They said "O Mary, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!"
1928 "O sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!"

Look at it another way. Mary was accused of being unchaste. As can be understood from 1928, chaste does not equal virgin (how can a mother be virgin). Chaste means staying away from unlawful sex. Nazorene is another red herring. You talk about logic on one hand and sacrosanct in another? Seriously? Was Mary married? Is sex normal in marriage? Is it reasonable that a pregnancy could be unexpected?

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 714 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

http//www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

Quit beating around the bush. What is your game? What do you want? In any case you are free to your beliefs. Be direct, since your position is apparently unassailable!

May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

SearchingGod

Greetings and Peace, all group
@SearchingGod Perhaps you didn't answer the questions at the end because you have no answers...only accusations and theories and an as-yet unnamed agenda. Muddying water accomplishes nothing productive.
It doesn't and shouldn't matter when truth is revealed. Truth that is thousands of years old is no less valid than truth recently discovered. A position of uncertainty,of theories and maybes, is not a strong base to challenge from. AQ was revealed in parts. When all of the revealing was done, AQ was complete. A book, as used in AQ, is not necessarily a thing with lettered pages. What is the literal meaning of Qur'an? Answer recitation. It can't be any simpler than that.

I wouldn't like to write or repeat challenges and questions that I clearly indicated. I am not forcing you to give an answer to them, it's up to you and to your ability to produce interesting remarks on the basis of your critical thinking. Debating with you is like when a Quran Alone supporter debates with a Hadiths supporter.

About the 70-80 year thing http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Quran
According to the article, this Qur'an dates 19 years after the death of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets). Given the passage of time, it is not surprising that so little has survived. Still http//online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html
Book (in AQ) is synonymous with message and is perhaps idiomatic.

Uthman's Quran is only a myth defended by the so called Hadiths followers.
The reality is not like that.

1)From a non serious website.

"When experts apply the paleographical test to the Samarkand and Topkapi manuscripts they arrive at some interesting conclusions. The evidence proves that neither could be from Uthmans time. What most Muslims do not realize is that both manuscripts were written in Kufic Script, a script which according to modern Qur'anic experts, such as Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the eighth century (790s or later). It was not in use at all in Mecca or Medina in the seventh century." (http//prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Appendix_Islams_Dark_Past.Islam)

2)From a serious website.

Date 2nd century hijra or 8th century CE. So, the big question now is whether this is the Qur'an that belonged to the third caliph Uthmn? The answer is no. There are good number of other Qur'ans having at times turned up in different parts of the Islamic world, all purporting to show the traces of the blood of the third caliph Uthmn upon certain pages, and thus the genuine Uthmnic Qur'an, the imm, which he was reading at the time of his death. Moreover, the writing in the manuscript clearly shows the large, straight, beautiful and rigidly proportional Kufic script which was during and after the time of Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik (compare the script in this manuscript with the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock). Furthermore, this manuscript was also briefly discussed by Salh al-Dn al-Munajjid who did not consider it to be from the time of caliph Uthmn. (http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html)

It is not an inconsistency to call Kool-Aid a liquid in one place and sweet in another, and neither is it an inconsistency to call Lot's wife a wife in one place and an old woman in another. There is no conflict.

You completely missed the whole history about the semantic problem. Maybe if you take some basic courses in Semantics and Logic it will gratefully help you to understand.

1927 Then she came to her people carrying him. They said "O Mary, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!"
1928 "O sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!"
Look at it another way. Mary was accused of being unchaste. As can be understood from 1928, chaste does not equal virgin (how can a mother be virgin). Chaste means staying away from unlawful sex. Nazorene is another red herring. You talk about logic on one hand and sacrosanct in another? Seriously? Was Mary married? Is sex normal in marriage? Is it reasonable that a pregnancy could be unexpected?
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 714 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods. http//www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

This whole explanation of yours doesn't make sense, and another major evidence of the "virginity" of Mariyam (promoted by Quran itself) is embedded in those verses that mention Prophet Issa as "Ibn Mariyam".
Issa was simply a person without a father, his birth was a miracle (in direct contradiction to Science, by the way).

Bigmo

Slm,

I was told that these 2 types of book were relying on transmitters except that in the Quran you can'nt see the name of the transmitters but in the Hadiths books the transmitters are cited.

So my question was about the difference between these 2 types of book.

Why can we trust blindly in the Quran but not in the Hadiths books as it followed the same compilation model ?

Have you ever heard of a weak verse and a strong verse or a verse agreed or disgreed upon like you have with hadiths? The fact that all the sects of Islam accept the Quran but accuse each other of fabricating hadiths tells us that the process is not the same.

Lets look at Al Shafis' argument about the Sunnah.

On Legal Knowledge

Someone asked me What is knowledge and how much should men know of it?
Shafi?i replied Legal knowledge is of two kinds one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.
He asked For example?
replied For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the House whenever they are able, and to the legal alms in their estate; that He has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, wine, and of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

He asked What is the second kind?
Shafi?i replied It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists , it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.
He asked Is replied There is a third kind .
He asked Will you explain it, give its source, and state what of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?
replied The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty ; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.

https//www.fonsvitae.com/OnlineStore/tabid/58/pid/143/0863-Treatise-on-the-Foundations-of-Islamic-Jurisprudence-Al-Shafiis-Risala.aspx

Here Al Shafi clearly admits and spells out the major difference between the Quranic source, which is available to the public and is known by the general public which is the Quran, and the other source he talks about which is not available to the public and is available only to a few authorities and that it has to be obtained by searching and traveling and finding hadith narrators here and there.

Need I say more?

good_logic

Peace SearchingGod.

Apologies for my tone on some of my replies.

I am back briefly for this last reply on this topic.

When you asked me for an answer , there was not a single answer I could give you. There are a number of answers why I believe the word of GOD.

I am going to give you another angle. Put aside my logic, your logic, anyone s logic, Science, History, 19 etc....

I will quote some verses from the book/ message itself

2215 If anyone thinks that GOD cannot support him in this life and in the hereafter, let him turn completely to ( his creator in ) heaven, ( submit , stay loyal to GOD and follow only HIS word ) and sever his dependence on anyone else. ( and trust in GOD ALONE!) HE will then see that this plan eliminates anything that bothers him.?

2254 Those who are blessed with knowledge ( Follow the word of GOD only) will recognise the truth from your Lord, then believe in it, and their hearts readily accept it. For sure, GOD guides the believers in the right path.? ( GOD ALONE, for guidance and everything. No idols!)

2255 As for those who disbelieve, they will continue to harbour doubts, until the hour comes to them, or until the retribution of an awesome day comes to them.?

2267 For each congregation, We have decreed a set of rites(Instructions/commands) that they must uphold. ( to test their loyalty to GOD ALONE!) Therefore, they should not dispute with you. You shall continue to invite everyone to your Lord ( GOD ALONE! and HIS word only) Surely , you are on the right path.?

2268 If they argue with you , then say? GOD is fully aware of everything you do.? ? ( All of us)

2269 God will judge among you on the day of Resurrection regarding all your disputes.? ( All of us)

( If anyone wants to follow other books ,- idols?, it is their choice? But reflect on this next two verses!)

2273 O people, here is a parable you must ponder carefully. The idols you set up beside GOD can never create a fly ( or a smaller insect) even if they banded together to do so; Further more, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; ( new scientific fact ? a fly digests its food before it sucks it!) Weak is the pursuer (idolizer) and the pursued.? ( idol)

( Remember this came over 1400 years ago!)

2274 They do not value GOD as HE should be valued! GOD is the Most Powerful, the ALMIGHTY.?

This message / book...cannot be authored by other than GOD.

Peace

Abdul-Hadi

Greetings and Peace, all group

@SearchingGod I just love your "serious" website. I trust that its agenda reflects your own. You could have just said so.

BBC is pretty credible and easy to understand, so it is the first link. The article is titled "Tashkent's hidden Islamic relic."

Excerpt

" To prevent disputes about which verses should be considered divinely inspired, Othman had this definitive version compiled. It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad's death."

http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4581684.stm

This link is to a peer reviewed article entitled "Forgotten witness evidence for the early codification of the Qur'an" from the Journal Of The American Oriental Society.

http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n1_v118/ai_n28706795/?tag=content;col1

This link is to an old peer reviewed article entitled "THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KUR'AN" from the Journal of the Manchester Egyptian & Oriental Society . Relevant pages are 25-47.

http//archive.org/details/manchesterorie00mancuoft

The following website has been very useful for finding references

http//www.egyptologyforum.org/EEFDigijournals.html

I don't see further conversation as being productive. Enjoy whatever fruits your theories yield. No parting shots--just bye.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

Bigmo

Greetings and Peace, all group

@SearchingGod I just love your "serious" website. I trust that its agenda reflects your own. You could have just said so.

BBC is pretty credible and easy to understand, so it is the first link. The article is titled "Tashkent's hidden Islamic relic."

Excerpt

" To prevent disputes about which verses should be considered divinely inspired, Othman had this definitive version compiled. It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad's death."

http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4581684.stm

This link is to a peer reviewed article entitled "Forgotten witness evidence for the early codification of the Qur'an" from the Journal Of The American Oriental Society.

http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n1_v118/ai_n28706795/?tag=content;col1

This link is to an old peer reviewed article entitled "THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KUR'AN" from the Journal of the Manchester Egyptian & Oriental Society . Relevant pages are 25-47.

http//archive.org/details/manchesterorie00mancuoft

The following website has been very useful for finding references

http//www.egyptologyforum.org/EEFDigijournals.html

I don't see further conversation as being productive. Enjoy whatever fruits your theories yield. No parting shots--just bye.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

The Quran held the Jews and Christians responsibility for the scriptures "bayn aydeehim" meaning that they have possession of. We are only responsible for the scriptures we have possession of and nothing else. We are not responsible of how these scriptures came down to us and was passed down. Scriptures were designed to speak for themselves and we are only to deal with what we have been exposed of. God in the end choses what information is passed down to future generations and what is not.

Bigmo

Here we are ! Finally you wrote what was in your mind from the beginning.

It makes no difference to you if Quran is altered.

Unfortunately, you are going against .

giveup

Many people believed in the Quran when it first was revealed long before many of its verses were revealed and died without having much knowledge of the rest of the Quran. Many died in Mecca and the early days in Medina. Plus the magicians believed in Moses long before they came across any of the scriptures that bears Moses's name. So scriptures are biut one sign of God and not the only sign.

Faith is something God controls and not humans. God talked about the sun and moon as signs, and the day and night as signs. A blind person may never see those signs but it does not mean he can't believe in God. Faith is not based on what the eyes can see or what the ears hear.