The current quranic text might contain some falsehoods!

altafalvi

Salam Truthseeker,
A very nice topic with some really valid questions. Many of the verses in the Quran have been troubling me. Not that I deny that the Quran is the word of the Creator but some things in the existing version simply don't add up. Ok I know the ubiquitous reply would be "its the translation" but that's not the case.
A very interesting point was made about Gabriel and the subconscious projection. Me for one, I simply don't believe that there are angels with wings and that there is an angel by the name of Gabriel whose duty is to bring messages from the Creator to the Prophets or in this case to Prophet Muhammad. It seems very illogical because in that case we don't need Muhammad, Gabriel is our messenger. It was exactly this kind of thinking which Prophet Muhammad negated. The people believed Allah as some of kind of Skyman sitting in skies (7 skies to be precise) who had his angel Gabriel do all his messaging work; no matter how much you sin, all you have to do is pray to the idols since you cannot ask directly to the Creator and you will be granted access to Jannah in the seventh sky. The established belief was that the Creator is a separate entity from the creation.
Prophet Muhammad negated all these beliefs and proclaimed that creation is not separate from the Creator to which the arabs replied what is this new thing that you are saying we never heard all this from our ancestors. Alright I got sidetracked, the point is that there is no Gabriel, Mikael, israfeel or any other angels...the revelation was direct without any intermediary.
now is the existing Quran complete or not...I have reservations on this.

why did the Prophet himself not compile the Quran?
Abdullah ibn Masud (about whom the Prophet said that anyone wishing to learn the quran should learn from him; they were 3 others viz. salim, muadh and ubay bin kaab) had a surah almost as long as surah Tauba (chapter 9)
Even the existing surah tauba has 2 or more verses added in the end which no companion had except for Khuzaima.
Why did uthman burn all the copies of the quran when he compiled the existing version.
About Salaah, a very interesting link was given by Wakas, which rightly discredits and disproves the current meaning of salaah i.e. prayer. The translation also goes haywire for salaah, at one place the translators interpret as prayer whereas at other place they interpret as Salawat for the Prophet (see chapter 33 verse 56) interestingly no mention about the times and the way to establish salah is prescribed in the Quran!
About female slaves where the chapter number 4 says "those that your right hand possess" I seriously doubt that the Prophet who held women in lofty standards would put something like in the Quran...it's sheer Arabic tribal culture and mentality that has been inserted in the Quran by the sex-crazy arabs.
About the verse 15.9...that we would preserve this zikr...nowhere does it say it is the "quran" I don't understand why the translators interpreted and took the meaning that it applied to the quran exclusively? Zikr has also been applied to Torah, Zabur and Injeel.
Furthermore, was the Creator helpless in preventing the corruption of the early texts that IT had to issue a decree that IT would be protecting this particular book. Why didn't IT protect the previous books or revelations whatever you want to call it?

Well there are many more such verses in the existing book...do I need to refer to the verse "kill them wherever you find them" etc etc. my hindu colleagues persistently point to this ayah and some have even told me that is the most violent book on the face of the earth.

of course I do believe that the quran the Prophet transmitted is surely devoid of all these human fallacies.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam alta,

The senseless passages are usually not due to distortions/changes in the Arabic text but usually due to interpretation errors. Many words have taken an erroneous meaning and the grammar comprehension is often lackluster. Sometimes I wonder if the interpreters even knew what they were reading at all but only improvised. That they tried to fill it with a religious doctrine is however quite clear.

This is why my own research is so slow because I realized I cannot really trust any source without careful analysis first. The "innate letter method" is useful, but I am still improving it and learning to use it.

The most common missing parts which were in the original Arabic are madda on certain alefs (&#1570 and often is replaced by an alef. The madda is essential for interpretation if one knows the technique of understanding Arabic. It is used for more than pronunciation. The scribes who did remove it in their transcript obviously did not understand the language very well. However other irrelevant diacritical marks they wrote out which are not original at all such as and which are supposed to help in pronunciation despite that pronunciation is easy without them if you know Arabic.

Some versions skip the two dots on in certain words as if it is irrelevant which shows the scribe did not know their importance. The marks unspecified while is specificed. The pronunciation is also different when you speak the language so the listener understands what you mean.

Have faith

altafalvi

Salaam Man of Faith,

Looks like we have our own Da Vince Code to crack!

Man_of_Faith

Salaam alta,

It could perhaps be something like it, but here it is talk about some serious business and people who suffer due to a sectarian delusion. The clerics and scholars deceive people including themselves. To make the God phenomenon concrete has always been a way for Shaitaan to trick people. Paganism in a nutshell, be it called monotheism or polytheism.

Salaam

altafalvi

Salaam Man of Faith,

Who needs Shaitaan when we have the clerics and mullahs to "guide" the community.
By the way, do you really believe that there is a separate entity called "Shaitaan?"

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Salaam alta,

Shaitaan is some sort of shattered soul which imparts the illusive world that we live in and which our primitive fleshly bodies are driven towards unless we guard our ways (hafez/aqum asalateh). The mass is basically Shaitaan to us. But Shaitaan does not have any distinct physical form but is a (negative) spiritual affinity, it negates being broken while the affinity of Allah is wholeness (&#1605.

Salaam

truthseeker11

Salaam Altaf Alvi,

Many of the verses in the Quran have been troubling me. Not that I deny that the Quran is the word of the Creator but some things in the existing version simply don't add up. Ok I know the ubiquitous reply would be "its the translation" but that's not the case.

I am in the same boat and having the same problem. When I first seriously started studying al-quran I came across many misinterpretations and mistranslations but over the years even after studying all possible interpretations and correction of mistranslations, some verses still did not make any sense.

My conclusion has been that the current Arabic text of al-quran contains some human alteration and tampering which occurred soon after death of the Prophet. The discovery of Sana'a palimpsests containing a lower text with significant diversions from the standard text, which was later washed away and replaced with an upper text closer to the current standard text makes this possibility very likely.

Early Muslim tradition describing the existence of companion codices of al-quran such as that of Ibn Masud, with significant variations from the Uthmanic text, has now received textual confirmation with the discovery of Sana'a palimpsests.

A very interesting point was made about Gabriel and the subconscious projection. Me for one, I simply don't believe that there are angels with wings and that there is an angel by the name of Gabriel whose duty is to bring messages from the Creator to the Prophets or in this case to Prophet Muhammad. It seems very illogical because in that case we don't need Muhammad, Gabriel is our messenger. It was exactly this kind of thinking which Prophet Muhammad negated. The people believed Allah as some of kind of Skyman sitting in skies (7 skies to be precise) who had his angel Gabriel do all his messaging work; no matter how much you sin, all you have to do is pray to the idols since you cannot ask directly to the Creator and you will be granted access to Jannah in the seventh sky. The established belief was that the Creator is a separate entity from the creation.
Prophet Muhammad negated all these beliefs and proclaimed that creation is not separate from the Creator to which the arabs replied what is this new thing that you are saying we never heard all this from our ancestors. Alright I got sidetracked, the point is that there is no Gabriel, Mikael, israfeel or any other angels...the revelation was direct without any intermediary.

The viewpoint that the revelation was direct without any intermediary also has problems. For example there are very few verses with the Creator talking in first person (18101, 2014, 2042, 20124, 21105, 23110, 388 etc.). If the revelation was direct without any intermediary then all verses should have been with the Creator talking in first person. In reality, a preponderance of verses are with the Creator in the third person, or quoting the Creator, which makes it obvious that those verses were inspired/channeled by an intermediary. For example verses saying "his Lord", "He said" referring to the Creator, "God said", "your Lord", "God has taken", "God sent forth", etc. instead of saying "I said", "Me", "I have taken", "I sent forth", etc.

Quran itself says that Gabriel sent down the revelation into the Prophet's heart (channeling), with the permission of the Creator

297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart with the permission of God, authenticating what is with him, and a guide and good news for the believers."

16102 Say "The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truth, so that those who believe will be strengthened, and as a guidance and good news for those who have submitted."

Putting 297 together with 16102, it becomes obvious that Gabriel is being called the holy spirit, and spirit is different from malaika.

Additionally, according to al-quran, Gabriel is not one of the malaika

298 "Whoever is an enemy to God and His angels, and His messengers, and Gabriel, and Michael, then so God is the enemy to the disbelievers."

Gabriel and Michael are mentioned separate from malaika. Of course it should be ITS instead of His.

664 If the two of you repent to God, then your hearts have listened. But if you band together against him, then God is his ally, and so are Gabriel and the righteous believers. Also, the angels are his helpers.

Here again Gabriel is mentioned separate from malaika/controllers.

After searching for the truth for countless years, I have finally discovered exactly who Gabriel is, and who channeled al-quran to Prophet Muhammad. I have also discovered a very simple way to find out which verses or words were altered, added to, or deleted from the original quranic text and which verses/words are the original divine message in the current standard text. I will be happy to share that knowledge with you if interested.

I use the word channeled because "wahi" means channeling. Channeling is any communication between the Creator and a human or between a "spirit" and a human. The Quran itself describes how this communication occurs

4251 And it is not for any mortal that God would speak to him, except through inspiration/channeling, or from behind a barrier, or by sending a messenger to inspire/channel whom It wills with Its permission. It is most High, Wise.

Those are the 3 ways how divine messages were revealed to all prophets.

God directly channeled the prophets
God spoke from behind a barrier to the prophets
An intermediary messenger channeled the prophets with God's permission (example Gabriel).

now is the existing Quran complete or not...I have reservations on this.

I share your reservations. I think some words/passages have been added to, deleted, or replaced from the original Arabic text of al-quran.

why did the Prophet himself not compile the Quran?

Actually the Prophet himself compiled and wrote the Quran. Please read chapter 5 of this book for details

http//free-minds.org/sites/default/files/Conspiracies.pdf

Abdullah ibn Masud (about whom the Prophet said that anyone wishing to learn the quran should learn from him; they were 3 others viz. salim, muadh and ubay bin kaab) had a surah almost as long as surah Tauba (chapter 9)
Even the existing surah tauba has 2 or more verses added in the end which no companion had except for Khuzaima.

There were even more variations in Ibn Masud's and other's codices

http//www.inthenameofallah.org/Codices%20of%20the%20Quran.html

Why did uthman burn all the copies of the quran when he compiled the existing version.

Exactly!

About Salaah, a very interesting link was given by Wakas, which rightly discredits and disproves the current meaning of salaah i.e. prayer. The translation also goes haywire for salaah, at one place the translators interpret as prayer whereas at other place they interpret as Salawat for the Prophet (see chapter 33 verse 56) interestingly no mention about the times and the way to establish salah is prescribed in the Quran!

Actually the way to establish salat is described in the Quran along with the times. Of course you won't find the traditional pagan salat/namaz ritual in the Quran because originally salat was not a pagan ritual like it is today.

Please read the following article for times of salat according to the Quran

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/problems-5-salat-Quran.html

Please read the following article for way to establish salat according to the Quran

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm

Please see the following for "sujud" according to the Quran (in relation to salat, it is not a physical prostration to a pagan idol)

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html

About female slaves where the chapter number 4 says "those that your right hand possess" I seriously doubt that the Prophet who held women in lofty standards would put something like in the Quran...it's sheer Arabic tribal culture and mentality that has been inserted in the Quran by the sex-crazy arabs.

Actually "ma malakat aymanukum" does not mean female slaves according to al-quran. That is a deliberate mistranslation. Please read the following article for the real meaning

http//www.free-minds.org/rules-engagement

About the verse 15.9...that we would preserve this zikr...nowhere does it say it is the "quran" I don't understand why the translators interpreted and took the meaning that it applied to the quran exclusively? Zikr has also been applied to Torah, Zabur and Injeel.

Actually it does say "zikr" is "quran" in one place

3669 And We did not teach him poetry, nor does he need it. This is a reminder/"zikr" and a clear qur'an.

The argument is not whether quran is "zikr" or not. The argument is that 159 does not refer to the current Uthmanic text of al-zikr but it refers to protection/preservation of the original Arabic text of al-zikr. I am pretty sure the complete original text of al-zikr is protected/preserved somewhere on this Earth and will be discovered one day. Sana'a manuscripts come pretty close but the Yemeni government is currently not allowing anyone to study the thousands of manuscripts that have not been studied yet. Go figure.

Another reason why 159 cannot be used to prove that the current quranic text is entirely protected is because it becomes a circular argument which is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, was the Creator helpless in preventing the corruption of the early texts that IT had to issue a decree that IT would be protecting this particular book. Why didn't IT protect the previous books or revelations whatever you want to call it?

I think all the previous divine revelations/scriptures were protected and are somewhere on this Earth waiting to be discovered or under lock and key of the Vatican or the Ill*******, deliberately hidden from the public eye

Well there are many more such verses in the existing book...do I need to refer to the verse "kill them wherever you find them" etc etc. my hindu colleagues persistently point to this ayah and some have even told me that is the most violent book on the face of the earth.

Well, the counter argument from the Quranists is that it is not "kill" but "fight" and all those verses are in the context of self defense or against oppression.

My counter to that is in chapter 9 the believers were asked to wait until the 4 shahr al-haram had passed and then start "killing/fighting" but then if you wait for 4 shahr, it is not self defense anymore! After 4 shahr had passed, there was no urgency to fight or kill, and there is no self defense after 4 shahr! Self defense is immediate and not after 4 shahr!

Their counter is 96 gives them a peaceful way out instead of "killing/fighting" if they seek your protection.

My counter is why "kill/fight" in the first place? Why not start with a peaceful diplomatic way or economic sanctions etc. first if they broke the treaty? Instead of saying we will fight/kill you unless you seek our protection, we can offer them a peaceful diplomatic way or economic sanctions etc. first to resolve the situation.

of course I do believe that the quran the Prophet transmitted is surely devoid of all these human fallacies.

I am waiting for the archeological discovery of the original quranic text to be certain of this! Truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction and I want to see with my own eyes, and read it and understand it before believing anything.

If you are interested in who or what exactly "shaitaan" is, I can share my knowledge about that with you as well. The truth is more surprising than I could have imagined!

May the infinite Creator guide us to the truth.

Man_of_Faith

In chapter 9, the word does not mean kill/fight. That is why it sounds so strange in traditional interpretations.

Salaam

truthseeker11

Salaam Altaf,

In addition to the points raised by you and by me earlier in this thread, other posters have drawn my attention to many other things in the current standard text of al-quran that don't make any sense. Following are some of them for everyone to ponder

Half inheritance for daughter compared to son (411), wife compared to husband (412), and sister compared to brother when deceased has no dependents (4176). Misogyny.
Mentioning mankind's desire of women, thus objectifying women (314). No mention of desire of men. Misogyny. Discussed in following thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607127.0

Half testimony of women for financial cases (2282). Misogyny.
Polygamy and more categories of women lawful for the Prophet than for regular people (3350).
List of names of males in al-quran versus no names of females mentioned apart from Maryam. Patriarchy.
Presence of unclear allegorical verses that only God knows the interpretation of (37), in a book that claims to have clear revelations (1015, 2216, 579 etc.).
Lord will come with angels row after row (8922). hmm
Those who don't remember God will have a miserable life, and will be raised blind on the Day of Judgment (20124). Needy Wrathful God?
Coercion of polytheists who seek protection to hear the word of God first before providing them safety (96). Contradicts with no compulsion in the system (2256).
Saying no compulsion in religion and then immediately threatening to make "rejectors" live in fire, thereby using fear based tactics. (2256-257).
Many verses cursing, mocking and threatening "unbelievers", "rejectors" etc. to boil, cut, chop, roast and bake people simply for rejecting God (example 2219-22).
Racism regarding the desert dwellers (997).
Changing from first person to 3rd person in same verse (3910, 3953).
God will fight the Jews and the Nazarenes (930).
Polytheists are impure (92.
Strike the rejectors above their necks during war, believers didn't kill them but God killed them (812, 817).
Extremely harsh punishment for zina (242)

May the infinite Creator guide us to the truth.

good_logic

Peace truthseeker11.

Either one believes in the whole book or does not. There are no half baked /half truths....

Just wait until you get the version you are waiting for,then believe? Why believe some of the book and doubt /disregard some? It does not make sense!!

If you are saying you have a way of filtering what is true from what is false,and it is accurate ,then why wait for the "true" one at all?

Just wondering about this logic.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

One more interesting finding. In the Wikipedia article, they give Arabic text of some verses from the lower text of the Sana'a palimpsest written side by side with the current standard text. I looked up all those verses one by one in a current standard text. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the verses in the lower text of the Sana'a manuscripts made much more sense and seemed to be grammatically more accurate than the current standard text verses! In other words, the words added to or deleted from the original lower text cause the current standard text to make less sense than the original lower text of the Sana'a manuscript. Check them out yourself

http//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

Then using your conscience and reasoning, see for yourself from the meanings which text is more likely to be the one with the tampering. To me the truth of the matter was clear as day.

Peace truthseeker11 -- perhaps go over carefully use cross-reference.

Location Visible Traces Reconstruction Standard Text
Qur?n 2 (al-Baqarah).191
Stanford folio, recto, l. 4, p. 44 / / (&#1608
Qur?n 2 (al-Baqarah).191
Stanford folio, recto, l. 5, p. 44

Claim by sloppy missionaries who believe god begot god to pray to himself and other nonsense

2191... in it is missing
2191 ... leading kaaf in like such missing

Is it missing or these guys looking for slightest transcription errors on this really bad copy and does it change meaning?

http//oi61.tinypic.com/jkx8b4.jpg

2217 questioned they you about the cycle al-armi fight in it say fight in it immense and hinder about way the god and disregard in him and al-masjid al-armi/the prohibited and driving out family its from it greater near the god...

Qur?n 2 (al-Baqarah).192
Stanford folio, recto, l. 5, p. 44 (&#65260

Claim trailing alif is missing (no such word in Arabic!) likewise they "missed" or purposely withheld letting it be known that the correct spelling of the exact same word was in the very next verse. lol

http//oi62.tinypic.com/24uvjgj.jpg

mmkhan

Salaam,

Sadly, this is what they wanted who created so called hadith. Their plans were to create doubt about alQuraan being purely from Allah. These are the false things they propagated and succeeded in their plans.

They said there were no markings on Arabic letters in alQuraan's original copy. A king added diacritical marking to it.
The alQuraan was revealed to Mohammed and then compiled as a book after his death.
There were differences in text in different copies of alQuraan i.e., hafs and warsh.
AlQuraan was sent in the language of so called Arabs as the prophet was from Arabs.
Manuscripts and so on.

It means the Lord of the words and Creator or everything visible to us or non-visible is not capable of protecting His own word. brickwall

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

Man_of_Faith

The things which do not make sense are not due to heavy variations in the Arabic text but mostly very poor interpretation of what was originally written. Often entire segments of text have a rather imaginative interpretation which does not reflect the truth at all.

Salaam

altafalvi

Salaam truthseeker11,

my response in italics, I m sorry for my ignorance but I really don't know how you guys use that "quote" feature.