Why do you beleive the Quran to be the Word of GOD?

Raj-ah

Ahmed Bilal to khyaletanzim

This is also incorrect. The Quran has been changed many times, even the Arabic copies, and this topic has been discussed on here several times as well. There was even a thorough study done by a group of submitters to see how much the Quran has actually changed over the years, and the information is very interesting and informative...

http//www.submission.org/quran/protect.html

Ahmed please stop this allegations against Allah and Quran.
Quran has never been changed and can never be changed as Allah has promised it, errors in writing may have occured but it has never been changed.

We here are talking about two whole verses added in Quran deliberately, do you call it an error? this is a fabricated story which was bought by Rashad Kahlifa on expense of his Imaan; quite expensive?
Quran changes and Allah lets it remain for fourteen hundred years; then suddenly thinks that I had promised to prserve the Quran, so sends Rashad.
Sorry we are not buying this stuff as we are not buying the stuff of ayman who tell us that we are going to wrong place for "Hajj" from past many many centuries.

Ahmad_Bilal

Salaam Raj-ah,

Ahmed please stop this allegations against Allah and Quran.
Quran has never been changed and can never be changed as Allah has promised it, errors in writing may have occured but it has never been changed.

If you wish to be naive enough to believe the Quraan's words haven't been altered at all in 1400 years, then believe what you want. The proof has already been provided.

www.submission.org/quran/protect.html

Allah has preserved the Quraan from alteration, and He has done so by use of the code 19.

We here are talking about two whole verses added in Quran deliberately, do you call it an error? this is a fabricated story which was bought by Rashad Kahlifa on expense of his Imaan; quite expensive?
Quran changes and Allah lets it remain for fourteen hundred years; then suddenly thinks that I had promised to prserve the Quran, so sends Rashad.

What is the difference in the case with Allah sending Mohammed to be a prophet to the gentile Arabs? Jesus spoke of Mohammed during his lifetime, but Mohammed didn't come until hundreds of years later. Do you also think Mohammed was a phoney prophet because he waited too long to come?

Sorry we are not buying this stuff as we are not buying the stuff of ayman who tell us that we are going to wrong place for "Hajj" from past many many centuries.

That's your personal interpretation. For 1400 years, the Arab Muslims have been circling the Kaaba and kissing a black stone, throwing stones at Satan, and all kinds of other pagan rituals. If you wish to believe these are all correct and in harmony with worshiping GOD simply because people have been doing them for so long, then that's your business...

Peace,

Ahmad

Raj-ah

Salaam
Ahmed Bilal;

If you wish to be naive enough to believe the Qumran?s words haven?t been altered at all in 1400 years, then believe what you want. The proof has already been provided.

www.submission.org/quran/protect.html

Allah has preserved the Quraan from alteration, and He has done so by use of the code 19.

My dear friend watch your words, you said

This is also incorrect. The Quran has been changed many times, even the Arabic copies, and this topic has been discussed on here several times as well. There was even a thorough study done by a group of submitters to see how much the Quran has actually changed over the years, and the information is very interesting and informative...

http//www.submission.org/quran/protect.html

Changed! But the article you are referring to is talking about human errors during writing, off course not with intention.

What we here are talking about is "TWO whole verses included in the Quran Intentionally" and the proof is provided by self proclaimed messenger through a "Hadith"; the very system he rallied against; don't you understand?

If ayman is against "Hadith" he totally rejects it; correct or wrong is another debate but that is his stance, you can't just pick and choose, wherever you find something supportive you bring it up and if you dislike it throw it away. That is what Rashad has done.

Ahmed Bilal

What is the difference in the case with Allah sending Mohammed to be a prophet to the gentile Arabs? Jesus spoke of Mohammed during his lifetime, but Mohammed didn't come until hundreds of years later. Do you also think Mohammed was a phoney prophet because he waited too long to come?

There is a lot of difference; if you bother to notice, but that will need a little toil on your part.
First of all Jesus never gave an exact date for Muhammad to come secondly Quran was revealed to one person, and it was also recited by one person at first. The Bible was revealed to many people, and it was recited by many people, so we are not sure about what Jesus said is actually what Jesus said; but that is not in the case of Quran, People memorized it people wrote it down and five times daily they recited the verses from Quran, some one tampering with Quran could have been easily caught and brought it in to lime light, Even Allah did not corrected it through any scholar, Sufi, Imam or whatever; whereas Allah has promised that
No falsehood can ever enter it, in the past or in the future; for it is a revelation from God, most wise, praiseworthy?. Sura 41.42

Now noticing this, Rashad had no other choice to bring up another story, telling this verse is for the Quran that is written on tablets and saved in heavens and not for the Quran that we read daily or saved in our minds; Wow imagine? my son has to pass a test and I know he is memorizing something wrong but I don't bother, but instead leave letter for my grandson telling him what your father memorized was wrong, hail to Khalifa and his followers.

Ahmed Bilal

That's your personal interpretation. For 1400 years, the Arab Muslims have been circling the Kaaba and kissing a black stone, throwing stones at Satan, and all kinds of other pagan rituals. If you wish to believe these are all correct and in harmony with worshiping GOD simply because people have been doing them for so long, then that's your business...

Don't try to assume. I never advocated these rituals if you read some of my previous posts.
What I said is that place of Hajj is Kaaba in Makkah and we cannot change it on anyone's claim other than Allah's. There might be some corruptions with the time period involved in the rituals performed BUT that does not mean we Change our place of worship.
I also never said that if people are doing these rituals for centuries they are correct.
What I said is we are not buying the theory of ayman that where we go for Hajj is not the correct place as we are not buying yours when you say Rashad is messenger of God and can remove or delete from Quran whatever suites his 19 theory. Although your claim is more ridiculous then his because it is supported by "Hadith" which Rashad sahib rejects at first, while ayman's claim is based on research and some physical evidences.

I often pray for ayman that Allah ?show him the path that leads to you, he has intelligence and power of expressing his thoughts may these qualities be used for "Itihaad" of Ummah and not for disunity.

Allah ho Akbar.

Ahmad_Bilal

Salaam Raj-ah,

The article you are referring to is talking about human errors during writing, off course not with intention.

What we here are talking about is "TWO whole verses included in the Quran Intentionally" and the proof is provided by self proclaimed messenger through a "Hadith"; the very system he rallied against; don't you understand?

What you are saying sounds ridiculous. Scholars are capable of adding their own words to the Quran, but adding 2 verses is out of the question? That's not even logical! It's also foolish of you to base your view on "intentions" of the translators, since you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they're intentions were when writing. Haven't you ever looked inside a Sunni school or masjid? Some of them actually translate 4719 as

"You shall know that there is no god but the one god, Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

The name of Mohammed is not included anywhere in that verse at all, and the scholars added it there to idolize him, just like they did in 9128 and 129 by calling him "raheem", a title only used for GOD throughout the rest of the scripture. They have changed the words in the Quran in 5110 to say

"And I taught you al-Kitaab and al-Sunna..." (a few say "al-Kitaab wa' al-Hadeeth&quot

The word "sunna" is not included anywhere in that verse at all! It says "al-hekmah"/the wisdom; it doesn't say anything about Mohammed's sunna. Sunnis have made this false translation and revelation to support their manmade books and ideologies. You are falling into the same trap.

If ayman is against "Hadith" he totally rejects it; correct or wrong is another debate but that is his stance, you can't just pick and choose, wherever you find something supportive you bring it up and if you dislike it throw it away. That is what Rashad has done.

This is also ridiculous. The main scope used by "Quran Aloners"/Quranists today is based on an alleged hadeeth of Mohammed telling his followers not to write down any of his words. Thus, they are using the hadeeths to justify not using hadeeths. For example

"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." (Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry)

Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah, and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith." (Ibn Hanbal)

Also,

The famous book, "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God ?!" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

So, if "Quranists" today are using hadeeths to justify their rejection of them, according to your logic, this is senseless, and they should just go along and follow the hadeeth and sunna books. And that is a stance based on pure ignorance. Just because a hadeeth testifies to the authenticity of something doesn't make it false.

First of all Jesus never gave an exact date for Muhammad to come secondly Quran was revealed to one person, and it was also recited by one person at first.

First of all, Jesus didn't give an exact date for Mohammed to come... What does that have to do with anything? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... Also, according to the scriptures, the Gospel was given to Jesus. However, the Gospel of Jesus, compiled and given to him, has been completely replaced by 4 gospels of his followers. Do you think this is acceptable?

The Bible was revealed to many people, and it was recited by many people, so we are not sure about what Jesus said is actually what Jesus said; but that is not in the case of Quran, People memorized it people wrote it down and five times daily they recited the verses from Quran, some one tampering with Quran could have been easily caught and brought it in to lime light, Even Allah did not corrected it through any scholar, Sufi, Imam or whatever; whereas Allah has promised that
No falsehood can ever enter it, in the past or in the future; for it is a revelation from God, most wise, praiseworthy. Sura 41.42

This is also ridiculous. People all over the world memorize the Bible daily. Jews all over the world memorize the Torah daily, as they've been doing for hundreds, even thousands, of years. What you're saying has no relevance at all. Both of those books have been corrupted. Where is your proof that the Quran hasn't been corrupted? Weren't the Torah and Gospel also 'revelations from GOD, most wise, praiseworthy'? Based on a literal translation of 4142, no falsehood is able to enter into any revelation revealed from GOD, but is this the case?

Now noticing this, Rashad had no other choice to bring up another story, telling this verse is for the Quran that is written on tablets and saved in heavens and not for the Quran that we read daily or saved in our minds

Wow... So, you believe 8521 & 22 to be speaking about a physical translation written by Mohammed? This is the preserved/protected book that GOD (Allah) was talking about? Okay... If that makes ANY SENSE at all, then please explain why the original copy of the Quran is gone, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, and the earliest copied manuscripts of it, written by scribes, are not even the same, having from minor to very major differences. You think GOD was talking about preserving a manmade copy of the scripture written by imams and ulamas, but He wasn't talking about the actual ORIGINAL book written by Mohammed?

Peace,

Ahmad

Bigmo

From what I know the two verses were added(according to hadith) in the end of the chapter because two verses were too short to be on its own.

I want to know how did those two verses hurt the 19 calculation?

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Bigmo,

I want to know how did those two verses hurt the 19 calculation?

Those 2 verses put many factors/words off balance because of their usage (i.e. "Allah", "rahim", "throne", etc.). It also offset the number of verses and words in the total Quran. This would be evident even without using the hadiths that confirmed the findings, and this proves that Allah has protected His message. Even without the code 19 calculations, though, the verses are in question because of their use of the word "rahim"/merciful when referring to Mohammed. This is a clear change of the message, especially considering the fact that GOD is the only one given this title throughout the rest of the book. NOBODY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE QURAAN IS SAID TO HAVE THE POWER OF "MERCY" EXCEPT FOR ALLAH AND MOHAMMED. This doesn't seem strange to you? Not only is "rahim" used only as an attribute of Allah, it is actually in the Basmalah (i.e. "Bismallah al-rahman al-rahim&quot. So, obviously, this is a title dedicated only to GOD, not Mohammed.

Peace,

Ahmad

khyaletanzim

Dear Bilal,

You seemed ignoring my last post(previous to this one)and you have raised again the same question "Does all the versions same?" Please answer the following question in detail as they are asked.

Please translate before and after correction or mistakes.
If translations have no impact on meaning of the text then why raise the question?
If there are differences in meanings then what differences in understanding it will create other than proving Khalifa as last prophet or whatever.

Please give the answers with clear explanations and also answer the questions i posted in my previous post dated November 20, 2008, 060233 PM ? Reply #38 ?

Regards.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Khyaletanzim,

You seemed ignoring my last post(previous to this one)and you have raised again the same question "Does all the versions same?

Oh, I certainly apologize. I didn't mean to ignore your questions, and GOD willing, I'll do my best to answer them.

Please translate before and after correction or mistakes.
If translations have no impact on meaning of the text then why raise the question?
If there are differences in meanings then what differences in understanding it will create other than proving Khalifa as last prophet or whatever.

I have illustrated points already regarding Arabic translations of the Quran. Some people would view "alkitaab wa' alhekmah"/the scripture and the wisdom as sufficient in the Quran, described in 5110. However, some scholars have completely changed this to saying, "And I taught you the book/scripture and the SUNNA" (i.e. alkitaab wa' al-sunna), and this is their means of justifying their use of manmade books called hadith and sunna. Not only do these completely alter the Arabic text, but it completely changes the meanings behind the verses, and in turn it changes the entire Quran. Instead of following "alquran wahdahu"/the quran alone, it suddenly becomes mandatory to learn the scripture and the sunna of Mohammed, which conflicts with the rest of the message.

Peace,

Ahmad

Raj-ah

Salaam Ahmed Bilal,

You wrote

What you are saying sounds ridiculous. Scholars are capable of adding their own words to the Quran, but adding 2 verses is out of the question? That's not even logical! It's also foolish of you to base your view on "intentions" of the translators, since you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they're intentions were when writing. Haven't you ever looked inside a Sunni school or masjid? Some of them actually translate 4719 as

"You shall know that there is no god but the one god, Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

The name of Mohammed is not included anywhere in that verse at all, and the scholars added it there to idolize him,

Now that is pure Rashad Khalifa's follower; dont do what you say.
My brother you seem to be beginner in criticising other sects. This "ART" needs skills.
No one has added the name "Muhammad" in the arabic nor is it acceptable.
No addition no deletion in Quran on purpose is allowed. (only Rashad has this honor)
The Ayat says "You should Have knowldge that there is no God but Allah............."
Now some have translated it " O prophet you should have knowldge...... " "O beloved you should have Knowldge....." I have not seen any well recognized translation which mentions Muhammad even in the starting; what to say after La ila ha ... PLease provide the link for us of translation which uses translation of this Ayat as you quoted.

If it is written in any mosque mentioning that this is any Ayat of Quran or any Sunni telling you the same please let me know it.
The first part you wrote is statement of "Imaan" that is a basic to be Muslim, One Allah, the second part is statement of fact to which you and many others are allergic
Yes Muhammad Is messanger of Allah and there is no doubt about that! Praise be to Muhammad Rasul of Allah and Praise be to All Rasul's of Allah.

just like they did in 9128 and 129 by calling him "raheem", a title only used for GOD throughout the rest of the scripture. They have changed the words in the Quran in 5110 to say

"And I taught you al-Kitaab and al-Sunna..." (a few say "al-Kitaab wa' al-Hadeeth&quot

The word "sunna" is not included anywhere in that verse at all! It says "al-hekmah"/the wisdom; it doesn't say anything about Mohammed's sunna. Sunnis have made this false translation and revelation to support their manmade books and ideologies. You are falling into the same trap.

Brother it is not me but you have fallen for the trap, you are talking pure nonsense here. I have not found any Arabic Quran which says "al-sunnah" or "Hadith" and you know why? because even a minor student of Quran knows in this Ayat Allah is talking to Jesus so where does Muhammad (PBUH) comes In? brickwall brickwall

Quote from Raj-ah on Yesterday at 101033 AM
If ayman is against "Hadith" he totally rejects it; correct or wrong is another debate but that is his stance, you can't just pick and choose, wherever you find something supportive you bring it up and if you dislike it throw it away. That is what Rashad has done.

This is also ridiculous. The main scope used by "Quran Aloners"/Quranists today is based on an alleged hadeeth of Mohammed telling his followers not to write down any of his words. Thus, they are using the hadeeths to justify not using hadeeths. For example

"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." (Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry)

Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah, and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith." (Ibn Hanbal)

Also,

The famous book, "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God ?!" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

So, if "Quranists" today are using hadeeths to justify their rejection of them, according to your logic, this is senseless, and they should just go along and follow the hadeeth and sunna books. And that is a stance based on pure ignorance. Just because a hadeeth testifies to the authenticity of something doesn't make it false.

Shall I laugh at this or what? My friend it seems you even do not know the exact meaning of Hadith and Sunnah.
Let us make it easy for you
The TWO verses added by scribes; were they added in life of Muhammad or after his death?
I think you will be wise enough to say after his death
Now if after his death; then how can it be a Hadith because according to all of your examples Muhammad is the Key in Hadith. So the hadeeth you are bringing to testify your 19, please check it first is it a Hadith? as per your quotes above.

Quote from Raj-ah on Yesterday at 101033 AM
First of all Jesus never gave an exact date for Muhammad to come secondly Quran was revealed to one person, and it was also recited by one person at first.

First of all, Jesus didn't give an exact date for Mohammed to come... What does that have to do with anything? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... Also, according to the scriptures, the Gospel was given to Jesus. However, the Gospel of Jesus, compiled and given to him, has been completely replaced by 4 gospels of his followers. Do you think this is acceptable?

Again ignorance playing its role, Some writers say that Jesus said Prophet to come will come after few years of his death, and that is not true, therefore if believe in it then we have a prophet who cannot predict things right, like your messenger Khalifa. Jesus never gave a date for Muhammad to come therefore he coming after six hundred years doesnot make him a phoney prophet as you said.

This is also ridiculous. People all over the world memorize the Bible daily. Jews all over the world memorize the Torah daily, as they've been doing for hundreds, even thousands, of years. What you're saying has no relevance at all. Both of those books have been corrupted. Where is your proof that the Quran hasn't been corrupted? Weren't the Torah and Gospel also 'revelations from GOD, most wise, praiseworthy'? Based on a literal translation of 4142, no falsehood is able to enter into any revelation revealed from GOD, but is this the case?

Oh! I want to meet with some Hufaaz of Bible ;D But wait which Bible, new testament? which version? King james version? in which language have they memorized the Bible? Hebrew?

Indeed
No falsehood can ever enter it, in the past or in the future; for it is a revelation from God, most wise, praiseworthy?. Sura 41.42

Because this is promised by Allah and no one can change the Quran nor you nor Rashad on purpose.

Quote from Raj-ah on Yesterday at 101033 AM
Now noticing this, Rashad had no other choice to bring up another story, telling this verse is for the Quran that is written on tablets and saved in heavens and not for the Quran that we read daily or saved in our minds

Wow... So, you believe 8521 & 22 to be speaking about a physical translation written by Mohammed? This is the preserved/protected book that GOD (Allah) was talking about? Okay... If that makes ANY SENSE at all, then please explain why the original copy of the Quran is gone, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, and the earliest copied manuscripts of it, written by scribes, are not even the same, having from minor to very major differences. You think GOD was talking about preserving a manmade copy of the scripture written by imams and ulamas, but He wasn't talking about the actual ORIGINAL book written by Mohammed?

Peace,

Muhammad wrote a translation? That is latest news for me.
What do you mean orginal copy? was it given to Muhammad binded in a book shape? or was it revealed in years and every one kept memorising it, 23 years 114 Surahs, 276 months and 114 surahs, Read every day, memorised every day, repeated in whole once in a year, written on different pieces of papers etc.
The Quran was preserved before it was revealed to Muhammad and after it was revealed to Muhammad.

Allah does not need theory 19's or 20's. Theory 19 is a BIG zero without the "Hadith" mentioning addition of two verses and is BIG zero if we donot remove two verses.

Humans always err, Muhammad (PBUH) was a human many places in Quran Allah has cautioned him. Scribes are Human they can make mistakes while writing down, for a word or two or a letter but that is not intenally. Rashad removes two verses for purpose the verses which according to him were added with a purpose, and Allah let it remain there for 1400 years on purpose.

No falsehood can ever enter it, in the past or in the future; for it is a revelation from God, most wise, praiseworthy?. Sura 41.42

Thanks.

Allah Ho Akbar!

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Raj-ah,

Now that is pure Rashad Khalifa's follower; dont do what you say.

Now I see that you sre truly blinded, and your statements make it very clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should do more research on this matter...

No one has added the name "Muhammad" in the arabic nor is it acceptable.
No addition no deletion in Quran on purpose is allowed. (only Rashad has this honor)

Where do you keep coming up with this "on purpose" crap?! There are no coincidences in GOD's message! People have added to and taken away from the Quran plenty of times, and stating that this wasn't done "on purpose" is simply showing your ignorance. You don't know the intentions of any translator, and you don't know what people were doing "on purpose". Were you there to supervise them and make sure they translated the scriptures correctly? NO. So, stop speaking on the matters in which you have no knowledge.

The Ayat says "You should Have knowldge that there is no God but Allah............."
Now some have translated it " O prophet you should have knowldge...... " "O beloved you should have Knowldge....." I have not seen any well recognized translation which mentions Muhammad even in the starting; what to say after La ila ha ... PLease provide the link for us of translation which uses translation of this Ayat as you quoted.

If it is written in any mosque mentioning that this is any Ayat of Quran or any Sunni telling you the same please let me know it.

Actually, nearly every Sunni masjid that I've ever been to has contained those same words, and the chapter and verse numbers are placed beside it, misleading people into believing that these words are in the Quran. They are also recorded several times in the hadiths with a reference pointing back to 4719, as if the words are included in the scripture. This is a blasphemy.

The first part you wrote is statement of "Imaan" that is a basic to be Muslim, One Allah, the second part is statement of fact to which you and many others are allergic
Yes Muhammad Is messanger of Allah and there is no doubt about that! Praise be to Muhammad Rasul of Allah and Praise be to All Rasul's of Allah.

Show me the words "La elaha ella Allah, wa' Muhammadar rasulu Allah" ANYWHERE in the Quran, ANYWHERE. You can search, but you won't find this blasphemous "shahada" anywhere in the scriptures. You will, however, see it plenty of times in the ahadith and sunna. So, have these become your books above Allah's book? Has Mohammed become your god above Allah?

Brother it is not me but you have fallen for the trap, you are talking pure nonsense here. I have not found any Arabic Quran which says "al-sunnah" or "Hadith" and you know why? because even a minor student of Quran knows in this Ayat Allah is talking to Jesus so where does Muhammad (PBUH) comes In? brickwall brickwall

I know the scripture is speaking about Jesus, and it's evident, since it mentions it at the beginning of the verse (i.e. "O Esa, son of Maryam..."). This still hasn't deterred your great scholars who obviously feel that they have more knowledge than GOD.

Shall I laugh at this or what? My friend it seems you even do not know the exact meaning of Hadith and Sunnah.
Let us make it easy for you
The TWO verses added by scribes; were they added in life of Muhammad or after his death?
I think you will be wise enough to say after his death
Now if after his death; then how can it be a Hadith because according to all of your examples Muhammad is the Key in Hadith. So the hadeeth you are bringing to testify your 19, please check it first is it a Hadith? as per your quotes above.

I don't know if you're laughing or not, but I'm laughing hysterically right now... laugh Do you know the meanings of "hadiyth" and "sunna"? Do some research before you try to get into a debate about a topic in which you have no knowledge. Even according to the ahadith themselves, Mohammed never had hadith or sunna written about him during his entire lifetime. So, obviously, all of them were written after his death. And contrary to your belief, the hadiths are written about more than Mohammed. They also have hadiths about his followers, his family members, his friends, and pretty much everybody else who knew him. These are the people you choose to follow beside GOD, all of Mohammed's family members?!? Were all of Mohammed's relatives guided?

Again ignorance playing its role, Some writers say that Jesus said Prophet to come will come after few years of his death, and that is not true, therefore if believe in it then we have a prophet who cannot predict things right, like your messenger Khalifa. Jesus never gave a date for Muhammad to come therefore he coming after six hundred years doesnot make him a phoney prophet as you said.

This is pure stupidity. Did Mohammed give an exact date to the Arabs when Rashad Khalifa would come? What are you talking about? What did Mohammed predict? He said himself that he didn't know the future (650; 718. So, what are you claiming that he predicted? And what false predictions are you attributing to Rashad Khalifa?

Muhammad wrote a translation? That is latest news for me.
What do you mean orginal copy? was it given to Muhammad binded in a book shape? or was it revealed in years and every one kept memorising it, 23 years 114 Surahs, 276 months and 114 surahs, Read every day, memorised every day, repeated in whole once in a year, written on different pieces of papers etc.

Oh, let me guess you're one of those people who believes Mohammed was completely illiterate, unable to read or write, correct? Okay, sure. )

Allah does not need theory 19's or 20's. Theory 19 is a BIG zero without the "Hadith" mentioning addition of two verses and is BIG zero if we donot remove two verses.

Humans always err, Muhammad (PBUH) was a human many places in Quran Allah has cautioned him. Scribes are Human they can make mistakes while writing down, for a word or two or a letter but that is not intenally. Rashad removes two verses for purpose the verses which according to him were added with a purpose, and Allah let it remain there for 1400 years on purpose.

You can believe whatever you want. Allah guides whomever He wills...

Peace,

Ahmad

khyaletanzim

Posted by Ahmad Bilal on Today at 123350 AM

I have illustrated points already regarding Arabic translations of the Quran. Some people would view "alkitaab wa' alhekmah"/the scripture and the wisdom as sufficient in the Quran, described in 5110. However, some scholars have completely changed this to saying, "And I taught you the book/scripture and the SUNNA" (i.e. alkitaab wa' al-sunna), and this is their means of justifying their use of manmade books called hadith and sunna. Not only do these completely alter the Arabic text, but it completely changes the meanings behind the verses, and in turn it changes the entire Quran. Instead of following "alquran wahdahu"/the quran alone, it suddenly becomes mandatory to learn the scripture and the sunna of Mohammed, which conflicts with the rest of the message.

Bilal Ahmad you answered the above in reply to the questions regarding your link given to prove Quran has been changed.

Quote from khyaletanzim on Yesterday at 060603 PM

Please translate before and after correction or mistakes.
If translations have no impact on meaning of the text then why raise the question?
If there are differences in meanings then what differences in understanding it will create other than proving Khalifa as last prophet or whatever.

Please do read the question again and answer accordingly. I cant simply understand what is your problem because you seem to act so foolishly sometimes that i get confuse that you know English or not.

my dear i am not talking about the translations of any ayah but specifically the ayahs where nun and other words are added, subtracted or changed. I know that translation can be different with different people but i have told you already that that does not create a problem. One is free in his understanding and if the translation is within the meanings of the arabic word used then that is ones own understanding but if that translation is done out of the meanings or added some words that are not there can be pointed out easily.

Regards.

Ahmad_Bilal

Salaam Khyaletanzim,

Bilal Ahmad you answered the above in reply to the questions regarding your link given to prove Quran has been changed.

Quote from khyaletanzim on Yesterday at 060603 PM

Please translate before and after correction or mistakes.
If translations have no impact on meaning of the text then why raise the question?
If there are differences in meanings then what differences in understanding it will create other than proving Khalifa as last prophet or whatever.

Please do read the question again and answer accordingly. I cant simply understand what is your problem because you seem to act so foolishly sometimes that i get confuse that you know English or not.

This is funny, and it makes me wonder whether or not you understand not only English but your own beliefs. You sound really ridiculous right now, seriously. All the questions are answered plainly in my posts and in the link I provided for you. Maybe you should consider this clear misjudgement of your own words

i am not talking about the translations of any ayah but specifically the ayahs where nun and other words are added, subtracted or changed. I know that translation can be different with different people but i have told you already that that does not create a problem. One is free in his understanding and if the translation is within the meanings of the arabic word used then that is ones own understanding but if that translation is done out of the meanings or added some words that are not there can be pointed out easily.

Do you not understand this, or is it your translation that your are misinterpreting? You said

If Quran is not preserved (In any way) then why God tells himself that no one can change his words and no addition will be possible?

Have you seen your misguided logic? If the Quran has been perfectly preserved, then NOTHING can be added to or deleted from the message, regardless of the interpretation at which you arrive. That means NO LETTERS, NO WORDS, NO NUMBERS, NO DOTS OR DASHES. It means absolutely nothing can be added or subtracted. And if something has been added or subtracted, it automatically proves that your logic is grossly flawed. You're pretty much saying that GOD protects His message TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, and this is ridiculous. Regardless of your convictions, YOU ARE WRONG. For example, 770 says

Did you come to make us worship GOD alone (allahu wahdahu)...

Someone could retranslate this to say, "Did you come to make us worship your Lord alone (rabbaka wahdahu)," and it would imply the same message. However, these two statements are NOT the same, and this is changing the scripture by changing the words. Stop trying to rely on your foolish miguidance to justify your rejection. Adding letters and words to the message changes the Quran itself, and your interpretation of the passages is completely irrelevant. The Quran has been changed, and this is a clear and evident fact. Stop denying the obvious.

Peace,

Ahmad

Raj-ah

Salaam brother Ahmed Bilal,
think it is time to brust your bubble, you have built whole building on an article published on Rashad's site.
You keep on repeating the propaganda of missionaries that Quran has been changed many times; a base less and based on ignorance propoganda it is.

Peace Raj-ah,

Now I see that you sre truly blinded, and your statements make it very clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should do more research on this matter...

On what matter? dear Ahmed, On Rashad being messenger of Allah? or deleting out two whole verses from Quran on PURPOSE to make Quran fit in to 19 theory.

Ahmed Bilal

Where do you keep coming up with this "on purpose" crap?! There are no coincidences in GOD's message! People have added to and taken away from the Quran plenty of times, and stating that this wasn't done "on purpose" is simply showing your ignorance. You don't know the intentions of any translator, and you don't know what people were doing "on purpose". Were you there to supervise them and make sure they translated the scriptures correctly? NO. So, stop speaking on the matters in which you have no knowledge.

We are just going to discuss that shortly and are going to expose your so called scholars at "submission" site.

Actually, nearly every Sunni masjid that I've ever been to has contained those same words, and the chapter and verse numbers are placed beside it, misleading people into believing that these words are in the Quran. They are also recorded several times in the hadiths with a reference pointing back to 4719, as if the words are included in the scripture. This is a blasphemy.

Brother no running away, I asked you the link of any recognized translation or any Arabic copy which uses the translation you quoted. What you see and understand is not reliable because according to you "Quran has changed many times" and Rashad is the messenger of Allah.

Quote from Raj-ah on November 24, 2008, 054628 PM
The first part you wrote is statement of "Imaan" that is a basic to be Muslim, One Allah, the second part is statement of fact to which you and many others are allergic
Yes Muhammad Is messanger of Allah and there is no doubt about that! Praise be to Muhammad Rasul of Allah and Praise be to All Rasul's of Allah.

Show me the words "La elaha ella Allah, wa' Muhammadar rasulu Allah" ANYWHERE in the Quran, ANYWHERE. You can search, but you won't find this blasphemous "shahada" anywhere in the scriptures. You will, however, see it plenty of times in the ahadith and sunna. So, have these become your books above Allah's book? Has Mohammed become your god above Allah?

You just assume too much. Who said that there are any such words in the Quran? Did I said that? or you pointed out that? when if you pointed out I am asking you to provide the link for the translation you quoted and Arabic copy. Simple! It is just your hatered for other sects which is overcoming your intellect.

Quote from Raj-ah on November 24, 2008, 054628 PM
Brother it is not me but you have fallen for the trap, you are talking pure nonsense here. I have not found any Arabic Quran which says "al-sunnah" or "Hadith" and you know why? because even a minor student of Quran knows in this Ayat Allah is talking to Jesus so where does Muhammad (PBUH) comes In?

I know the scripture is speaking about Jesus, and it's evident, since it mentions it at the beginning of the verse (i.e. "O Esa, son of Maryam...&quot. This still hasn't deterred your great scholars who obviously feel that they have more knowledge than GOD.

My scholars? brother you are the one who said that Quran has been changed to "Sunnah" of Muhammad from "Hikmah" and what I answered is above, now instead of proving allegation you brought forward, you are attacking the scholars, If one cannot understand that these ayat are for Isa and not Muhammad's sunnah as you did not, then can we call him a Scholar?

Quote from Raj-ah on November 24, 2008, 054628 PM
Shall I laugh at this or what? My friend it seems you even do not know the exact meaning of Hadith and Sunnah.
Let us make it easy for you
The TWO verses added by scribes; were they added in life of Muhammad or after his death?
I think you will be wise enough to say after his death
I don't know if you're laughing or not, but I'm laughing hysterically right now... Do you know the meanings of "hadiyth" and "sunna"? Do some research before you try to get into a debate about a topic in which you have no knowledge. Even according to the ahadith themselves, Mohammed never had hadith or sunna written about him during his entire lifetime. So, obviously, all of them were written after his death. And contrary to your belief, the hadiths are written about more than Mohammed. They also have hadiths about his followers, his family members, his friends, and pretty much everybody else who knew him. These are the people you choose to follow beside GOD, all of Mohammed's family members?!? Were all of Mohammed's relatives guided?

Let us see
Ahmed BilalEven according to the ahadith themselves, Mohammed never had hadith or sunna written about him during his entire lifetime. So, obviously, all of them were written after his death.
RajahNow if after his death; then how can it be a Hadith because according to all of your examples Muhammad is the Key in Hadith. So the hadeeth you are bringing to testify your 19, please check it first is it a Hadith? as per your quotes above

CAn you not comprehend?
Yes they have Hadith about followers and so on? but we are talking about the examples you quoted.
Even the HAdiths which mentions Muhammad as a center point such as Hadiths about Surah Najam are not taken seriously due to different errors; WHat to say about a HAdith in which Muhammad has to do nothng? and RASHAD KHALIFA and his blind followers base there 19 theory on this HADITH or even bring it in their support. Do you understand now why I was laughing?

This is pure stupidity. Did Mohammed give an exact date to the Arabs when Rashad Khalifa would come? What are you talking about? What did Mohammed predict? He said himself that he didn't know the future (650; 718. So, what are you claiming that he predicted? And what false predictions are you attributing to Rashad Khalifa?

Well falsehood of Khalifa? that needs another thread to expose him.

Quote from Raj-ah on November 24, 2008, 054628 PM
Muhammad wrote a translation? That is latest news for me.
What do you mean orginal copy? was it given to Muhammad binded in a book shape? or was it revealed in years and every one kept memorising it, 23 years 114 Surahs, 276 months and 114 surahs, Read every day, memorised every day, repeated in whole once in a year, written on different pieces of papers etc.

Oh, let me guess you're one of those people who believes Mohammed was completely illiterate, unable to read or write, correct? Okay, sure.

Assuming again. Quran was not in the book shape from day One, it took 23 years almost and people meorized slowly and surely, No chance of any deletion or addition going unnoticed on great scale.

Quote from Raj-ah on November 24, 2008, 054628 PM
Allah does not need theory 19's or 20's. Theory 19 is a BIG zero without the "Hadith" mentioning addition of two verses and is BIG zero if we donot remove two verses.

Humans always err, Muhammad (PBUH) was a human many places in Quran Allah has cautioned him. Scribes are Human they can make mistakes while writing down, for a word or two or a letter but that is not intenally. Rashad removes two verses for purpose the verses which according to him were added with a purpose, and Allah let it remain there for 1400 years on purpose.

You can believe whatever you want. Allah guides whomever He wills...

Peace,

Wait for next post please.

Peace

anthonywallace

Peace

Because it is the truth. Why shouldnt we belive in the truth that has come to us? And we yearn that our Lord joins us with the righteous peopkle.

Raj-ah

Salaam Ahmed Bilal

First of all make it clear that Quran has NOT CHANGED, the article you mention does not support your views.
Let us see what does recognized scholars have to say about these scribal errors mentioned in article.

In short, the claim of so-called scribal errors in the Qur'?n is not only ridiculous but also a fanciful imagination of an extremely ignorant person.

In the following article, we contemplate giving some clues in answer to the strange claims made by Mr. Newton on the scribal issues of the Qur'?n.

In short, the author of that page notices rightfully that the spelling of many words in the Holy Qur'?n does not match their spelling in modern literature. He wishes to prove that the Qur'?n is not miraculous and uses scribal pecularities to support his claims. He, of course, seems to be unaware of the way the Arabic script developed due to many reasons, the primary one being the correct pronunciation of the letters in the Qur'?n.
The introduction of tashk?l and as well as tanw?n signs was, to facilitate the correct reading of the Qur'?n. A superfluous change in the script does not mean it is corrupted.
An excellent example which shows how the Arabic script progressed is the writing of the letter q?f on the Dome of the Rock. The letter q?f is marked by one stroke below it five times on the Dome of the Rock, whereas today, q?f is written with two dots on top. Examples of this kind can only be found in early copies of the Qur'?ns.

The script of any language (not only Arabic) is subject to many changes and amendments agreed upon by the users of that language throughout history. Writing being a communication tool, the script must be devoid of ambiguity so that the information carried gets from the sender to the recepient without ambiguity. Once in a while, linguists decide to change certain scribal rules in order to simplify the script. For instance, a recent amendment in Arabic script occurred in the middle of the 1980's. It concerned the rules of drawing the hamzah. Originally, in some cases, the hamzah was drawn on a w?w letter and was followed by a long vowel w?w, thus putting two consecutive w?ws in the same word. In this regard, Arab linguists decided to eliminate the first w?w and draw the hamzah either on the line or on a hook (nabirah) followed by the second w?w.
The same applies to many other words like mas'?liyyah (i.e., responsibility) or sho'?n (i.e., concerns). So, what do we have here? If the argument of the critic was acceptable then the Arabic literature published before 1985 would be full of errors! Actually, the script being a matter of conventions, one cannot say that books older than 1985 are full of mispelled words while the ones published after that date are correct. In reality, both are correct given the scribal conventions prevailing in their time. It doesn't make sense to judge written material based on conventions other than the ones in which it was written.

It is noteworthy that the Qur'?n is written according to the cUthm?nic scribal conventions (rasm) and not according to the modern conventions. After learning the conventions of the cUthm?nic script (it is as easy as any alternative convention), any reader is able to read the Holy Qur'?n correctly. This means that the message of the Qur'?n is entirely transmitted from the hardcopy to the reader without ambiguity. It is also noteworthy that the modern script still bears many anomalies that could be amended later. For example, words like dh?lik or l?kin ought to be written with alif letters but, according to the modern scribal conventions, they are written without alif.

But even in the modern script those anomalies are not corrected. In the aforementioned elaboration, we have conclusively established that the position of the critic is both unreasonable and ill-founded. One question may remain Why don't Muslims abandon the cUthm?nic script and adopt the modern script? This question needs a separate exposition and may be too lenghty for the purpose of this article

These are pieces from an article by Mr. Saifullah and Robert Squires.

Samia, ayman or any other linguistic who can comment on this Please?

khyaletanzim

Dear Bilal,

I know i cannot win your stubbornness with simple logic so now i am going to try another way.

In the beginning i thought that you know Arabic and that is why i wrote letters many time but you seemed to be ignoring the point which I was raising. Kindly read carefully and answer accordingly and see who is illogical, foolish and confused.

letter noun
any of the alphabetic symbols

leaser
,

written or printed message sent by post or messenger
, , , , , , ,

I hope now you will be able to see what i have been telling you all along. brickwall

I think if I let you understand yourself you may come up with a foolish answer as in the past so please let me explain the difference between and in case you could not understand on your own.

Any of the alphabetic symbols is called and i hope you know the plural for it.

written or printed message sent by post or messenger is called . there are many other words which come in the same category and those words are , , , , , , .

Arabic - English

speech , address , letter , note , disquisition , dispatch

say , conception , concept , view , notion

,
announcement statement

,
utterance , vocable , word

vocable , utterance , word

Now please read the following verses and the translation of Khalifa in case you refuse to accept that word is not the correct translation.

22

Transliteration
Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena
Free_Minds
This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous.
Khalifa
This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;

= Ta-Qaf-Ya = to fear, be cautious, guarded, prepared, preserve, forethoughtful, reverential & pious fear (of God), righteous/virtuous/just/honest.

6115

Transliteration
Watammat kalimatu rabbika sidqan waAAadlan la mubaddila likalimatihi wahuwa alssameeAAu alAAaleemu
Free_Minds
And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
Khalifa
The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

1827

Transliteration
Waotlu ma oohiya ilayka min kitabi rabbika la mubaddila likalimatihi walan tajida min doonihi multahadan
Free_Minds
And recite what has been inspired to you from your Lord's Scripture, there is no changing His words, and you will not find besides Him any refuge.
Khalifa
You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.

I hope now you will understand that God has not promised the saving of letters but message and all the pointed problems on your article does not change the message in any way as far as my understanding is concerned. Please prove to me if my understanding is wrong but with the clear example from the article you mentioned.

Regarding the translations don't bother to tell me that they are corrupted because i already know that fact. I also know the fact that that kind of mistranslation can be caught very easily by the one who knows Arabic.

Regards.

Ahmad_Bilal

Salaam Raj-ah and Khyaletanzim,

This is really getting ridiculous, and both of you are showing your ignorance of GOD's message. You're basing your ridiculous arguments about the preservation of the Quran on the scripture's own words, and this is not a solid argument at all. The Quran wasn't composed only for "Muslims"; it's for everyone, a message to the entire world. Do you think everyone in the world believes in the preservation of the Quran?

Raj-ah, you said Allah has protected His message entirely, and I agree. However, you said the Quran hasn't changed at all. So, once I refuted your misguided reasoning, you try to use other means to defend your logic, even though it doesn't make any sense.

Quran was not in the book shape from day One, it took 23 years almost and people meorized slowly and surely, No chance of any deletion or addition going unnoticed on great scale.

My question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? If you were told something and instructed to remember it, each year adding a new statement to remember, over the course of 23 years, do you think you'd remember the initial statement? The widespread answer is NO. Those people did not go through a daily routine of reciting a 114-chapter recital, a total of 6346 verses, every single day to remember them. This is an outrageous claim!

Khyaletanzim, you claim that GOD has only protected the meanings of the verses, not the letters or words themselves... This is even more ridiculous that Raj-ah's claim. People can interpret the scripture differently, and any or all of the interpretations can be correct. The Quran is called a "preserved BOOK". So, think logically, brother. How can you preserve a book without preserving the words? And how can you preserve the words without preserving the letters? What you're implying is absurd, and it goes against plain logic.

Regarding the translations don't bother to tell me that they are corrupted because i already know that fact. I also know the fact that that kind of mistranslation can be caught very easily by the one who knows Arabic.

This is also wrong, wrong, WRONG! The Arabic translations of the Quran are NOT all the same either. So, consequentially, when you read the Arabic Quran, you are still reading a TRANSLATION, a COPY, not the original.

So, how do you either of you know the Quran is actually preserved? And saying, "Because the Quran says..." is not an acceptable answer, since this would make the Quran only for muslims, which it's not. So, how do you know? Or are you just blindly believing everything you read and hear?

Peace,

Ahmad

khyaletanzim

Dear Bilal,

I give up against your stubbornness and ignoring of others point of views or understandings. For God's sake tell me honestly have you answered any of my questions asked to you in previous posts?

Just saying us ridiculous will not make us one. Show me what is ridiculous in my explanation or questions and how? I never said that my understanding is the correct one but i always present reasons and logic for my understanding where you just pass your comments.

Once again look at your stupidity and false understanding.

Quote from khyaletanzim on Today at 062642 PM

Regarding the translations don't bother to tell me that they are corrupted because i already know that fact. I also know the fact that that kind of mistranslation can be caught very easily by the one who knows Arabic.

Answer from Bilal
This is also wrong, wrong, WRONG! The Arabic translations of the Quran are NOT all the same either. So, consequentially, when you read the Arabic Quran, you are still reading a TRANSLATION, a COPY, not the original.

Do you understand English at all? what was my point and see what is your answer.where did i said in the above that translations are same?

Kindly explain how and what do you read? Original Quran or translation? How do you understand the Quran?

Your behavior is exactly the same as other religious fanatics. They always say
what I say is right and You are wrong.
even if others use the same logic or reasoning as they use still the answer remains the same

If you have some dignity left then read all my previous posts and answer the questions I raised and prove it to me by either presenting your correct translations or logic where i am wrong or what is it that I have misunderstood. I don't think you will do that but still I hope that you will answer.

Regards.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Khyaletanzim,

I gave thorough explanations for all of my arguments. You are blatantly ignoring the facts, which is pretty typical of Muslims who base their beliefs on blind devotion, blind belief, and blind faith. Your arguments DON'T MAKE SENSE. That's why I'm questioning how good your knowledge of the English language is. You said

Regarding the translations don't bother to tell me that they are corrupted because i already know that fact. I also know the fact that that kind of mistranslation can be caught very easily by the one who knows Arabic.

What you obviously don't understand is the absurdity of this ridiculous argument. This mistranslation is NOT caught by the one who knows Arabic. The oldest Quranic manuscript that you read from is a TRANSLATION. You have no idea what the original scripture said by reading translations, even the Arabic ones. The oldest Quranic manuscripts possessed today by Sunni and Wahhabi scholars in Mekkah and Medinah are CORRUPTED. How hard is that to understand?

Kindly explain how and what do you read? Original Quran or translation? How do you understand the Quran?

I read a translation, just like you. Whether this translation is Arabic, English, French, Spanish, Aramaic, Italian, or Russian, it is STILL A TRANSLATION. Nobody on this Earth possesses the "original" Quran because it is with Allah. Now, regarding the translations, I've read English, Arabic, and Spanish translations of the Quran, and they all have their own flaws and mistranslations.

If you have some dignity left then read all my previous posts and answer the questions I raised and prove it to me by either presenting your correct translations or logic where i am wrong or what is it that I have misunderstood. I don't think you will do that but still I hope that you will answer.

Trust me, I have plenty of dignity left, and I never lost any... ;D If you want the answers to your questions, I suggest you look back through this thread and find them. I won't waste your time (and mine) by re-repeating all the answers I've given to your questions.

Peace,

Ahmad

khyaletanzim

Dear Ahmad Bilal,

Well you have won Argument and I Accept my Ignorance. bravo but what you are saying is the following

ARABIC QURAN IS ALSO A TRANSLATION wow WHAT AN INTELLECTUAL OBESERVATION. rotflgiveup

AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING? whatever

My last question If Quran is with God Then please tell me Where do you Get your Guidance? brickwall

Regards.