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).

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

1. the act of going against; opposition; denial
2. a declaration of the opposite or contrary
3. a statement that is at variance with itself (often in the phrase a contradiction in terms)
4. conflict or inconsistency, as between events, qualities, etc.
5. a person or thing containing conflicting qualities
6. (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!"

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

1. 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.

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.

Peace SearchingGod

If it is speculative then disprove it.

Your logic was your understanding. How about the following logic

It makes no difference to the word of GOD if you take away the introduction, the index or 128-129?

The word of GOD with all its instructions , its commands and its wisdom stay intact. ( 19 has proved that! in the initialed surahs)

Peace

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

Peace Searching God.

Please answer the question I asked you, then I will answer you.

Prove that 19 is not part of the " initialed surahs"

This will help to change my mind.
Peace

What do you want me to prove in a speculative based miracle ?

Come in the field of Logic to give a relevant basis to your number 19 Miracle.

There is nothing Logic in what you claim. I already gave you a counter-argument based on Logic.

Shalom Aleikhem,

Not all hadiths are absurd, agreed. However, I put all hadiths with all other hearsay informations. The place where they belong.

We can not have a sensible dialogue without coming to a agreement on a premise. I was speaking from the assumption that you wanted to know why hadiths are different than Qur'an. Not from the assumption that both are useless unreliable documents.

When the author claims to be God, it is the obvious assumption that a God knows what is true/false better than us. Thus, the Qur'an can quote sources, talk about them, give lessons based on them. However, when the same author asks you to not follow other documents besides it as divine, it is rational for anyone who accepts the Qur'an to be divine to listen to it.

Put simply, the master of all knowledge telling you about an event in the past does not in any way shape or form warrant everyone else the eligibility to speak on the issue with equal worth. Thats one of the most absurd arguments I ever came across. Its like saying "Why can't I go around taking whatever drugs I like when my doctor can prescribe whatever drug he/she prefers"

I still do not see your case.

You need to study a bit more about hadiths. The chain of transmitter thing is for hadiths, not Qur'an.

Only because in the Quran, you don't see the chain of transmission and the name of transmitters.

I do not have any evidence to demonstrate that the Qur'an was collected the way people like Bukhari saw it fit. If you ask me, I would argue that this story was popularized to add to the credibility of hadiths as they themselves depend on such process. To further expose their lies, you will find hadiths about the writing of Qur'an by scribes infront of Muhammad too .

So you follow a book that you even don't know from where it came ? Who wrote it ? (That's blind following for sure !)

Your case for the recording of Qur'an is based on hadiths. Hearsay information collected by people like Bukhari in the form of public surveys.

Honestly, addition/deletion of verses can not be verified in any way. Lets take a hypothetical case where we had a Qur'an which is signed by Muhammad. How would I know if it really was Muhammad ?? This problem does not only occur in Muhammad/Islam case, but for many other cases. This is where HISTORY steps in. When we study History, the only way to make any sense of a document and its credibility is by testing it's contents against our rationality. And that is exactly where the consistency of the Qur'an is beautiful to it's admirers.

This is none but a subjective opinion. And subjectivity is not compatible with rationality.

By the way, what just happened in this thread...its filled with so much back and forth of words...lol.

In any case, let us assume there is no God, the history of Islam and Qur'an has been hijacked by public surveys carried out by morons. And that is sad, even if there is no God, a historian would surely share my problem with that.

I hope you get some time to study hadiths before you compare it to Qur'an again. For there is an inherent and obvious difference between a document and random public surveys.

Peace
---------- 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.

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

There is nothing requiring an oral transmission of AQ either. Any transmission will suffice. AQ is about the message, not the medium. If one takes AQ to be true, then AQ states that it contains everything necessary for the Deen. It doesn't teach how to bake a pizza or drive a car and neither does it forbid these things. Moreover, there are evidences that AQ was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets).

255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

This is not an evidence but a false accusation against Muhammad from the Disbelievers.

254 And those who rejected said "This is but a falsehood that he invented and other people have helped him with it." Certainly, they have come with what is unjust and fabricated.
255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

So your first argument to my observation is void.

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

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.

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.

Given that much of the audience of the day was not able to read, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place.

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 !

Third,

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !

Please provide evidence and/or citations for what is presented--or is it "original research?"

And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran). The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

That's an interesting theory about a "state Quran"--but still surmise presented without evidence. Is there any evidence of a Quran with different content (not including translations or footnotes)?

You have so many credible "academic" researches about these subjects. Just check it by your own means.

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.

1)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

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.

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.

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 think your criterion of judging if it's divine or not is impotent.

Science never been a criterion to judge the divine origin of something.

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

I'm unfamiliar with what you write about. There have been multiple translations throughout history. Some translations are better than others. Does one choice of words somehow dramatically change the core meaning?

I am not talking about translation ! Read again.
The numbers above are Surah numbers, if it can help you to undersand the matter.

780-84
1169-83
1558-72
26160-174
2754-58
2928-35
37133-136
5131-37
5433-39

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

I have already said

Here is the difference
GOD will only protect HIS word. The introduction before sura 1 and the index after sura 114 do not matter. It is the same with 128- 129 . They do not prove your point. On the contrary, the code is proof of this.

Prove that 19 is not part of the initial surahs?, That will make your case credible.
Peace

I gave you a logical procedure to dismiss the so called "number 19 Miracle", just follow it and don't be dazzled by some proof with no pertinent methodology and hazardous applying.

Find a failure to this logical procedure, if you can otherwise "number 19 Miracle" is nothing more than a fallacy.

By the way, you didn't answer to my questions

If you think that there is something miraculous in the number 19 then what do you do of verse 9128-129 ?
Will you say like Dr. Rashad Khalifa that they were added ?

Sorry Abul-Hadi

I am not answering on your part. I am giving SearchingGod another angle to look at.

The Creator of the universe said HE authored the " Koran". He has provided the proof

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7TfMQJuf0I

His signature is in all HIS creation , including his preserved "book"

Peace.

I already told you that the whole story of number 19 is a big trap ! Nothing serious but speculative. And you can find so many inconsistencies.

If you think that there is something miraculous in the number 19 then what do you do of verse 9128-129 ?
Will you say like Dr. Rashad Khalifa that they were added ?

You don't have many possibilities.

A) God protected his book then number 19 Miracle is nothing but a fraudulent theory
B) God didn't protect his book then number 19 Miracle is relevant

IMPLIES

A) ---> A&#039 There is no alteration in the book
B) ---> B&#039 There is alteration in the book

IMPLIES

A&#039 ----> A'&#039 God is able to protect his book as He claims in
B&#039 ---> B'&#039 Gos is not able to protect his book then the claim in is false

IMPLIES

B'&#039 ---> B''&#039 Not only is false, but also is false

Conclusion Quran is an altered book if I follow/believe in the number 19 Miracle !

Salam all
I have another question about the verse

O you who believe, if you rise to hold the contact prayer, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you have had intercourse, then you shall bathe. And if you are ill, or traveling, or you have excreted feces, or you have had sexual contact with the women, and you cannot not find water, then you shall select from the clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not want to place any hardship on you, but He wants to cleanse you and to complete His blessings upon you that you may be thankful.

Sorry if I'm out of topic. Read the highlighted part. Allah says 'if you touch the womens= sexual contact. (arabic clear nisaa) Why does not he say the same for the women? i.e. 'if you have touched the men? God used his words clearly, as this would mean that God specifically speaks to the men here. This would confirm the interpretation of Al salat= a meeting / session twice a day .
Thanks for your thoughts on this
Peace

The verse begins with O you who believe (men and women). It is not the case here that only men are believers and not women. Then everthing that follows O you who believe concerns obviously the believers (men and women).

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

There is nothing requiring an oral transmission of AQ either. Any transmission will suffice. AQ is about the message, not the medium. If one takes AQ to be true, then AQ states that it contains everything necessary for the Deen. It doesn't teach how to bake a pizza or drive a car and neither does it forbid these things. Moreover, there are evidences that AQ was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets).

255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

This is not an evidence but a false accusation against Muhammad from the Disbelievers.

254 And those who rejected said "This is but a falsehood that he invented and other people have helped him with it." Certainly, they have come with what is unjust and fabricated.
255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

So your first argument to my observation is void.

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

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.

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.

Given that much of the audience of the day was not able to read, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place.

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 !

Third,

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !

Please provide evidence and/or citations for what is presented--or is it "original research?"

And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran). The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

That's an interesting theory about a "state Quran"--but still surmise presented without evidence. Is there any evidence of a Quran with different content (not including translations or footnotes)?

You have so many credible "academic" researches about these subjects. Just check it by your own means.

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.

1)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

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.

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.

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 think your criterion of judging if it's divine or not is impotent.

Science never been a criterion to judge the divine origin of something.

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

I'm unfamiliar with what you write about. There have been multiple translations throughout history. Some translations are better than others. Does one choice of words somehow dramatically change the core meaning?

I am not talking about translation ! Read again.
The numbers above are Surah numbers, if it can help you to undersand the matter.

780-84
1169-83
1558-72
26160-174
2754-58
2928-35
37133-136
5131-37
5433-39

Note that AQ does not "make" anyone righteous or unrighteous--it is a guidance. Do hadith only (attempt to) guide?

Your argument here is that Quran is a guide. Let's assume that it is as you said.

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

As for the guidance through the Hadiths, yes of course there are a lot of Hadiths whose main purpose is to guide muslim (just check around).

Second,

AQ encourages us to use our mind and senses. Hadith are taken as being authoratative without question.

The reality is not as you have depicted.
Maybe it could be the case in Sunnism (even if todays progressive Sunni muslims challenge the same authoritarian Hadiths), but this is certainly not the case in Shiism and where you will find also Shia muslims challenging the same authoritarian Hadiths if they exist.

Third,

Hadith were first written down around 200 years after AQ was revealed.

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !
And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran).
The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

The manipulation in the actual Quran is beyond your imagination !

Hadith did not follow the same transmission as AQ.

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

Fourth,

AQ has not been shown to have any contradiction. This is quite an accomplishment for a text that is over 1,000 year old. Hadith are rife with errors and contradictions.

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).
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 ?

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

Peace SearchingGod.

You said " There is a reason" , Then later you also said " What is clear".

Please explain" the reason" and" what is clear" using the Koran.
Peace.

The reason is in " (...) Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful."

In that case, you have your book and I have mine.
Peace.

Come on dude !

Muhammad didn't come with a book called "Quran" under his armpits. The existence of a book like this is mere an abstract.

Muslims (those who submit tho God) don't have any book.

The existence of Quran in the form you can see today is nothing but the result of creating a dogmatic Islam by the caliphates (Umayyad, Abbaside).

This Quran is written by those who were in possession of power (temporal, spiritual) exactly through the same process as Hadiths book.

This is the reason of my question in the first message Quran and Hadiths books, what is the difference ?

Peace be with you guys as well...
I personally do not believe in "nullifying ablution".
The way i understand it is that you have to make ablution (if water is available) Every time you do salat, as per 56.... however, if you are dirty/impure, traveling long distance, went to the bathroom, then you wash instead of making the 4 steps of 56.
flatulence may not be considered as going to the bathroom, God wishes ease upon us not hardship.

If Quran gave a special ritualistic process of purification in there must be a reason.

Why God would annoy his slaves with a long ritualistic process of purification every time ?

God wishes ease upon us not hardship.

If you don't believe in "nullifying ablution" there is a problem then, because Quran doesn't support your view. You can't add your own interpretation to something that is already very clear.

Ponder on this adding interpretation = claiming that it's not clear !

Peace SearchingGod.

Quoran There is proof that it is from GOD ( Initial surahs and 19? Also there is no contradiction in it!)

The whole story of number 19 is a big trap ! Nothing serious but speculative. And you can find so many inconsistencies.

Hadith There is proof that it is from man ( Too many contradictions in it ? Also fairy tales and wishful thinking!)

Even in the Quran you can find fairy tales similar to what you can find in Hadiths.

Shalom Aleikhem,

Why not ? thats a very good method to demonstrate the absurdities of hadiths.

By the way, the Qur'an forbids using other sources. ( I hope you read it in qur'an or already read about them in the cases I built in my blog..or elsewhere)

Why do you put all hadiths in the same batch ? Not all hadiths are absurd !
Even if Quran forbids using other sources, how do you know if the sources used by the Quran are not absurd too ?

Seems illogical here, Quran forbidding us to use other sources but itself uses other souces.

A lot of the history of Qur'an are from hadiths themselves. Qur'an leaves trail of "writing it down" in its contents. A short example

8011 No, this is but a reminder.
8012 For whoever wills to remember.
8013 In scripts which are honorable.
8014 Raised and pure.
8015 By the hands of scribes.
8016 Honorable and righteous.

This is why I was asking for the difference between Quran and Hadiths books (for me they are similar).

Why do you blindly follow the Quran knowing that it came to you through the same process (transmission through "Companions&quot and you even can't d?termine which Quranic verse is added or which one is altered because of a lack of information, even if the content of the Quran sounds consistent to you .

By the way, whats your background ?

Searching God !

Hey,

Just wanted to share a memory fragment of mine.
Edip Yuksel, I think it was, once upon a time answered me that fart may not be an ablution-nullifier, since what is mentioned in some verse is the action of 'going to the hole', i.e. the hole being the toilet.... and we don't really go, or need to go, to the toilet to fart. This leaves no. 1 and no. 2 being ablution-nullifiers in the context of "toilet related excretion".

Peace

Sounds logic.

But what to do if the fart is foul smelling ?

As for me, I check the contents in the Qur'an for validity in terms of knowledge that we have confirmed to be true. Now that can range from Astrophysics, Biology, Oceanography, Atmospheric study, et all. It is easy for the Author of the Qur'an to get away with statements about afterlife/paradise/hell/when all ends/etc, but at the same time, it is not easy for the author to get away with factual statements made about the natural world. That is what I have been using so far, to check the book for consistency.

Your methodology could be use for Hadiths books also. Then I can't see any differences between Quran and Hadiths books.

lol.... when I was writing down my post in my blog, I assumed things which sometime are bad assumptions. Not only in the post you referred to, there is another one aswell. Anyways, let me submit my case

7226 Knower of the unseen, He does not reveal His unseen to anyone.
7227 Except to whom He has accepted as a messenger, then He reveals from the past and the future.

3179 God was not to leave the believers as they were without distinguishing the rotten from the good. And God was not to let you know the future, but God chooses from His messengers whom He wishes; so believe in God and His messengers. And if you believe and are righteous, then you will have a great recompense.

2255 God, there is no god except He, the Living, the Sustainer. No slumber or sleep overtakes Him; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who will intercede with Him except with His permission? He knows their present and their future, and they do not have any of His knowledge except for what He wishes. His Throne encompasses all of the heavens and the earth and it is easy for Him to preserve them. He is the Most High, the Great.

These are the classic ayaats that can be used to make Muhammad the equivalent of God. For anyone who considers the entire Qur'an, this illusion of Muhammad knowing the future shatters. The Qur'an quotes about the past, Abraham,Jesus,Moses, Adam, origin of life, origin of universe,etc. The messenger is given these unknown informations from the past by God. The Qur'an keeps on foretelling about the future, our destiniy, the end of the universe. Now, a rational person would understand that God gave this knowledge to his messenger. Now, just so that we do not make the messenger into an all knowing entity like God, the Qur'an clarifies about Muhammad's knowledge of past/future (thats what my entire blog post is about). Oh, please do notice the last ayaat (2255), the ayaat is not referring to any single person, it is open for all, "they do not have..except". If your method is to isolate ayaats and derive conclusions based on that, you might aswell isolate this ayaat and say that you know the unknowns too. P

Not only that, you will find in other excerpts of the Qur'an where Muhammad makes sure that he has to depend totally on Qur'anic revelation. Probably I wrote about that in the post titled "Did prophet muhammad receive revelations outside Qur'an" .

So, the ayaats about his lack of knowledge of unknown only makes sense if the knowledge that he has from past/future are public by the time those ayaats were revealed (the ones confirming his lack of knowledge).

And yes, thats exactly how traditional muslims mislead each other. Not drawing conclusion from overall, but just the part of a document which they can use to justify their habits. I would very much love to see how anyone can take all these ayaats and conclude that Muhammad had the knowledge to see the past/future in the traditional sense. Ofcourse, to conclude that way, they need to ignore the ayaats I quoted in my blog and replace them with hadiths. Thats exactly what they do, take a piece of content from the Qur'an (ignoring the rest) and redirect the audience to hadiths..lol.

Good !

Those are my views based on the Qur'an.

How to be sure that all written in the Quran is reliable ? Faith is not enough here, I think.
Because historically said, as I said in my first message, these 2 types of book are relying on transmitters except that in the Quran you can'nt see the name of the transmitters.
Quran as a large book (pages between 2 covers) goes back to the Umayyad caliphate.

In other words, how to be sure that Quran is a preserved book from alterations as muslims received it through transmitters also (Muhammad and his Companions, not only Muhammad) ?