@Pilgrim.1


I  taught you would talk on the abrogation from the bible but it seemed you lost there.

Now I read your hypocrisy here. I opened a threrad sometime and asked you qiestions but you ran claiming that it was ferreted from website and I even gave you biblical verses to start but you still avoided my questions but you are jubilating over what you ran away from in another thread.

Lest I forget, you posted some missing verses from Khalifa's Quran, please why have you not been quoting from the same book all these while and it is very glaring that it was a deliberate omission and can you please serve me other translators having the verses missing but  present in others?

You guys sicken common sense. Nobody has ever denied that there are various versions and translations of the Bible. Muslims have tried to give the idea that the Bible cannot be trusted because it has many versions, editions, translations, etc.

Calm down se o ti gbo. You aint see nothing yet and don't run when I give you questions under the pretext of being lifted from website?

Kindly supply me verses missing in some translations but present in others and verses going against each other in the translations

What have your folks been arguing all this while but the same thing you complain about? Here:


Quote from: babs787 on Yesterday at 08:28:48 PM
Lastly, are you ready for a brief journey into the origin of the bible, the different versions we had and we are having now, the ommission of some verses and later insertions, difference in some verses of early publication etc?

Dear mdsocks, if you care to drop your Muslim hypocrisy, you would see the empty apologetics that you are here whining about. When people try to apply the same versions and translations of the Qur'an, you hyperventilate and summersault, claiming that the people that point out the same thing about the false claims of Muslims on this same issue are "deluded". Are there no VERSIONS, EDITIONS and TRANSLATIONS of the Qur'an - or are you truly having such a difficulty with plain English? Just what is wrong with your thinking that you guys have no conscience any more for simple truth?

Can you still supply me verses going against each other in the Quran and some missing in some, present in others just I like I did with your bible?


Do you care for a thread on this:

Lastly, are you ready for a brief journey into the origin of the bible, the different versions we had and we are having now, the ommission of some verses and later insertions, difference in some verses of early publication etc?

He made it clear that His ministry of salvation was to the entire world - both Jews and Gentiles:

  Matthew 24:14
  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
  for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now why was his ministry limited to Jew during his time, telling his disciples not to go to the land of the gentiles and had to tell them later to go to all nations.

Please what do you understand by 'all nations' and note that we have 'all the nations' in some versions. So what do you understand by that phrase?

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:12:53 PM
Later on this was abrogated and Jesus commanded his disciples to reach out to all peoples.

Lol. . . there are no "abrogated verses" in the Bible as 'Allah' has abrogated so many verses in his Qur'an to such an extent that Muslims are not sure among themselves which are still standing.

For a start, could you enuciate for us ALL the abrogated verses of the Qur'an against all those that are not abrogated?

Quran 2v106: Whatever a verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten. We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things.


Qur'an 16 vs 101
"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Now what do you understand by 'abrogation' with regards to the biblical verses presentd?

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:12:53 PM
It is clear that the concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has been practiced by God for reasons known to him.

Again here: Jesus never claimed to come and "nullify" any verse of the Bible. His word was not about "nullifying" anything, but about FULFILLING them. This is why I asked olabowale to go and find out what the term means.

Very good, now let us read the bible for clarification:


Jesus said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)


The above meant that he didnt come to cancel any law but to fulfil it.

Lets see if really the above statement is true



1.
Abrogation Of Divorce

In the Old Testament we find the following law concerning divorce:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (Deutronomy 24:1-2)

Now without going into the minute of this particular law of divorce, one thing becomes immediately clear. Not only is divorce permitted by God, it is legal for her to remarry.


However in the time of Jesus, the rules of divorce seem to have taken a You-turn.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)


Here Jesus abrogated the former permission to divorce according to the husband's displeasure and strictly allowed it under one condition - adultery. He even went so far as to legislate that divorcees were not permitted to remarry, clearly abrogating the former permission. But what is the reason given for this abrogation? Had God changed His mind? Is this evidence of God not being omniscient? Or more importantly, is this evidence that in fact God was never the author of these laws?

Let us read further:

Well Jesus himself explains:

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)


2.
Law Of Absolute Justice

In the book of Deteronomy:

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deutronomy 19:21)

Now God Jesus first commanded them to take life for life etd but had it changed/abrogated/canceled:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)


3.
Law Of Oaths

We read:

If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth. (Deutronomy 23:21-23)


That is, it is permissible to make an oath for various reasons, however, the swearer must fulfil the oath he makes. In Jesus' time it became necessary for him to abrogate this permission so that the swearing of oaths became forbidden. In Matthew it is recorded:


"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37)


Let me stop there in order to attend to your other write up.

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:12:53 PM
What we know is that the laws governing the mankind (i.e., Shariah) changes according to the needs of the society.

In order words, laws of 'Allah' are also changing - according to your inference here?

Read the biblical verses I served you up.

Quran 2v106: Whatever a verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten. We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things.


Qur'an 16 vs 101
"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Be sure you don't bring up any illiterate post when trying to dscuss with me. You know how I rubbish the Muslim games you have been playing - I've done so in different threads - and this won't be any different. If you are seeking a genuine discussion, then drop your hypocrisy.

You should learn how to talk those old to be your father first and if you would be civil a little, babs will have a debate with you and not with your lack of moral that you have been displaying all these while.

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:20:05 PM
Do you and Pilgrim/1 have any Quranic translations having Bismillah in that same verse and please since you are that ignorant to quote without having a re-think of what you are posting, we have more than one verse not having Bismillah and Allah made provision for same in some verses.

With due respect, I have not regarded you with such uncouth language - and if you don't mind, drop your vexations and behave.

Sorry for that and please do you have any explanation to another chapter not having Bismillah in the beginning and some chapters having more than one Bismillah?

We know how the Bismillah verses did not survive those chapter headings - they were humanly deliberated and not as assumed by Muslims that they were so given by 'Allah'.

So do you have any proof for your above allegation and if they were deliberately removed, why are they in other chapters and what is the purpose of their omission?

Thanks

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:20:05 PM
Now Babyosis and Pilgrim.1, what happened to other verse that is not having Bismillah in the beginning as well?

Muslims should tell us - did they not claim that "everything" in the Qur'an came straight from 'Allah'? How come Muhammad was claiming the Qura'n as a "book" when there was no text and he was dictating to his companions? Do Muslims understand what a "book" is at all?

You saw my question and here it is again:

Now Babyosis and Pilgrim.1, what happened to other verse that is not having Bismillah in the beginning as well?

babs787:

@babyosis
A question for you please:

You know that there is Shariah in Islam and there is also punishment for boh adulterers and fornicators. So how come the important verse was left out and please before you can say a verse has been left out, can you present the same verse present in at least one of the Quranic Translators but missing in others just as I have been serving you verses present in some versions but missing in some?

Thank you

babs remember you asked the above question from my claim after quoting the hadith below

Bukhari: vol. 8, hadith 817, p. 539-540; book 82

Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male and female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, `By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

It is obvious that `Umar was convinced that stoning an adulterer was part of the Qur'an and should not be removed. The modern Qur'an however does not contain these verses. So where have they gone? These verses must have been removed by those who were in charge of the text of the Qur'an. What is clear is that `Umar remembered these verses and did not think that they should be edited out while others obviously did, and so today they are not in the modern Qur'an.

Now Mr babs,I don't doubt that stoning is part of your sharia
The question is whether the above hadith is authentic or not
and by so,we'll prove if the commentary highlighted is correct.
Now an exercise for you,the commentator claims the Koranic verse about stoning was deliberatively removed in modern Korans.
Now I dare you to show me a verse of the Koran that unequivocally says adulterers and adulteresses should be stoned

babs for the last time,please don't change the subject.
The authentic hadith I quoted said stoning was revealed,allah's prophet practiced it and his followers after him did.
My question
Kindly show us that revelation in todays Koran about stoning adultresses.

For the third time,where is stoning for adulterers and adulteresses prescribed in the modern Koran ?

Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male and female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, `By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

@babyosis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: babs787 on Today at 08:12:53 PM
@babyosis
A question for you please:

You know that there is Shariah in Islam and there is also punishment for boh adulterers and fornicators. So how come the important verse was left out and please before you can say a verse has been left out, can you present the same verse present in at least one of the Quranic Translators but missing in others just as I have been serving you verses present in some versions but missing in some?

Thank you



babs remember you asked the above question from my claim after quoting the hadith below

Quote
Bukhari: vol. 8, hadith 817, p. 539-540; book 82

Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male and female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, `By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

It is obvious that `Umar was convinced that stoning an adulterer was part of the Qur'an and should not be removed. The modern Qur'an however does not contain these verses. So where have they gone? These verses must have been removed by those who were in charge of the text of the Qur'an. What is clear is that `Umar remembered these verses and did not think that they should be edited out while others obviously did, and so today they are not in the modern Qur'an.

Now Mr babs,I don't doubt that stoning is part of your sharia
The question is whether the above hadith is authentic or not
and by so,we'll prove if the commentary highlighted is correct.
Now an exercise for you,the commentator claims the Koranic verse about stoning was deliberatively removed in modern Korans.
Now I dare you to show me a verse of the Koran that unequivocally says adulterers and adulteresses should be stoned.

I am asking you again, if the punishment is still being carried out, on what basis would it have been removed?

Insert Quote
babs for the last time,please don't change the subject.
The authentic hadith I quoted said stoning was revealed,allah's prophet practiced it and his followers after him did.
My question
Kindly show us that revelation in todays Koran about stoning adultresses.

Read below for clarification:

It is also very strange that ‘Umar remains the only Companion to talk about the stoning verse in a vast majority of books. This fact strongly suggests that for quite sometime the stoning verse and ‘Umar were uniquely tied to each other. Indeed, in one of the traditions it is assumed that ‘Umar was the only one who knew about the stoning verse:


[It is reported by] Ibn Abi Shaybah, concerning al-masahif, from al-Layth bin Sa‘d who said: The first to collect the Qur`an was Abu Bakr and Zayd bin Thabit wrote it. And people came to Zayd bin Thabit (with the portions of the Qur`an) but Zayd did not write anything (in the Qur`an) except with the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The last part of Surah Bara`ah was not found except with Khuzaymah bin Thabit. He said, “Write it, for the Messenger of God had declared the testimony of Khuzaymah equivalent to that of two men.” So he wrote it. And ‘Umar came with the verse of stoning but Zayd would not write it because ‘Umar was alone (in his testimony) (Al-Suyuti as quoted in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud 3130)


According to this story, in the time of Abu Bakr when the Qur`an was reportedly collected no one knew about the stoning verse or no one remembered it except ‘Umar. This story is absent from all of the nine collections of Hadith covered in the Hadith Encyclopedia and does not even have complete isnad.


Examination of the asanid of ‘Umar’s hadith suggests the approximate time when the hadith was fabricated: As noted above the asanid show that the hadith can be take back with some probability only to the time of ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab. Now both of these Successors died in or after 93 and those who transmitted from them -- al-Zuhri, Yahya bin Sa‘id etc -- died in or after 124. ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab therefore could not have transmitted the hadith to the third-generation narrators too much earlier than 75. If we allow a couple of decades for the hadith to gain wide enough circulation for ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab to start quoting it, then we can date it somewhere between 50-80.


Examination of the contents of the narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith leads to a very significant result which may be stated at that outset: not all narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith talk about a missing Qur`anic verse about stoning. In fact, narrations that do not refer to such a verse have much more varied asanid than those that refer to it. This result is significant because it strongly suggests that ‘Umar’s hadith originally did not talk about the stoning verse.

Are you okay now?

Thanks

Chineke God of Abia State.
The Koran is even more yeye than I thought.
So there is not a single verse today about stoning adulterers and adulteresses but yet Muhammad and Muslims carried and carry it out?
So who asked Muhammad to stone adulteresses?

this only proves that hadith right,it was taken out nicodemously by someone further proving my point.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.



There is a hadith where Mo referred to the Torah for stoning,could that be where he saw it?
I told you people Islam was a sham,it only gets clearer.

I'll return later @ babs,just make sure you're wearing diapers,you may need it

babs787:

I am asking you again, if the punishment is still being carried out, on what basis would it have been removed?

How can you be answering a simple question by pretending to "ask again"? Do you have an honest answer or you are following Muhammad's footsteps of never answering questions but trying to buy time for 15 days?

@babs787,

babs787:

@Pilgrim.1

I taught you would talk on the abrogation from the bible but it seemed you lost there.

No, there was nothing to talk about any abrogation from the Bible when there were no such abrogations. The Muslim idea of abrogations is a pitiful doctrine as insidious as ever - and that is why Muslims have remained confused themselves while trying to force that idea into the Bible. They can keep their abrogated and abrogating Qur'an till all the verses are abrogated in it - but the message of the Bible has remained ever the same, thank you.

babs787:

Now I read your hypocrisy here. I opened a threrad sometime and asked you qiestions but you ran claiming that it was ferreted from website

no one has accused me about any hypocrisy - and the fact you keep repeating the same sad remarks only demonstrates your second nature. Your misgivings only derived from the fact that you were always plagiarizing materials from websites until I directly challenged you to desist from the straight-faced habit while lying to the public that they were your own replies!!

babs787:

and I even gave you biblical verses to start but you still avoided my questions but you are jubilating over what you ran away from in another thread.

I have never run away from any thread - the same as you always duck simple questions offered you with the same excuses as we read about Muhammad. My simple answer to you was that you only dropped your hypocrisy - then we can discuss. Did you ever comply?

babs787:

Lest I forget, you posted some missing verses from Khalifa's Quran, please why have you not been quoting from the same book all these while and it is very glaring that it was a deliberate omission

Excuse me, WHY have you been using the same dishonest arguement of translation to attack the Bible and now complaining about my referring to Khalifa? Have Muslims not hypocritically been quoting Dr. Rashad Khalifa on the "miracle of 19 in the Qur'an" to prove their hypocristic apologetics?

If you are seeking a geuine discussion, my premise was simple: apply the same rule to your own Qur'an and drop your callous trade.

babs787:

and can you please serve me other translators having the verses missing but present in others?

And what have you said about the simple question of "translations" of the Qur'an? Have you not been basing your argument on "translations" of the Bible in various versions?

@babs787,

babs787:

Kindly supply me verses missing in some translations but present in others and verses going against each other in the translations

If you don't mind dropping your hideous hypocrisy, please kindly let us know if these translations of the Qur'an are saying EXACTLY the same things:

babs787:

Sura 2 v 138 ~ Which is it:

~ a "religion"
~ a "system"
~ a "baptism"
~ a "dye", or:
~ a "colour"?

[list]
Pickthall
(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah
at colouring. We are His worshippers.

Yusuf Ali
(Our religion is) the Baptism of God: And who can baptize better
than God? And it is He Whom we worship.

Hilali-Khan
[Our Sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (Religion) of Allah (Islam)
and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allah's? And we
are His worshippers. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir.]
 
Shakir
(Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising?
and Him do we serve.

Sher Ali
Say, `We have adopted the religion of ALLAH; and who is better than ALLAH
in teaching religion, and him alone do we worship.'

Rashad Khalifa
Such is GOD's system, and whose system is better than GOD's?
"Him alone we worship." 

Arberry
the baptism of God; and who is there that baptizes fairer than God?
Him we are serving.

Palmer
The dye of God! and who is better than God at dyeing? and we are
worshippers of Him.

Rodwell
Islam is the Baptism of God, and who is better to baptise than God?
And Him do we serve.

Sale
The baptism of God [have we received], and who it better than God to
baptize? Him do we worship.[/list]

May I remind you, sir, that there is a world of DIFFERENCE between all these words:

[list] ~ a "religion"

~ a "system"

~ a "baptism"

~ a "dye",

~ a "colour"?!?[/list]

There are numerous such examples - but the point is simply this: which "translation" of the Qur'an is claimed to be free from error - even by Muslim scholars themselves? Your argument has always been based on "translations and versions" - and the simple query here has been to apply the same rule to the Qur'an for the fact that all the various translations are saying different things altogether!

babs787:

Now why was his ministry limited to Jew during his time, telling his disciples not to go to the land of the gentiles and had to tell them later to go to all nations.

Please what do you understand by 'all nations' and note that we have 'all the nations' in some versions. So what do you understand by that phrase?

This question has been answered several times - and by introducing them here again, you are not so smart as to try and deflect the topic.

babs787:

Quran 2v106: Whatever a verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten. We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things.


Qur'an 16 vs 101
"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Now what do you understand by 'abrogation' with regards to the biblical verses presentd?

Neither ideas of abrogation is in the Bible - for God never caused any of His prophets to "FORGET" any verse; nor did He cause them to "SUBSTITUTE" one verse for another. Since this is what Muslims are claiming for the Qur'an, it is no wonder it is self-attested as a "forgery" - because you will not find your definition of "abrogation" in any verse of the Bible.

@babs787,

When I requested for a simple outline of all the abrogated verses in the Qur'an, this was your answer:

babs787:

Quran 2v106: Whatever a verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten. We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things.


Qur'an 16 vs 101
"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

It simply demonstrates that you actually do not know which verses in the Qur'an are abrogated but have been following the wayo apologetics of Muslim scholars who are as confused as to which Quranic verses are actually abrogated.

Meanwhile, in addition of the fact that God never caused any one of His prophets to either FORGET or SUBSTITUTE any verse for another in the Bible, it further goes to demonstrate that the whole Muslim idea of trying to force that idea into the Bible proves the fallacy of Muhammad's claims to be a prophet among the ranks of the Biblical prophets. Directly against your idea of "forgetting" and "substituting" verses for abrogations, Jesus stated clearly that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

As you try to sort out the dilemma of your "forgotten" and "substituted" verses in the Qur'an, could you be so kind as well to help clarify why this particular verse was cancelled from the Qur'an? Here - the references are referring to the same event:

[list]
(1) FASTING

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 31, Num. 170:
Narrated Nafi: Ibn 'Umar recited the verse: "They had a choice
either to fast or to feed a poor person for every day, and said
that the order of this Verse was cancelled.[/list]

[list]

(2) MARTYRS

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 57:
Narrated Anas: The Prophet sent seventy men from the tribe of
Bani Salim to the tribe of Bani Amir. When they reached there,
my maternal uncle said to them, "I will go ahead of you, and if
they allow me to convey the message of Allah's Apostle (it will be
all right); otherwise you will remain close to me."

So he went ahead of them and the pagans granted him security.
But while he was reporting the message of the Prophet ,
they beckoned to one of their men who stabbed him to death.
My maternal uncle said, "Allah is Greater! By the Lord of the Kaba,
I am successful." After that they attached the rest of the party
and killed them all except a lame man who went up to the top of
the mountain. (Hammam, a sub-narrator said, "I think another man
was saved along with him)."

Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e the martyrs) met their Lord,
and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite,
"Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and
He has made us pleased" Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled.

The Prophet invoked Allah for forty days to curse the murderers from
the tribe of Ral, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Bam Usaiya who disobeyed
Allah and his Apostle.[/list]

[list]

(3) MARTYRS

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 69:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: For thirty days Allah's Apostle invoked Allah
to curse those who had killed the companions of Bir-Mauna; he invoked
evil upon the tribes of Ral, Dhakwan, and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah
and His Apostle. There was revealled about those who were killed at
Bir-Mauna a Quranic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled
later on. The Verse was:

"Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us
and He has made us pleased"[/list]

[list]
(4)  MARTYRS

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, Num. 421:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people)
who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer).
He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed
Allah and His Apostle.

Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had
been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse
till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was 'Inform our people that we
have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him."[/list]

Please don't fly off the handle or try your hat-trick of evading the simple question. Here again:

pilgrim.1:

could you be so kind as well to help clarify why this particular verse was cancelled from the Qur'an?

Cheers.

@+Osisi:

Chineke God of Abia State.
The Koran is even more yeye than I thought.
So there is not a single verse today about stoning adulterers and adulteresses but yet Muhammad and Muslims carried and carry it out?
So who asked Muhammad to stone adulteresses?

this only proves that hadith right,it was taken out nicodemously by someone further proving my point.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

There is a hadith where Mo referred to the Torah for stoning,could that be where he saw it?
I told you people Islam was a sham,it only gets clearer.

I'll return later @ babs,just make sure you're wearing diapers,you may need it

+Osisi, you are becoming nastier by the pounds! Mr. Nwando needs to take charge. Qur'an is not a revelation that is in the hands of few elites. Unlike your 'Good News,' the Qur'an is always in the community of Muslims. First, the greatest authority of Qur'an among men, was Muhammad (as), who Qur'an was revealed upon. His wife, Aisha (ra), one of the mothers of the believers, called Muhammad 'the walking Qur'an.' So that you know that every ayah of Qur'an was accounted for, Jibril and Muhammad (as Jami'a) used to recite it, all of what was Qur'an, once to each other, in the month of Ramadan.

(I need to educate you here because if I know you and your group well, you will run with my statement, but twisting to justify your own falsehood, The first year of revelation, the Qur'an had fewer verses than what we call the Qur'an the  second year, and the second year has fewer verses that the Qur'an of the third year. Yet each year whatever verses that that Qur'an had, was full Qur'an for that year until more revelations were revealed to make it fuller. A verse, when recited is Qur'an. Even a word in it when recited, it means Qur'an is recited. You get the idea now? In the 23rd year, you had the fullest Qur'an in the month of ramadan than any of the previous Ramadans) But this 23 rd year of Ramadan recitation, between Jibril and Muhammad (as) was different. They recited it to each other twice, breaking away from their usual one time recitation to each other!

Muhammad died before the next Ramadan. Now, Umar was not among the group of people who committed a great amount of Qur'an. Abdal bin Mas'ud (Moshoodi, for you 9ja people), is a great reciter and committed the whole Qur'an into memory. If there is a verse of the Qur'an that talks about stoning, it would not have been removed from the Qur'an and Umar would not have been the only person to know it. What we see here is that you have fell back into relapse, you go back to your usual bad sites, again.

However, Allah tells us in the Qur'an to take what Muhammad gives and stay far away from what he forbids. In another verse, The Almighty says that Muhammad never talks out of his own desire. In another we are commanded to Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. Yet in another Allah says that when Allah and His Messenger have made a decision on any matter, it does not befit a true believer to have any other view point, opinion or idea, etc on that matter! I can give you many verses pertaining to Muhammad as it concerns what he does.

Further, since all prophets can with the same message and guidance from the same source, God Almighty, it will not be impossible that the law of punishment of adultery would be the same. Afterall, Jesus (as), did not abrogate/cancel that Mosaic law. Or did he, +Osisi?  In the Qur'an we see the commandments for five salah, but the rakah of each was not indicated in the Qur'an. It was from the mouth of Muhammad, in his hadith that we know that Salatul Subh is 2 rakah, Magrib is 3 rakah, and 4 rakah each for Zuhr, Asr and Isha. Muhammad was the one who gives the pronouncements of which rakah is silent and which is in loud voice.

Whatever Muhammad (as) legislated, it was Allah who commanded him to do so. What would you have done if the adultery was so close to home, espectially when its too close for comfort? It is then the true personality comes streaming out, demanding for more that the 'pound of flesh, but include in it the blood, bones and cartilage, etc! Please go sedon!

@ olabowale, a lot of us are following this thread unbiased, its unnecessary for you to bring in Mr. Nwando.

Please can you and babs stick to the issues raised, i for one thought the Koran was 1 (no versions) and the hadiths i never understood but here osisi and pilgrim have totally torn u guys apart, you guys seem to have nothing to say.

Again i call please stick to the issues raised if there is one version of the Koran prove it, and also the issue of the convenant raised on the other thread you also have not answered David asked what is the convenant and you said nothing i for one wanted to see if there was any similarity

You guys don't show a good grasp of your religion, always copy and pasting discuss in your own languages it will help in understanding for us the less fanatical about superioroty of religions. Pilgrim 1 seems to know more than you guys and shes a christain.

Please stick to the discussion at hand. I beg of u address issues, I really am interested in this debate.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@+Osisi: +Osisi, you are becoming nastier by the pounds! Mr. Nwando needs to take charge. Qur'an is not a revelation that is in the hands of few elites. Unlike your 'Good News,' the Qur'an is always in the community of Muslims. First, the greatest authority of Qur'an among men, was Muhammad (as), who Qur'an was revealed upon. His wife, Aisha (ra), one of the mothers of the believers, called Muhammad 'the walking Qur'an.' So that you know that every ayah of Qur'an was accounted for, Jibril and Muhammad (as Jami'a) used to recite it, all of what was Qur'an, once to each other, in the month of Ramadan.

Muhammad was not the walking Qur'an - be that as it may. He clearly forgot parts of the Qur'an, and how then could such a flattering title be his?

olabowale:

(I need to educate you here because if I know you and your group well, you will run with my statement, but twisting to justify your own falsehood,

Muslims have always tried to twist words to arrive at completely different inferences to buttress their fallacies.

olabowale:

The first year of revelation, the Qur'an had fewer verses than what we call the Qur'an the  second year, and the second year has fewer verses that the Qur'an of the third year. Yet each year whatever verses that that Qur'an had, was full Qur'an for that year until more revelations were revealed to make it fuller. A verse, when recited is Qur'an. Even a word in it when recited, it means Qur'an is recited. You get the idea now? In the 23rd year, you had the fullest Qur'an in the month of ramadan than any of the previous Ramadans) But this 23 rd year of Ramadan recitation, between Jibril and Muhammad (as) was different. They recited it to each other twice, breaking away from their usual one time recitation to each other!

And the point is. . .?

olabowale:

Muhammad died before the next Ramadan. Now, Umar was not among the group of people who committed a great amount of Qur'an. Abdal bin Mas'ud (Moshoodi, for you Nigeria people), is a great reciter and committed the whole Qur'an into memory. If there is a verse of the Qur'an that talks about stoning, it would not have been removed from the Qur'an and Umar would not have been the only person to know it. What we see here is that you have fell back into relapse, you go back to your usual bad sites, again.

WHY then did Muhammad practice the same injunction of stoning people?

olabowale:

However, Allah tells us in the Qur'an to take what Muhammad gives and stay far away from what he forbids.

So, who actually is the commander - Allah or Muhammad?

olabowale:

In another verse, The Almighty says that Muhammad never talks out of his own desire.

Muhammad actually talked out of his desire.

olabowale:

In another we are commanded to Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. Yet in another Allah says that when Allah and His Messenger have made a decision on any matter, it does not befit a true believer to have any other view point, opinion or idea, etc on that matter! I can give you many verses pertaining to Muhammad as it concerns what he does.

Shirk! Joining Muhammad as partner with 'Allah' in all the instances you have mentioned is pure shirk - regardless what you argue here. This is the same thing that Muslims have always sought to attack in Christianity, but when it comes to Muhammad and 'Allah', it is alright for shirk to be celebrated.

olabowale:

Further, since all prophets can with the same message and guidance from the same source, God Almighty, it will not be impossible that the law of punishment of adultery would be the same.

If all prophets came with the same message (as surely the Biblical prophets did), where did Muhammad ever acknowledge God as FATHER? Muhammad's denial of God being FATHER is clearly not the same message as the biblical prophets affirmed.

olabowale:

Afterall, Jesus (as), did not abrogate/cancel that Mosaic law.

Thank you very much - could you kindly preach that to babs787 who has been trying to force his idea of abrogation into the Bible where it does not exist?

olabowale:

Or did he, +Osisi?

He did not - and I've asked that you guys go and find out the meaning of "FULFILL" in the verse where Jesus affirmed that was what He came to do. If I asked you about the "abrogated verses" of the Qur'an, you will offer excuses like babs787 did. If i am wrong, please list out all the abrogated verses of the Qur'an and enlighten us, thank you.

olabowale:

In the Qur'an we see the commandments for five salah, but the rakah of each was not indicated in the Qur'an.

Good one. Since you have always argued that all the prophets came with the same message, where did Moses, Abraham and David ever perform those five salah or rakah - rakah which you cannot find in the Qur'an according to you?

olabowale:

It was from the mouth of Muhammad, in his hadith that we know that Salatul Subh is 2 rakah, Magrib is 3 rakah, and 4 rakah each for Zuhr, Asr and Isha. Muhammad was the one who gives the pronouncements of which rakah is silent and which is in loud voice.

Where did the Biblical prophets perform the rakah?

olabowale:

Whatever Muhammad (as) legislated, it was Allah who commanded him to do so.

Another fabu. Muhammad claimed that he has given more commandment than Allah gave in his Qur'an - did you forget that? Before any Muslim flies off the handle on this one, I simple ask you to deny it first and shame yourselves for how empty you are of your own religion before looking outward to attack others.

olabowale:

What would you have done if the adultery was so close to home, espectially when its too close for comfort?

What adultery - the non-existent one that Muhammad re-engineered about Jesus speaking in the cradle. . . or the one you have not been able to show for your claims?

olabowale:

It is then the true personality comes streaming out, demanding for more that the 'pound of flesh, but include in it the blood, bones and cartilage, etc! Please go sedon!

Pack yourself one corner. Inspite of all your long theories you are still fighting to unknot your shoelace on your misgivings.

Hi @away4real,

away4real:

@ olabowale, a lot of us are following this thread unbiased, its unnecessary for you to bring in Mr. Nwando.

Can you just imagine the silliness of it?

away4real:

Please can you and babs stick to the issues raised,

Abeg advise them as much as you can - because this is the very thing that so many people have cautioned these gentlemen endlessly on the Forum: STICK to the issues raised - which they NEVER do!!!

away4real:

i for one thought the Koran was 1 (no versions) and the hadiths i never understood but here osisi and pilgrim have totally torn u guys apart, you guys seem to have nothing to say.

Infact, this is no contest at all - and if anything, it simply demonstrates that Muslims have nothing tangible to present in their vexations.

away4real:

Again i call please stick to the issues raised if there is one version of the Koran prove it, and also the issue of the convenant raised on the other thread you also have not answered David asked what is the convenant and you said nothing i for one wanted to see if there was any similarity

I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

away4real:

You guys don't show a good grasp of your religion, always copy and pasting discuss

That's all we saw until the bubble went burst for them!

away4real:

in your own languages it will help in understanding for us the less fanatical about superioroty of religions. Pilgrim 1 seems to know more than you guys and shes a christain.

Well, I never claim any superiority for myself. But one thing I detest in Muslim hypocrisy is to pretend a scholarship that simply do NOT possess just so they could endlessly seek to deride Christianity!

away4real:

Please stick to the discussion at hand. I beg of u address issues, I really am interested in this debate.

I hope they would comply. . . if they care to.

Cheers.

Again  babs and olabowole,you tell me stoning for adultery is not in the Koran because umar's account could not be seconded?
You are yet to tell us why Muslims and Mo stone adulteresses.
and while at it,kindly explain this hadith

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual    and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

A goat may have eaten some of the "revelations"

a slave girl, Barirah, testified (al-Tabari, p.1523), “The only fault I ever found in ‘Ā’ishah is that, when I was kneading my dough and ordered her to watch it, she fell asleep over it, and the pet sheep (or a goat) came and ate it.”

Na by Hazrat Ā’ishah that ayat-e-Rajm and ayat Raza’at were revealed, they were written on something. I kept them under the cart, meanwhile the holy prophet died and we became busy and one GOAT came and ATE those ayyat” (Ibn-e-Maja).



This is further confirmed Bukhari. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 824:

Na Ash-Shaibani: I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi 'Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual ). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know."

Some of the Koran passages were forgotten by the memorizers before compilation.

Part of the Eternal Uncorrupted Koran Lost in the War

After the battle of Badr, many reciters of Koran died. The complete Koran was not yet written. Those who survived, forgot a few. In this context, it is important to read what Hadith says about it.

Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the early authorities on the Qur'an text and a companion of Muhammad, is reported to have said to the reciters of Basra: “We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust".Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).

This is even more pathetic.

A mere man standardised the Koran and had all other copies burnt (save the ones lost in memory and those the goat aka ewure already digested)

Different Eternal Uncorrupted Koran(s!!!) have been Burned by the Righteous Third Caliph Uthman

   Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 510, pp. 478-479; book 61 Na Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) , " So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. , "

http://www.sakshitimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=42

@away4real

@ olabowale, a lot of us are following this thread unbiased, its unnecessary for you to bring in Mr. Nwando.

Please can you and babs stick to the issues raised, i for one thought the Koran was 1 (no versions) and the hadiths i never understood but here osisi and pilgrim have totally torn u guys apart, you guys seem to have nothing to say.

Again i call please stick to the issues raised if there is one version of the Koran prove it, and also the issue of the convenant raised on the other thread you also have not answered David asked what is the convenant and you said nothing i for one wanted to see if there was any similarity

You guys don't show a good grasp of your religion, always copy and pasting discuss in your own languages it will help in understanding for us the less fanatical about superioroty of religions. Pilgrim 1 seems to know more than you guys and shes a christain.

Please stick to the discussion at hand. I beg of u address issues, I really am interested in this debate.

You did not see my several entries of the Qur'an which speak about covenant of Allah with His slave Prophet Ibrahiim. It shows that you are a disingenuous person. No wonder you will see that the Keferis understand Islam more than Muslims! First a knowledge that is not beneficiary is not a knowledge at all. A disbeliever acquiring knowledge of belief is what we call a Mutamushriik, or orientalist. Copying and pasting are not indications of lack of good grasp of Islamic religion. Islam has a firm and laid down process. For example we do not go against Muhammad (as) in any matter of religion. Unlike you who go over the head of Jesus in the matter of your beliefs in God, worship of God, etc. For example Mark 12 verse 29, Jesus was reported to have said that God is One Lord. That God is the Lord of Jesus, as well. But then you guys then developed a three in One godship. You have this fishy smell in your living room, you still have the gut to tell me I do not understand my religion?

First, Islam deals with heart accepting and the tongue truly believing in One God. So a person who is worshipping a multiple head deity, is not fit to talk about any understanding of Islamic beliefs. You Africans, whose mother tongue is not English are using translated Qur'an as the Qur'an of Islam. I have news for you, Christians; Qur'an is purely in Arabic. So that you understandnyour follies, pick your tribal language in Nigeria. Lets pick Igbo for illustration. If few Igbo writers were to write what it means, of the verses of Qur'an, in Igbo language, you will have so many slightly varied words. For example the writer from Abia state will write slightly a different Qur'an than a person in Enugu. But neither is a true Qur'an. A true Qur'an must be in pure Arabic, when you hear the sound, since it is an oral revelation. You see where I am going with this. So your hammering on the English language 'Qur'an,' is a baseless and lack of real argument against Islam. A Yoruba man who speaks only Yoruba, is not required to read English Qur'an. However every Muslim is encouraged to learn how to recite, read Qur'an in Arabic.

Hadith is graded based on its sound narrations and other factors. However, when you read hadith, you can see whether it fits the quality of Muhammad (as), or not. He will not curse a soul unless the soul does truly deserve it.

@ olabowale is this debate on the trinity?? , its ok for u to be confused or attempt to ridicule the trinity, but please the debate is on the Koran. Islam this Christainity that, jumpup here shout there, just stick to the debate.

Now back to the issue from what u state the versions are just translations in other languages. I doubt that based on the evidence from osisi.

Enjoy anyway i no get power 4 dis una talk, i leave dat to osisi and pilgrim and they seem to be doing a good job.

I will watch from the sound lines. Again stick to the debate and stop blowing cold fire, hmm can a fire be cold , well olabowale's fire is cole, take a chill pill no be fight, make everybody take am easy, tolerance is what i preach, but this nairaland na wah i wonder where people get all d info.

Anyway Jesus is Lord to me and theres no controversy for me oh.

+osisi:

A goat may have eaten some of the "revelations"

a slave girl, Barirah, testified (al-Tabari, p.1523), “The only fault I ever found in ‘Ā’ishah is that, when I was kneading my dough and ordered her to watch it, she fell asleep over it, and the pet sheep (or a goat) came and ate it.”

do you really blame Aisha, she wasnt much older than 6. At that age the goat was probably bigger than she was. So much for allah's "greatness" . . . he could not even protect his precious "revelations" from a hungry she-goat.

olabowale:

@away4real You did not see my several entries of the Qur'an which speak about covenant of Allah with His slave Prophet Ibrahiim. It shows that you are a disingenuous person.

No sir, all your hypocritical long pieces you copied and pasted saidn Zilch about a covenant between allah and ibrahim. How long could this so-called covenant be? 5 pages long? What is the essentiall summary of this covenant in the quran?
You have simply further convinced me that there is indeed a culture of dishonesty in islam.

olabowale:

For example we do not go against Muhammad (as) in any matter of religion.

this is idol worship.

olabowale:

Unlike you who go over the head of Jesus in the matter of your beliefs in God, worship of God, etc. For example Mark 12 verse 29, Jesus was reported to have said that God is One Lord. That God is the Lord of Jesus, as well. But then you guys then developed a three in One godship. You have this fishy smell in your living room, you still have the gut to tell me I do not understand my religion?

this is what? The 109076th time you have repeated this same claims that you are struggling desperately to force into the bible? This lies have long been debunked by several pple but it seems that is your only reply each time you are served with one more evidence of islam's falsehood.

olabowale:

First, Islam deals with heart accepting and the tongue truly believing in One God.

Where in the quran is this mentioned or are you trying to import yet more biblical principles into ur dead book? Here is what you are trying to copy: Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Try next time to be a little more original as we are all aware islam says absolutely nothing about the heart accepting anything.
If we may even ask . . . what is the heart of the muslim expected to accept?

olabowale:

You Africans, whose mother tongue is not English are using translated Qur'an as the Qur'an of Islam. I have news for you, Christians; Qur'an is purely in Arabic.

well i also have news for you:
1. Look around and see how many times your fellow muslims have urged us to purchase a translated version of the quran and read. Who shld we believe?

2. If allah is the "lord of the worlds" . . . why is his so-called book only understandable in arabic? why did he bother "creating" the other languages?

3. Does this mean that millions of muslims who cant speak arabic will never be able to read allah's prophecies? So much for a "god" who is oft forgiving and merciful.

4. It seems this excuse of the quran only being understood in arabic is one ur equally clueless imams have taught u to use as a good way of avoiding answering for allah's many inconsistencies.

olabowale:

So that you understandnyour follies, pick your tribal language in Nigeria. Lets pick Igbo for illustration. If few Igbo writers were to write what it means, of the verses of Qur'an, in Igbo language, you will have so many slightly varied words. For example the writer from Abia state will write slightly a different Qur'an than a person in Enugu. But neither is a true Qur'an. A true Qur'an must be in pure Arabic, when you hear the sound, since it is an oral revelation. You see where I am going with this. So your hammering on the English language 'Qur'an,' is a baseless and lack of real argument against Islam. A Yoruba man who speaks only Yoruba, is not required to read English Qur'an. However every Muslim is encouraged to learn how to recite, read Qur'an in Arabic.

you have been quoting the quran here before . . . did you do so in arabic?
When next you want to quote the book of Mark of Deuteronomy pls make sure you do so in hebrew. You see where i am going with this?

olabowale:

Hadith is graded based on its sound narrations and other factors. However, when you read hadith, you can see whether it fits the quality of Muhammad (as), or not. He will not curse a soul unless the soul does truly deserve it.

alhaji mohammed cursed up till his last breath, angels of allah are busy cursing, allah himself is full of curses . . . is islam only about cursing?
Where did mohammed bless those who truly deserved it?

@away4real,

away4real:

@ olabowale is this debate on the trinity?? ,

It is now obvious that when Muslims are presented with the straight and simple truth they really do not want to read, then they deliberately try to deflect a topic.

OLABOWALE & co, your efforts to derail the topic of this thread are not working!

The five current versions of the Koran are:


The Transmitter Hafs, who is Hafs ibn Suleyman ibn Al-Mugheerah Al-Asadi Al-Kuufi (d. 180H):
His Qiraa'ah named Hafs from 'Aasim is the most popular reading of the Quran in the world today, except for some parts of Africa. Hafs was officially adopted by Egypt in 1924. His chain from 'Aasim:

He heard from 'Aasim ibn Abu Najud Al-Kuufi (d. 128H) who was Taabi'i, i.e, among the generation following the Sahaabah, who heard from Abu Abdur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Habib As-Sulami, who heard from Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thaabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Duuri, is Abu 'Amr Hafs ibn Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz ibn Subhan Ad-Duuri Al-Baghdaadi (d. 246H):
His Qiraa'ah named Duuri from Abu 'Amr is popular in parts of Africa like Somalia, Sudan as well as in other parts. His chain of from Abu 'Amr:

He heard from Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Mubarak ibn Mugheerah Yazidiyy (d. 202H), who heard from Abu 'Amr Zuban ibn 'Ala Maziniyy Al-Busriyy (d. 154H), who heard from the Qiraa'aat from Sahaabis Ali and Uthman and Abu Musa and Umar and Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Warsh, who is Abu Saeed Uthman ibn Saeed Al-Misri, nicknamed Warsh, (d. 197H):
HIs Qiraa'ah named Warsh from Naafi' is popular in North Africa. His chain from Naafi':

He heard from Naafi' ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Abu Nu'aim Al-Madani (d. 169H), who heard from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn Al-Qa'qaa' and Abu Dawud Abdur-Rahman ibn Hurmuz Al-A'raj and Shaybah ibn Nisah Al-Qaadhi and Abu Abdullah Muslim ibn Jundub Al-Hudhali and Abu Rawh Yazid ibn Ruman, who heard from Abu Hurairah and Ibn Abbaas and Abdullah ibn 'Ayyaash ibn Abi Rabii'ah, who heard from Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Suusi:
His Qiraa'ah named Suusi from Abu 'Amr is also found around the world in small parts.


The Transmitter Qaaluun, who is Imaam Qaaluun:
His Qiraa'ah named Qaaluun from Naafi' is popular in places like Libya in Africa. His chain from Naafi':

He heard from Naafi' ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Abu Nu'aim Al-Madani (d. 169H), who heard from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn Al-Qa'qaa', who heard from Abdullah ibn Abbaas and Abu Hurairah, who heard from Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


In case Muslim readers should be greatly concerned: The variances between these different versions of the Koran are generally quite small and minor, although there are a substantial number of them. Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has published a version of the (Hafs) Koran which contains the variant readings from the 10 Accepted Readers in its margins. About 2/3 of the ayat (verses) have some sort of variant reading. The great majority are differences in the vowels inserted in certain words (remembering that the early written kufic texts of the Koran did not include vowels or diacritical marks). There appears to be only one difference that might represent a significant effect on belief, that in surah 2:184. There are many Islamic scholars' discussions about these many differences. As an example of one, in Hafs, surah 2:140 reads taquluna, while in Warsh, that text is in surah 2:139 and reads yaquluna. Another example: Hafs surah 2:214 reads yaquula while Warsh surah 2;212 reads yaquulu. Muslim scholars agree that such variations do not seriously alter the meaning of statements made in the Koran.

.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/koran.htm

Report to moderator Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My miracle is on the way!



YOU HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CHRISTIANITY YOU PROCLAIM !!!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@away4real You did not see my several entries of the Qur'an which speak about covenant of Allah with His slave Prophet Ibrahiim.

They were not entries - they were rather excuses tirelessly presented to scuttle round the one question that davidylan offered you!

olabowale:

It shows that you are a disingenuous person.

It rather shows that he is an astute observer. If you had imagined that your excuses would wash with the question, it only comes back to demonstrate how dishonest you truly are.

olabowale:

No wonder you will see that the Keferis understand Islam more than Muslims!

They (so-called keferis) have demonstrate time and again that you guys have no grasp of your own religion before turning outward to smuggle Muhammad into other people's holy books!

olabowale:

First a knowledge that is not beneficiary is not a knowledge at all.

Is that why you have been slaving all this while to demonstrate that yours was so unbeneficial - which explains yet again the reason why you so love to derail topics of threads with your endless nothingness?

The message has been repeated several times already - specifically for YOU:

                                     STICK TO THE ISSUE HERE!!!

olabowale:

A disbeliever acquiring knowledge of belief is what we call a Mutamushriik, or orientalist. Copying and pasting are not indications of lack of good grasp of Islamic religion. Islam has a firm and laid down process. For example we do not go against Muhammad (as) in any matter of religion.

Good that someone rightly observes that your last line was idolatry - go figure.

olabowale:

Unlike you who go over the head of Jesus in the matter of your beliefs in God, worship of God, etc. For example Mark 12 verse 29, Jesus was reported to have said that God is One Lord. That God is the Lord of Jesus, as well.

Jesus also said that He is the Son of God (John 10:36) - would you be willing to quote that one also? Your selective quoting of the Bible does not help the smuggling of Muhammad's denials into the revelations and prophecies of the biblical prophets, you know.

olabowale:

But then you guys then developed a three in One godship. You have this fishy smell in your living room, you still have the gut to tell me I do not understand my religion?

We have more guts to tell you that your religion is hogwash. Until you grow up and start reasoning like an adult and face the issues of threads without your frantic drama, you will only give us more guts to tell you what you truly need to hear and read.

olabowale:

First, Islam deals with heart accepting and the tongue truly believing in One God. So a person who is worshipping a multiple head deity, is not fit to talk about any understanding of Islamic beliefs.

Which again demonstrates that Muslims are dubious. Thank God I left Islam with its deliberate lies. This issue about "multiple heads" has been made clear to you and a challenge offered you to please quote where in the Bible you read any verse speaking about "3 godheads" (plural). Until you become a cursing machine, we have not found you quote that verse. Why then will people not have the guts to tell you to your face that Islam produces dunces?

If you are honest enough, be willing to acknowledge that your premises are unfair, untrue, incoherent, inconsiderate, and untenable. If you truly have any substance to your misgivings, quote the verses directly and discuss them - this is what others have been doing. If you can't endure that, please continue to give the public the guts to tell you what you can't endure to read.

@olabowale

olabowale:

You Africans, whose mother tongue is not English are using translated Qur'an as the Qur'an of Islam.

Keep crying. As a Yoruba man, what connection do you have with the Quraish?

olabowale:

I have news for you, Christians; Qur'an is purely in Arabic.

Which one of the "Arabic" among the several?

olabowale:

So that you understandnyour follies, pick your tribal language in Nigeria. Lets pick Igbo for illustration. If few Igbo writers were to write what it means, of the verses of Qur'an, in Igbo language, you will have so many slightly varied words. For example the writer from Abia state will write slightly a different Qur'an than a person in Enugu. But neither is a true Qur'an.

In other words, all the verses you and your Muslim brethren have been quoting from the Qur'an are not the Qur'an afterall - since they are not arabic scripts you have been quoting? Islam is more confused that we had imagined!

olabowale:

A true Qur'an must be in pure Arabic, when you hear the sound, since it is an oral revelation.

Which confirms that there was never any "book" that Gabriel or anybody gave to Muhammad. The Qur'an is purely the dictations of Muhammad's thoughts - no wonder it took him 15 days to duck and hide from the simple questions that the Jewish rabbis offered him.

olabowale:

You see where I am going with this.

Yes we do - you going straight to more confusion than when you first began, and no one's following you there.

olabowale:

So your hammering on the English language 'Qur'an,' is a baseless and lack of real argument against Islam.

Go preach that to babs787 and his bandwagon who have been hammering on the English TRANSLATIONS of the Bible. As far as this thread is about the Muslim misgivings about "TRANSLATIONS", we shall hold on to that and present the same warped "translations" of the Qur'an till your eyes pop out for all your protests.

olabowale:

A Yoruba man who speaks only Yoruba, is not required to read English Qur'an.

Nope - but he is required to first learn "Arabic" (or is it "Quraish" before he can shout to 'Allah', not so? We have asked that question several times and no Muslim offered any answers - probably because you all realize the silliness of your reasoning.

olabowale:

However every Muslim is encouraged to learn how to recite, read Qur'an in Arabic.

God does not require you to subject yourself to Arabic before you can talk to Him in prayer and praise.

olabowale:

Hadith is graded based on its sound narrations and other factors. However, when you read hadith, you can see whether it fits the quality of Muhammad (as), or not.

Your Muslim scholars did not wait for your to dictate this line before they acclaimed that Bukhari and Muslim ahadiths are SAHIH. As long as they hold those ahadiths as "authentic", we are quite well to go there and read all the so-called qualities of Muhammad for ourselves, thank you.

olabowale:
He will not curse a soul unless the soul does truly deserve it.

His curses followed him to his grave - where they truly belong.

For the umpteenth time:

STICK TO THE ISSUES IN THE THREAD and SAVE ALL THE DEFLECTIVE TRICKS!!!

pilgrim: Sura 114 v 4:

Hilali-Khan (singular)
"From the evil of the whisperer (devil who whispers evil in the hearts of men)
who withdraws (from his whispering in one's heart after one remembers Allah)"

M. M. Pickthall (singular)
"From the evil of the sneaking whisperer"

Rashad Khalifa (plural)
"From the evils of sneaky whisperers.

S. M. Sarwar (plural)
"against the evil of the temptations of the satans,"

M H Shakir (singular)
"From the evil of the whisperings of the slinking (Shaitan),"

Yusuf Ali (singular)
"From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil),
who withdraws (after his whisper),"

Pilgrim, thanks for the analysis.

But you forget that ,

Evil and Evils are the same. This example is just a difference of singular and plural and not "outright distortion".

We could have two whisperers or just one. Its a futuristic thing and nt a past event.

You can compare that to.

E.g, King james version 20 people died in a car crash.

Another version, 4000 people died in a car crash.

You can spot the difference.

I could have one whisperer while others have two or more whisperers,it dosen't change anything.

So,it dosen't call for any broadcast that its another version.

@mdsocks,

Good morning. How body? Thanks for your rejoinder, and here's what I'd like you to carefully observe:

mdsocks:

But you forget that ,

Evil and Evils are the same. This example is just a difference of singular and plural and not "outright distortion".

I am sorry to let bring this to your attention: evil and evils are the same as far as the nature of thing thing is concerned - they are both EVIL. But as far as tenses are concerned, they are worlds apart.

In the example I offered, there is a difference between "whisperer" (singular) and "whisperers" (plural). Often times, Muslims have tried to magnify their attacks on the Bible between different numbers of subjects - but it is amazing that when the same issues are pointed out in the Qur'an, Muslims have nothing to tender in defence.

So far, I have not seen a real debate on this issue of "versions" and "translations" either of the Bible or the Qur'an. The examples I have offered so far are simply to demonstrate that it is highly disingenuous for Muslims to try and attack the Bible based merely on translations, which is to say that they should apply the same rules to the translations and versions of the Qur'an.

Remember I asked you a pointed question: Is it fair, in your estimation, to attack any book based merely on translations?

If you assume that the case of singular and/or plural subjects is not such a big deal in the Qur'an, should it be such a big deal in the Bible translations as well? WHY do Muslims deliberately try to find fault in the translations of the Bible, whereas they are too scared to apply the same rule to their own Qur'an?!?

mdsocks:

We could have two whisperers or just one. Its a futuristic thing and nt a past event.

I haven't even come to the grammatical bloopers in the Qur'an as yet. . . and the difference between two "whisperer[b]s[/b]" and just one "whisperer" is so huge as to confuse the simple minded reader of such translations as to what and who exactly Muslims in that verse are seeking refuge from!

mdsocks:

You can compare that to.

Is the comparison now on the tenses of past, present or future? There is a difference between singular and plural narratives from Muslim translators who give difference accounts, you know.

mdsocks:

E.g, King james version 20 people died in a car crash.

Another version, 4000 people died in a car crash.

You can spot the difference.

I acknowledge that difference - again based merely on TRANSLATIONS. I'm sure you're not going to hold water when we come to the same idea in the Qur'an where we can find the difference between 1,000 and 50,000 (a difference of 49,000). You get where I'm going - yes?

mdsocks:

I could have one whisperer while others have two or more whisperers,it dosen't change anything.

It does change the whole thing, my dear. If I wasn't a Muslim and had no clue, then I would have nothing to present. But the reverse is the case - that verse does not assume that a Muslim can have one or two whisperer(s) - for every Muslim acknowledge that the verse in context was referring to SATAN himself!! How many SATAN (as different from demons) does Islam preach?

mdsocks:

So,it dosen't call for any broadcast that its another version.

So also, the Muslim broadcast that the Bible is another version is a waste of time and internet resources.

Cheers.

@ away4real;

@ olabowale is this debate on the trinity?? , its ok for u to be confused or attempt to ridicule the trinity, but please the debate is on the Koran. Islam this Christainity that, jumpup here shout there, just stick to the debate.

Now back to the issue from what u state the versions are just translations in other languages. I doubt that based on the evidence from osisi.

Enjoy anyway i no get power 4 this una talk, i leave that to osisi and pilgrim and they seem to be doing a good job.

I will watch from the sound lines. Again stick to the debate and stop blowing cold fire, hmm can a fire be cold , well olabowale's fire is cole, take a chill pill no be fight, make everybody take am easy, tolerance is what i preach, but this nairaland na wah i wonder where people get all d info.

Anyway Jesus is Lord to me and theres no controversy for me oh.

away4real, if you believe osisi (I think she is +Osisi, but nevr mind), a disbeliever in the Qur'an over me, a believer in the Qur'an, for over 50 years, with battle scars (not the type that you get from wars. there is no muslim fights yet, but when you see me, there is no mistaking me for anything else), then what is there to say? Afterall, I can not affect your heart, if its already hardened, that you will believe a person, who does not know laam, laamalif, hamza, ain, gain, or even alif, all of which are arabic alphabets, over people who read the Qur'an everyday or least regularly, and must recite it daily in the prayers. Yet there is no time that it is acceptable to read Surah fatiha in Yoruba for example, a language that is certainly older and more matured than English. Or is it even permissible to read or recite it in Amharri language of Ethiopia, even though there were 2 minor Hijras to that land from Makka before the graet hijra to Madina. So away4real, I really can't help you.

If Jesus is lord for you, who is Lord for Jesus? Jesus does not have a Lord? And if that is so, why did he say what he said in Mark 12 verse 29? When you resolve that riddle, then come back for more. +Osisi, you should also tackle my question about Jesus having a lord or not, as indicated in Mark 12 verse 29, and the many prayers he made in the garden of Geshamene, and his crying out aloud on the cross, before 'given up the ghost.' I did not make the stuff up, your New Testament did, and you bought into the many lies.

@olabowale,

Please desist from all the silly excuses and face up to the issues in the thread. If that's a hard thing to understand or remember, here it is again:

The thread is about the translations and versions of both the Qur'an and the Bible.

Since Muslims have been hanging their tattered exculpations on the hinges of a mindless argument on "translations", we would rather you either have something genuine and honest to present; or failing to do so, simply save us all the comical displays of your theatrical rehearsals at saying absolutely nothing.

@deariekay

In case Muslim readers should be greatly concerned: The variances between these different versions of the Koran are generally quite small and minor, although there are a substantial number of them. Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has published a version of the (Hafs) Koran which contains the variant readings from the 10 Accepted Readers in its margins. About 2/3 of the ayat (verses) have some sort of variant reading. The great majority are differences in the vowels inserted in certain words (remembering that the early written kufic texts of the Koran did not include vowels or diacritical marks). There appears to be only one difference that might represent a significant effect on belief, that in surah 2:184. There are many Islamic scholars' discussions about these many differences. As an example of one, in Hafs, surah 2:140 reads taquluna, while in Warsh, that text is in surah 2:139 and reads yaquluna. Another example: Hafs surah 2:214 reads yaquula while Warsh surah 2;212 reads yaquulu. Muslim scholars agree that such variations do not seriously alter the meaning of statements made in the Koran.

Not surprising that the author of the article that you quoted from, to illustrate the 'slight variations,' as he said in the Qur'an will say what he said. I am a Yoruba man, and you will know that from my name. I learnt how read the Qur'an in Arabic in America. Thank God. This is the greatest achievement of my life. It has opened my heart to the religion that you are trying so hard to put down and drag it in the same damp filth that you have your own religion and its book.

Now I read Warsh, which is more associated to the Moroccans, and also read Hafs. All my Qur'ans are in Hafs, which is an easier reading for me, because I am very used to the character. But I learnt how to read Qur'an from what the Indian/Pakistani subcontinent is more associated with. Yet it is a different character from the other two, the Warsh and Hafs! But when you pick up warsi Qur'an, you know immediately the different letters, eg fa, qaf are differently written, and unlike the Hafs, fa and qaf. But they are pronounced the same way, in both and all the Qur'ans, with slight local or dialectic pronounciation or voice inflections.

For example an Indian reciter will say va instead of wa. But everyone knows that he pronounced wa, not va, because thare is no V in arabic vocal or alphabets. Your guy is a magicians, and since he knows that he is talking to the eyes and ears and hearts and tongues that are unfamiliar to the Qur'anic words/pronounciations, he can fool you all day, all night all the time! His garbage is for the comsumptions of the ignorants. You happen for now be one of them. He knows that the muslims will destroy his hypothesis, in a minute, as even a man like me is doing right now. Yet I have not memorised a great deal of the Qur'an. But i can read every letter of these three styles i have mentioned. There are other styles that can only be read by those who studied the Qur'an in an matriculated setting. But we all pronounce it the same way. Whether you read slow, fast, prolonging as if exagerating the sound, or sharp as if compressing the sound, in Warsh, Hafs, or any style, the trained eyes, ears and tongue will correct the reciter, even when they are from opposite ends of the world, if a mistake is made.

Tell your hoodini, that his magic did nothing to the muslims. We do not falkl for flim flam, or any ind of hokeydoke! Tell your person and am addressing this to all the non Muslims, that Qur'an does not have to be written down before it can be recited. It is an oral document, so his hypothesis of written vowels or word variations id zero on the scale of 1 to 10. Zero being lets closely into the presentation, the minimun possible mark here. Afterall, Muhammad did not know how to read and did not know how to write! Yet he is the one that the Qur'an was revealed to! How about that? Further the time he forgot even a word of it, it was aprocess of Allah given us the legislation of how to correct reciters in the muslim ummah. Afterall, Allah caused His Messenger (as) to forget so that He can show us that no one is abovethe ability to forget and therefore no one should feel low that he or she is corrected. It is the same way that a mistake is correct in salah by the making up what you did not do, eg, if the numbers of rakah wee not exacly as it is supposed to be, you make the two prostrations of the face before you get out of the Salah.

This s a strange phenomina, to you, since prostration is something you are arrogant to do yet. Even muhammad was the one who had most prostrations in Salah to his Creator. Afterall, no one can be as good as him in Islamic worship. I can not say that about Christians and Jesus, since Jesus was not a Christian anyhow. So your mode of worshipis something strange to Jesus and was also developed by others after him, who could not possibly be his true follower(s).

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Now I read Warsh, which is more associated to the Moroccans, and also read Hafs. All my Qur'ans are in Hafs, which is an easier reading for me, because I am very used to the character.

Can you share with us WHY you chose Hafs over others - aside from it "is an easier reading for me"? Does your preference not establish the FACT that there are different Qur'ans already - the one you chose and those you would prefer not to use? Afterall, even you had to acknowledge the difference here:

olabowale:

But I learnt how to read Qur'an from what the Indian/Pakistani subcontinent is more associated with. Yet it is a different character from the other two, the Warsh and Hafs!

Thanks for sharing on that - we just hope that no Muslim will come and wave that garboil of claiming that the Qur'an is exactly the same without any difference in character or dot!

olabowale:

But we all pronounce it the same way. Whether you read slow, fast, prolonging as if exagerating the sound, or sharp as if compressing the sound, in Warsh, Hafs, or any style, the trained eyes, ears and tongue will correct the reciter, even when they are from opposite ends of the world, if a mistake is made.

If the Qur'an has any meaning, Muslim translators would have told us simply and clearly the difference between "baptism, system, colour, dye, religion" that they used in Sura 2 v 138, for example. What's the use in reciting something that you cannot understand simply because the "style" seems to attract you much more than the content and meaning of what you are reciting?

olabowale:

Tell your hoodini, that his magic did nothing to the muslims. We do not falkl for flim flam, or any ind of hokeydoke! Tell your person and am addressing this to all the non Muslims, that Qur'an does not have to be written down before it can be recited. It is an oral document, so his hypothesis of written vowels or word variations id zero on the scale of 1 to 10.

Because you are addressing all non-Muslim, that's why I decided to reply you directly. Please be bold and address poster directly and stop ducking behind your finger.

Meanwhile, your diddle above simply again confirms the fact that there was no "book" handed to Muhammad - nobody saw any such "book". The Qur'an was personally dictated by Muhammad, and the idea that it was an "oral" document is a contradiction in terms. The Qur'an was not a document but rather was the effect of Muhammad's experience after he was pressed in te cave!

olabowale:

It is the same way that a mistake is correct in salah by the making up what you did not do, eg, if the numbers of rakah wee not exacly as it is supposed to be, you make the two prostrations of the face before you get out of the Salah.

When will people understand that such ritual is mind-slavery?

olabowale:

This s a strange phenomina, to you, since prostration is something you are arrogant to do yet. Even muhammad was the one who had most prostrations in Salah to his Creator. Afterall, no one can be as good as him in Islamic worship.

Sorry, your cover-up is not sufficient to deceive anybody here. Muhammad was not better than Jonah - he said so himself; and again Muhammad saw David as a better worshipper than the whole Muslim world put together!!

It must be a strange phenomenon for you as well - seeing that your style these days is to deny the SAHIH Hadiths.

olabowale:

I can not say that about Christians and Jesus, since Jesus was not a Christian anyhow.

Of course not - how can you say that about Jesus, when He was not a Muslim anyhow?

olabowale:

So your mode of worshipis something strange to Jesus and was also developed by others after him, who could not possibly be his true follower(s).

The mode of worship you claim here for Islam was not known by ANY Biblical prophets. Please find me where David, Jeremiah and Isaiah did the rakah thing that you are not even sure if it is one or two.