What exactly is texture of your problem?. So font changed the texts and the meaning?
You still have not been able to produce different Qur'ans except audio contradictions.

sagenaija:

Emp.iree, still problems with the "PRESERVATION"!! Changes! Changes! Changed!

"Older form of the Arabic script" @5.14
"Requires some basic training to read it" @ 5.38
"Transcribed into modern fonts" @6.26
"It was written without dots" @ 6.58
"Carbon dating puts age between 649 to 675 @8.01
"Carbon 14 tests have been called into question " @8.39 & 9.16
"Goes back to the time of the companions of the prophet" @9.17

I have given you the time in the video that the statements in quote were made. So I'm not making them up.

Note:
1. There are differences in fonts so it had to be transcribed into modern fonts. So, a change from old fonts into modern fonts.
2. It was almost 2 decades to 4 or 5 decades after Mohamed's death.
3. Carbon 14 dating has been found NOT to be as accurate as previously thought. Ink cannot be carbon dated. Material used for the writing which was carbon dated could have been produced decades before the writing was done on it.
4. Not a copy of ANY Koran at the time of Mohamed. Only alluded to it as being at time of the "companions of the prophet".

So, do you still claim "perfect preservation"?

Empiree:
What exactly is texture of your problem?. So font changed the texts and the meaning?
You still have not been able to produce different Qur'ans except audio contradictions.

Empiree,
There was NO single bound copy of the Koran during Mohamed's time.

But Moslems claim that the Koran has remained unchanged since the time of Mohamed.

When changes are pointed out by people the moslem apologist resort to a new definition of 'unchanged'.

Moslems claim that the wording of the Koranic text available today corresponds EXACTLY to that revealed to Mohamed.

Again their definition of 'EXACTLY' will be as redefined by them.

Different Korans have been seen to have not just fonts but WORDS and SENTENCES that vary in meaning.

With all these how can you people still claim "perfect preservation"?

The truth  (which is a tough thing for many Moslems) is that the Koran has not been perfectly preserved.


It evolved over the centuries. In the process of its evolution a lot of changes happened to the original 'text'. The early infighting in Islam soon after Mohamed's death did not help matters. Even though Moslem apologists try to hide this, the prolonged and often bitter and  partisan quarrelling among Moslems had impact on islam's stories and books.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joHruvIiq_k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev1SXgwTxg4

Well, you all can grumble all you want. You are only jealous because you have not been able to meet Quran challenge to produce another Quran. So you must always come up with strategic ways to undermine Quran. Sorry buddy and sorry to disappoint you. It is ONLY 1 Quran muslims throughout the world read. Same meaning. Same text. Different pronunciation of some words. I bet you if I show you ancient text of Quran you can't really comprehend anything the same way some muslims wont. Writing evolves over time. So we have standard arabic text now compared to ancient one.


So the first text I can read it.

Second one I can't read. It is really ancient but there are many who can read it out there.

Third one I can read.

But if 3 different people read them they would read the same thing ( if they are same chapter and verse).

Third one is what i grew up with. I used to write like that but now my handwriting has changed to more legible one.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Empire.e,
There was NO single bound copy of the Koran during Mohamed's time.

But Moslems claim that the Koran has remained unchanged since the time of Mohamed.

When changes are pointed out by people the moslem apologist resort to a new definition of 'unchanged'.

Moslems claim that the wording of the Koranic text available today corresponds EXACTLY to that revealed to Mohamed.

Again their definition of 'EXACTLY' will be as redefined by them.

Different Korans have been seen to have not just fonts but WORDS and SENTENCES that vary in meaning.

With all these how can you people still claim "perfect preservation"?

The truth  (which is a tough thing for many Moslems) is that the Koran has not been perfectly preserved.


It evolved over the centuries. In the process of its evolution a lot of changes happened to the original 'text'. The early infighting in Islam soon after Mohamed's death did not help matters. Even though Moslem apologists try to hide this, the prolonged and often bitter and  partisan quarrelling among Moslems had impact on islam's stories and books.

https://youtu.be/jo...HruvIiq_k

https://youtu.be/..ev1SXgwTxg4

Empiree:

It is ONLY 1 Quran muslims throughout the world read. Same meaning. Same text. Different pronunciation of some words. I bet you if I show you ancient text of Quran you can't really comprehend anything the same way some muslims wont. Writing evolves over time. So we have standard arabic text now compared to ancient one.


So the first text I can read it.

Second one I can't read. It is really ancient but there are many who can read it out there.

Third one I can read.

But if 3 different people read them they would read the same thing ( if they are same chapter and verse).

Third one is what i grew up with. I used to write like that but now my handwriting has changed to more legible one.

Empiree,
According to you: ONLY 1 Koran. Same text. Different pronunciations. There's standard Arabic text. There's the ancient one.

You can read the first text.
You CAN'T READ the second text.
You can read the third one.

Why couldn't you read the second one?

The reason is this:
Even though you will not admit it, you cannot say on the one hand one Koran, same text and then at same time talk of different pronunciations, standard Arabic text and ancient Arabic text.

The fact that there's standard and ancient means there are TWO different types. It means they are not EXACT in some detail.

To that extent you cannot therefore claim that the Koran has remained unchanged since the time of Mohamed.

sagenaija:


Why couldn't you read the second one?

Good question. Now, when a doctor writes prescription for you are you about to read it all the time?. You simply take it to pharmacy or drug store. They are about to read and interpret.

Now which of the texts are you and to read?. I bet you none

Empiree:
Good question. Now, when a doctor writes prescription for you are you about to read it all the time?. You simply take it to pharmacy or drug store. They are about to read and interpret.

Now which of the texts are you and to read?. I bet you none

Maybe this verse of the Koran addresses the issue:
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. Chapter 3:7

And what exactly are you trying to insinuate?.


I know this is really the headache for you. I mean screenshot from Google. You can't change that. It is giving you sleepless nights.

sagenaija:

Maybe this verse of the Koran addresses the issue:
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. Chapter 3:7

Empiree:
And what exactly are you trying to insinuate?.

I know this is really the headache for you. I mean screenshot from Google. You can't change that. It is giving you sleepless nights.

Empiree,
You asked a question and I gave you my answer. The least you could have done was to comment on the verse of the Koran I provided.  Instead what you did is to go off at a tangent.

You've not defended the preservation of the Koran and you're going off to a human being. Interesting.

sagenaija:

Empiree,
You asked a question and I gave you my answer. The least you could have done was to comment on the verse of the Koran I provided.  Instead what you did is to go off at a tangent.

You've not defended the preservation of the Koran and you're going off to a human being. Interesting.

Whats your understanding of the verse you posted?. Let's start from there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otU0FSVyJPc

Changed or Preserved Quran Does it Matter? Zakir Naik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbDxur6XCU

The Miracle of The Quran's Perfect Preservation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W9A9PenxRQ

Empiree,
Shabir Ali in the video you posted admitted that there are variants. Variants simply mean there are a number of differences. You cannot therefore in view of that still claim "unchanged".

The Arabian Prophet in his video mentioned a number of inconsistencies in the Koran and also that there are different Korans.

David Wood used some visuals to explain the "perfect preservation" of the Koran by doing some comparisons.

Hope you found them enlightening.

You have comprehension problem. He said exactly what I have told you. Go and bring Quran that is different from what we have. That's all

sagenaija:
Emp.iree,
Shabir Ali in the video you posted admitted that there are variants. Variants simply mean there are a number of differences. You cannot therefore in view of that still claim "unchanged".

The Arabian Prophet in his video mentioned a number of inconsistencies in the Koran and also that there are different Korans.

David Wood used some visuals to explain the "perfect preservation" of the Koran by doing some comparisons.

Hope you found them enlightening.

Empiree:
You have comprehension problem. He said exactly what I have told you. Go and bring Quran that is different from what we have. That's all

Empiree,
Mr. Comprehension, we are NOT talking of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KORAN. We are saying that the claim that the Koran has not changed since the time of Mohamed is not true. There are DIFFERENCES in the different versions of the Koran available today. In some cases those differences change the MEANING.

When you talk of "VARIANTS", Hafs version, so and so version they are not EXACT when put side by side.

SO, the Koran has not remained unchanged since Mohamed. It has EVOLVED as each competing group of Moslems that dominated at any particular time sought to make it conform to their understanding and view of Islam.

Story story...bring the "old version" that contradicts what we have today. Simple isn't?. That's the only way you can substantiate your allegations. If you said the same about Bible I would really produce different Biblee with different contents. Simple. But if you can't then your claim is audio

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Empiree,
Mr. Comprehension, we are NOT talking of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KORAN. We are saying that the claim that the Koran has not changed since the time of Mohamed is not true. There are DIFFERENCES in the different versions of the Koran available today. In some cases those differences change the MEANING.

When you talk of "VARIANTS", Hafs version, so and so version they are not EXACT when put side by side.

SO, the Koran has not remained unchanged since Mohamed. It has EVOLVED as each competing group of Moslems that dominated at any particular time sought to make it conform to their understanding and view of Islam.

Empiree:
Story story...bring the "old version" that contradicts what we have today. Simple isn't?. That's the only way you can substantiate your allegations. If you said the same about Bible I would really produce different Biblee with different contents. Simple. But if you can't then your claim is audio

Empiree,
Why do I have to "reinvent the wheel" at this time? What have I been presenting all this while?

Did you watch the discussion between Hijab and Yasir Quadhi?
Maybe you did but would dismiss it because it does not line up with your unsubstantiated position. You people then resort to labelling your fellow Moslems as "misguided" Muslims.

Did you see the David Wood, Ameer, Jay Smith, Hatun and the Arabian Prophet make their claims with references upon references?

Did you see Shabir All talk about 'ancient' fonts and 'modern' fonts?

You mentioned yourself about the text you can read and the ones you cannot read.

And after all these do you still think the claim of "PERFECT PRESERVATION" is a valid one to be made about the Koran?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0GGbZeGQOw

The comments below answer you greatly. There is nothing wrong with Qur'an. If you have another one different from what we have bring it forward.

sagenaija:

Emp...iree,
Why do I have to "reinvent the wheel" at this time? What have I been presenting all this while?

Did you watch the discussion between Hijab and Yasir Quadhi?
Maybe you did but would dismiss it because it does not line up with your unsubstantiated position. You people then resort to labelling your fellow Moslems as "misguided" Muslims.

Did you see the David Wood, Ameer, Jay Smith, Hatun and the Arabian Prophet make their claims with references upon references?

Did you see Shabir All talk about 'ancient' fonts and 'modern' fonts?

You mentioned yourself about the text you can read and the ones you cannot read.

And after all these do you still think the claim of "PERFECT PRESERVATION" is a valid one to be made about the Koran?

Empiree:

It's always good to do some checks before pasting anything simply because it agrees with your position.

Unlike the Koran the Bible has a FLOW. So, you cannot just pick a verse out of a portion and decide to run with it.

See Hebrew 2:9

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while [by taking on the limitations of humanity], crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering of death, so that by the grace of God [extended to sinners] He might experience death for [the sins of] everyone.
Hebrews 2:9 AMP

So you can see that that same book of the Bible talks about Jesus DYING. Wherever his "SUFFERING" is mentioned it talks about his death.

Need i take the others one by one? I don't think so. You should be able to see the deception of your teachers.

You guys immediately start denying and discrediting your Moslem scholars as soon as they show up the reality of the Koran. Interesting!

Look at this again:
Did I say 30 Qur'ans? My bad, I should have said 100's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMo21KF69KY

Muslim Scholars Shatter the Myth of Quran Preservation!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANo6dXc2i-0
Empiree,

Were there ONLY 4 people who had 'memorised' the Koran or were there thousands who memorised it?

Were the chapters arranged by Mohamed or his companions? Why is Musu'd's codex and Ubbayy's codex different in order of arrangements of the chapters? Which is the correct arrangement?

A question Moslems including yourself are yet to answer is this:
Given the FACT that Mohamed DID NOT  write the Koran but only recited it, were those who eventually wrote it down INSPIRED by Allah to write it down?

If so, can we not say then that Allah engaged them as his MESSENGERS, AFTER MOHAMED, to document his book.

If not, were they not working against Allah's will to have the Koran ONLY as RECITATIONS?

You have not answered my question. We would save ourselves endless argument if you simply provided A QURAN DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. I don't need audio versions.


Let me give your example. If you asked me proof for discrinpacies in your Bible I had provided you with multiple Bible versions with different contents. Simple isn't?. The reason is because evidences are readily available. So why can't you do the same with Qur'an if you are truthful?

sagenaija:
Muslim Scholars Shatter the Myth of Quran Preservation!
https://youtu.be/ANo...6dXc2i-0
Empi.ree,

Were there ONLY 4 people who had 'memorised' the Koran or were there thousands who memorised it?

Were the chapters arranged by Mohamed or his companions? Why is Musu'd's codex and Ubbayy's codex different in order of arrangements of the chapters? Which is the correct arrangement?

A question Moslems including yourself are yet to answer is this:
Given the FACT that Mohamed DID NOT  write the Koran but only recited it, were those who eventually wrote it down INSPIRED by Allah to write it down?

If so, can we not say then that Allah engaged them as his MESSENGERS, AFTER MOHAMED, to document his book.

If not, were they not working against Allah's will to have the Koran ONLY as RECITATIONS?

Empiree:
You have not answered my question. We would save ourselves endless argument if you simply provided A QURAN DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. I don't need audio versions.


Let me give your example. If you asked me proof for discrinpacies in your Bible I had provided you with multiple Bible versions with different contents. Simple isn't?. The reason is because evidences are readily available. So why can't you do the same with Qur'an if you are truthful?

I know that you are trying to run away from the truth.

Which audio versions have I given you?

Unless, in order not to face the truth, you refused to watch the videos I presented, you ought to have SEEN and heard about the different versions of the Koran.

Instead of addressing them them you're here talking about "audio versions".

Fortunately others are reading us. They will behave wiser.

The last video was largely on presentations by Moslem scholars - Ahmed Dedaat, Yasir Quadri, and others. You could at least have listened to people on your side of the divide. Apparently you didn't.

Did you see a clip where one of your scholars showed a Koran copy that has a different version printed alongside the main one? Maybe you did not.

Do all Moslems use the SAME Koran today? Why do you have Hafs version, Warsh version, etc? Do you really want us to go down that lane again, Empiree?

And you are here wanting me to send "hard copies" of "different" Korans to your locational address or probably to your post office mail box.

Moslems like you talk of seven Ahruf and ten Quirat. All in Arabic. But you'll then argue that they are not actually 7 or 10 but 1.

The word Koran means recitation. Each of the ten different qirat is a unique recitation. That is, there are 10 different recitations. Therefore, how is it possible to say that there is only one recitation and still claim that there are ten recitations? Do you see how you guys twist up things?

Maybe you will now REDEFINE the meaning of Koran for us.

Let's see Koran 43:19
Hafs version:
... they are slaves of the Most Gracious ...
Warsh version:
... they a with the most gracious ...

Only a deceptive person (or a fool?) will say that the meaning of that same verse in the two different versions are the same.

How do you explain that, Empiree?

There are differences involving extra words, differences in letters, diacritical dots and vowels in the different versions. But you guys claim "No SINGLE difference" since the time of Mohamed. And we are holding you to your claim.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
I

Let's see Koran 43:19
Hafs version:
... they are slaves of the Most Gracious ...
Warsh version:
... they a with the most gracious ...

.

please stop embarrassing yourself. This is translation not original Arabic text. Translation to any languages is not Qur'an. It is obvious you do not understand everything I have been saying.

Post Arabic text of sura 43:19 from different Qur'an and let's see. That's what I have been telling you. English translation depends on choice of words used by translators. Choice of words translation is what you posted not Qur'an. Qur'an is in Arabic.



Point of corrections. It is:

Qur'an not Koran

Muslim not Moslem

Empiree:
please stop embarrassing yourself. This is translation not original Arabic text. Translation to any languages is not Qur'an. It is obvious you do not understand everything I have been saying.

Post Arabic text of sura 43:19 from different Qur'an and let's see. That's what I have been telling you. English translation depends on choice of words used by translators. Choice of words translation is what you posted not Qur'an. Qur'an is in Arabic.

Point of corrections. It is:

Qur'an not Koran

Muslim not Moslem

Empiree,
I asked you if you wanted us to go down that same route again.

It's like you are the one embarrassing yourself and your fans.

Are you hung up with Arabic? Very soon Moslems like you will insist that people should first learn Arabic before the can qualify to be converted to Islam.

Are you for real?

Now, if I don't write Koran the way you want it then it is not Koran I'm referring to according to you.

And I must spell Moslem in ENGLISH like you do before it is correct. You guys were not even called Moslems until several years or decades into Islam. Check your islamic history. And tell the whole world if I'm wrong. But knowing you that will not happen; you will never check out even your own history. Because you are afraid of the truth. Look at this Mohamedan!

We might as well spell your name EMPEEREE and not EMPIREE.

So it's now the issue of "CHOICE OF WORDS" by translators.
From which language did they translate into English? Is the Arabic word for 'slave' the same as for 'with'? Please tell us. I challenge you on that.

Empiree:
please stop embarrassing yourself. This is translation not original Arabic text. Translation to any languages is not Qur'an. It is obvious you do not understand everything I have been saying.

Post Arabic text of sura 43:19 from different Qur'an and let's see. That's what I have been telling you. English translation depends on choice of words used by translators. Choice of words translation is what you posted not Qur'an. Qur'an is in Arabic.

Point of corrections. It is:

Qur'an not Koran

Muslim not Moslem

Empiree,
I asked you if you wanted us to go down that same route again.

It's like you are the one embarrassing yourself and your fans.

Are you hung up with Arabic? Very soon Moslems like you will insist that people should first learn Arabic before the can qualify to be converted to Islam.

Are you for real?

Now, if I don't write Koran the way you want it then it is not Koran I'm referring to according to you.

And I must spell Moslem in ENGLISH like you do before it is correct. You guys were not even called Moslems until several years or decades into Islam. Check your islamic history. And tell the whole world if I'm wrong. But knowing you that will not happen; you will never check out even your own history. Because you are afraid of the truth.

Is it Mohamed or Muhamed or Muhammad or Moohaammaad?

We might as well spell your name EMPEEREE and not EMPIREE.

From which language did they translate into English? Is the Arabic word for 'slave' the same as for 'with'? Please tell us. Or show yourself a deceiver.

Qur'an was revealed in Arabic. When you are ready to get serious let me know. Anyone can read any translations to convert to Islam. That's not the problem we are dealing with here. But we must reiterate that whatever translation they read before converting is not Quran but translation of the meaning. Qur'an is one version in Arabic. The moment it is translated from Arabic Quran to any other languages it is no longer Quran but translation of the meaning.

So I asked you, please bring different Quran from different places and write out same Ayah from them and you realize it is all the same because that's how it is revealed. Text does not change. It is exactly as it is preserved from Divine Tablet. Pronunciation may differ due to dialects but text are the same. Variances that you are talking about is translations.

So please finish your assignment before you return here. Thank you

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Emp.iree,
I asked you if you wanted us to go down that same route again.

It's like you are the one embarrassing yourself and your fans.

Are you hung up with Arabic? Very soon Moslems like you will insist that people should first learn Arabic before the can qualify to be converted to Islam.

Are you for real?

Now, if I don't write Koran the way you want it then it is not Koran I'm referring to according to you.

And I must spell Moslem in ENGLISH like you do before it is correct. You guys were not even called Moslems until several years or decades into Islam. Check your islamic history. And tell the whole world if I'm wrong. But knowing you that will not happen; you will never check out even your own history. Because you are afraid of the truth.

Is it Mohamed or Muhamed or Muhammad or Moohaammaad?

We might as well spell your name EMPEEREE and not EMP.IREE.

From which language did they translate into English? Is the Arabic word for 'slave' the same as for 'with'? Please tell us. Or show yourself a deceiver.

Empiree:
Qur'an was revealed in Arabic. When you are ready to get serious let me know. Anyone can read any translations to convert to Islam. That's not the problem we are dealing with here. But we must reiterate that whatever translation they read before converting is not Quran but translation of the meaning. Qur'an is one version in Arabic. The moment it is translated from Arabic Quran to any other languages it is no longer Quran but translation of the meaning.

So I asked you, please bring different Quran from different places and write out same Ayah from them and you realize it is all the same because that's how it is revealed. Text does not change. It is exactly as it is preserved from Divine Tablet. Pronunciation may differ due to dialects but text are the same. Variances that you are talking about is translations.

So please finish your assignment before you return here. Thank you

Empiree,
If I didn't know that you need things explained in kindergarten level before you get it i would have been shocked.

Now, if you write here (IN ENGLISH) that the Koran says "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..." 33:50  but say that we are to understand that the Koran DID NOT EXACTLY say so but that is just the MEANING IN ENGLISH of what the Koran says.

Do you realise how confused you will sound to any normal thinking person?

I gave you a verse of the Koran and you're asking me for the Arabic before you can see.
Here they are:

hum `ibadu l-rahmani
... they are slaves of the Most Gracious ... 43:19 (Hafs)

hum `inda l-rahmani
... they are with the Most Gracious ... 43:19 (Warsh)

So now can you show us how it's a matter of choice of words used by translators.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]Here they are:

hum `ibadu l-rahmani
... they are slaves of the Most Gracious ... 43:19 (Hafs)

hum `inda l-rahmani
... they are with the Most Gracious ... 43:19 (Warsh)

So now can you show us how it's a matter of choice of words used by translators.

First of all thank you very much for bringing this up. You see, at least you are close to my point but guy, your problem is lack of basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet. If you have this basic knowledge you would have noticed the second transliteration is wrong. Very wrong. It has not to do with Qur'an. This is why I keep telling you to stick to original Arabic text. Transliteration and translation are not revelation.

Both Hafs and Warsh you posted are the same in their original Arabic text. Now, both transliterations you posted are wrong phonetically but the first Hafs you posted is more proper. In order to pronounce the exact word in Arabic with it's tajweed, it is not I as written in ibadu. Instead it is in i:e ain. It is difficult to explain to you because you do not have basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet like you do in English language.

So it is transliteration that these oyinbo people capitalized on. That's why they are lost. Now look at screenshot for Divine Arabic Quran in the same sura you posted. You see it is the same "ain" used for both and they mean the same thing.

So both start with same alphabet. Tell me what difference you see from warsh and Hafs below?.

So "Inda" transliteration you got from God knows where is wrong. It should be ibadu at least.

So usually we write ibada, ibadu for easy pronunciation. Not everyone can pronounce the letter 'ain'


So "Inda" you posted had nothing to do with warsh either. It is genuine typographical error by transliterator

Empiree:
First of all thank you very much for bringing this up. You see, at least you are close to my point but guy, your problem is lack of basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet. If you have this basic knowledge you would have noticed the second transliteration is wrong. Very wrong. It has not to do with Qur'an. This is why I keep telling you to stick to original Arabic text. Transliteration and translation are not revelation.

Both Hafs and Warsh you posted are the same in their original Arabic text. Now, both transliterations you posted are wrong phonetically but the first Hafs you posted is more proper. In order to pronounce the exact word in Arabic with it's tajweed, it is not I as written in ibadu. Instead it is in i:e ain. It is difficult to explain to you because you do not have basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet like you do in English language.

So it is transliteration that these oyinbo people capitalized on. That's why they are lost. Now look at screenshot for Divine Arabic Quran in the same sura you posted. You see it is the same "ain" used for both and they mean the same thing.

So both start with same alphabet. Tell me what difference you see from warsh and Hafs below?.

So "Inda" transliteration you got from God knows where is wrong. It should be ibadu at least.

So usually we write ibada, ibadu for easy pronunciation. Not everyone can pronounce the letter 'ain'


So "Inda" you posted had nothing to do with warsh either. It is genuine typographical error by transliterator

If you hope to confuse us by your constant reference to Arabic or like you put in this post "basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet", It wouldn't werk!

A thing can be written in the Chinese and those proficient in that language can translate it into another language ACCURATELY. But if two different alphabets appear in two separate Chinese texts, to translate them as the same will be considered dubious.

Getting back to the matter at hand:
1. There is no original Koran. Islam DOES NOT CLAIM that the Koran from the time of Mohamed exists today. No copy existed at the time of Mohamed. The REVELATION was given as RECITATIONS; true or false?
Therefore the written texts Moslems have today is NOT the original revelation. So, to the extent that the original revelation was in RECITATIONS the written texts of today which DO NOT date back to Mohamed can be faulted.

2. The English translations of the Koran we have today are not all done by oyinbo people: Are they? The answer is a straightforward NO! But then, Arabic is a HUMAN LANGUAGE as much as English is a human language. Therefore, a person who is proficient in both can CLEARLY communicate in written or oral form from one of them to the other.
Your attempts at trying to dig up difficulties in the translation does not arise.

3. Regardless of whether I "lack basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet" or not, I can CLEARLY SEE that the screenshots you posted ARE NOT the same. Arabic is written and read from right to left (unlike English). If we take the strokes and markings in those two texts you posted it is very obvious that there are differing portions. I can see that. I don't have to be an expert in languages to see that. Those two texts are NOT the same.
Therefore, your claim that both Hafs and Warsh are the same in their original Arabic text is FALSE.

However, if what you are saying is that even when Arabic alphabets (not words) vary they can still mean the same thing, then the language has issues.

I know it's difficult for you to come to see that what you've been told and believed over the years rests on sinking sand. But you must be man enough to admit where you've missed it and move away from error to the truth.

[s]

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
If you hope to confuse us by your constant reference to Arabic or like you put in this post "basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet", It wouldn't werk!

A thing can be written in the Chinese and those proficient in that language can translate it into another language ACCURATELY. But if two different alphabets appear in two separate Chinese texts, to translate them as the same will be considered dubious.

Getting back to the matter at hand:
1. There is no original Koran. Islam DOES NOT CLAIM that the Koran from the time of Mohamed exists today. No copy existed at the time of Mohamed. The REVELATION was given as RECITATIONS; true or false?
Therefore the written texts Moslems have today is NOT the original revelation. So, to the extent that the original revelation was in RECITATIONS the written texts of today which DO NOT date back to Mohamed can be faulted.

2. The English translations of the Koran we have today are not all done by oyinbo people: Are they? The answer is a straightforward NO! But then, Arabic is a HUMAN LANGUAGE as much as English is a human language. Therefore, a person who is proficient in both can CLEARLY communicate in written or oral form from one of them to the other.
Your attempts at trying to dig up difficulties in the translation does not arise.

3. Regardless of whether I "lack basic knowledge of Arabic alphabet" or not, I can CLEARLY SEE that the screenshots you posted ARE NOT the same. Arabic is written and read from right to left (unlike English). If we take the strokes and markings in those two texts you posted it is very obvious that there are differing portions. I can see that. I don't have to be an expert in languages to see that. Those two texts are NOT the same.
Therefore, your claim that both Hafs and Warsh are the same in their original Arabic text is FALSE.

However, if what you are saying is that even when Arabic alphabets (not words) vary they can still mean the same thing, then the language has issues.

I know it's difficult for you to come to see that what you've been told and believed over the years rests on sinking sand. But you must be man enough to admit where you've missed it and move away from error to the truth.

[/s]

You have a good day, buddy. I have presented original Arabic text for those transliterations you posted. I have every right to rebuke transliteration if it doesn't portrays exact Arabic tajweed.


Here it is again, the word Ibadu Rahman. There first screenshot is the Arabic letter in question and it sounds like this 'ain'. Every learned Muslim knows how letter ain is used at the beginning, middle and end of a word or sentence. You will need to enroll in Arabic class and stop copying White man rubbish on social media.

If you believe there is no original Arabic Quran as existed in the time of prophet muhammad (saw) then present us different Arabic Quran if you are truthful?