Proof of that there is one God

[Mohamed]

concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari?
[\QUOTE]

the aya you mean was already written in the first musshaf of the first caliph, and many muslims were saving it in their memory.

but the constraint that it should be (heard directly from the mouth of the messenger (peace be upon him) restricted the people accepted as witnesses that are residents of al-madina. this is a result of the great care that muslims devoted to the confidentiality of the copying process.

 

[BillyP]

So Mo, what happens to me if i don't kiss carpets and don't worship Allah? No virgins for me?

 

[Mohamed]

Without going into too much detail, rather than “numerous” sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn’t that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman’s rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the “perfect preservation” of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

the readings (القراءات) is simply readings!! the fact that there are many readings of quran is related to the history of the arabic language.

at the time of Messenger, arabs were speaking arabic with different (tongues). (a normal phenomena in all languages, such as there is different tongues of french in france).
there were slight variations in the pronouncement of words among arabic tribes. It is also reasoned that arabic language wasn't standardized yet. so the same word might be written with different spellings.

It wasn't until a century later, that muslims established grammar rules for the language and dictionaries of the words of the language were written with the spelling of words fixed.

returning to the period of the Messenger,
The Messenger was from Quraish tribe, which has its own tongue. Quran was downed from the heaven with this tongue.

To ease the recitation and reading of quran to the rest of arabs, an allowance regarding pronunciation/some grammatical variations/... was given. it was reported by the messenger himself that there are (أحرف سبعة) seven variations in the reading scheme.

This fact was known and accepted by sahabas and later generations of muslims.
By the adoption of Osman's mushaf, the spelling and drawing of words were fixed. any other spelling were abandoned in the sake of unification. but the allowance for the different readings remained provided that it is compatible with the Osmanic musshaf.

in the sake of unification, 10 readings were selected and fixed. no other variations were allowed. These readings were confidentially traced to the Messenger. each reading has its chain of (tellers) that each one of them heared this reading from the mouth of the next one in the chain up to the Messenger. (of course this was backed by the written musshafs)

The reading includes fine details on how to pronounce each word, how long to pronounce each letter (for example the two forms wood and woooooood were distinguished) and other many fine details. All these readings are rooted to the Messenger.

The islamic literature included so much detail on the description of Quran words, pronounciation, detailed reading instructions.

the claim that different readings are different versions of quran is like saying that the two statements
( it is a cat) and ( it's a cat) are different versions.

 

[Mohamed]

So Mo, what happens to me if i don't kiss carpets and don't worship Allah? No virgins for me?

no muslim kiss carpets, please be more polite.

you should recognize the power of God, he created all these living beings on the earth, all the universe including millions and billions of galaxies is created and supervised by God.

all of us, i and you and every one are just slaves to the great allah. we are constrained to live a short time window. we are constrained to limited conditions of temperature and pressure. accept it or not to accept, we will be sooner or later a useless piece of meat buried in the dust.

so it's better for all of us to believe and worship allah - The God of every thing-, requesting merci from him.

those that are good slaves to allah, believing in him and all of his messengers and books torah, gospel, quran and others following allah orders: pray, zakah, being honest and fair. treat your parents well. avoid lying, cheating, usury, adultery, .....will be rewarded.

others who are haughty, refuse to worship allah and follow his orders, lie and tyrannize others will be punished by allah.

you can choose for your self. no one will force you. you are responsible for your actions and will be accounted for them.

 

[Mohamed]

Anyone who believes in Allah really believes in Yaweh.

and do you not realize that you are basing your proof on assumptions.

I can assume anything and base a proof on it but that does not mean I would be right.

the evidence i base my proof is more stronger than the evidence of (conservation of energy law).

do you have a proof for this law? why you accept it?

 

[Hollie]

Without going into too much detail, rather than “numerous” sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn’t that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman’s rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the “perfect preservation” of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

the readings (القراءات) is simply readings!! the fact that there are many readings of quran is related to the history of the arabic language.

at the time of Messenger, arabs were speaking arabic with different (tongues). (a normal phenomena in all languages, such as there is different tongues of french in france).
there were slight variations in the pronouncement of words among arabic tribes. It is also reasoned that arabic language wasn't standardized yet. so the same word might be written with different spellings.

It wasn't until a century later, that muslims established grammar rules for the language and dictionaries of the words of the language were written with the spelling of words fixed.

returning to the period of the Messenger,
The Messenger was from Quraish tribe, which has its own tongue. Quran was downed from the heaven with this tongue.

To ease the recitation and reading of quran to the rest of arabs, an allowance regarding pronunciation/some grammatical variations/... was given. it was reported by the messenger himself that there are (أحرف سبعة) seven variations in the reading scheme.

This fact was known and accepted by sahabas and later generations of muslims.
By the adoption of Osman's mushaf, the spelling and drawing of words were fixed. any other spelling were abandoned in the sake of unification. but the allowance for the different readings remained provided that it is compatible with the Osmanic musshaf.

in the sake of unification, 10 readings were selected and fixed. no other variations were allowed. These readings were confidentially traced to the Messenger. each reading has its chain of (tellers) that each one of them heared this reading from the mouth of the next one in the chain up to the Messenger. (of course this was backed by the written musshafs)

The reading includes fine details on how to pronounce each word, how long to pronounce each letter (for example the two forms wood and woooooood were distinguished) and other many fine details. All these readings are rooted to the Messenger.

The islamic literature included so much detail on the description of Quran words, pronounciation, detailed reading instructions.

the claim that different readings are different versions of quran is like saying that the two statements
( it is a cat) and ( it's a cat) are different versions.

Such terms as "various tongues" doesn't describe what you're hoping to portray. And more importantly, to suggest that the Koran was "downed from the heaven with his tongue", is simply muslim tradition which is no different from most religious traditions that claim supernatural intervention.

Since the koran is a single, small book that was created over a very short period of time (decades rather than centuries) and by a much smaller group of authors (a handful versus hundreds) its evolution is more narrowly prescribed than that of its more robust and comprehensive competitors like the Torah or the Vedas. It may be much closer to “what it used to be” than them, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t “tampered with.” The case can easily be made that ‘Uthman’s Rescension was a profound example of “tampering.” Or a more objective view would be that it was part of process by which the koran was created.

You shouldn't expect that those who have studied hisrory will accept the myth of the koran's“miraculous preservation”. You need go no further than compare the text of two different koanic qira’at (say… Hafs and Warsh) to see that the manuscripts are not the same. They are similar, but they are not the same. At least they are no more similar than hundreds of other books, far older than the koran, and that make no claim to divine origin.

 

[Mohamed]

Such terms as "various tongues" doesn't describe what you're hoping to portray. And more importantly, to suggest that the Koran was "downed from the heaven with his tongue", is simply muslim tradition which is no different from most religious traditions that claim supernatural intervention.

Since the koran is a single, small book that was created over a very short period of time (decades rather than centuries) and by a much smaller group of authors (a handful versus hundreds) its evolution is more narrowly prescribed than that of its more robust and comprehensive competitors like the Torah or the Vedas. It may be much closer to “what it used to be” than them, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t “tampered with.” The case can easily be made that ‘Uthman’s Rescension was a profound example of “tampering.” Or a more objective view would be that it was part of process by which the koran was created.

You shouldn't expect that those who have studied hisrory will accept the myth of the koran's“miraculous preservation”. You need go no further than compare the text of two different koanic qira’at (say… Hafs and Warsh) to see that the manuscripts are not the same. They are similar, but they are not the same. At least they are no more similar than hundreds of other books, far older than the koran, and that make no claim to divine origin.

i have too much evidence for quran being preserved and explained to you the process by which it was preserved.

if you insist to say (it was changed) without any evidence except to satisfy your desire, then.... i have no help for you.

question: are you arabic speaker?

 

[Hollie]

Such terms as "various tongues" doesn't describe what you're hoping to portray. And more importantly, to suggest that the Koran was "downed from the heaven with his tongue", is simply muslim tradition which is no different from most religious traditions that claim supernatural intervention.

Since the koran is a single, small book that was created over a very short period of time (decades rather than centuries) and by a much smaller group of authors (a handful versus hundreds) its evolution is more narrowly prescribed than that of its more robust and comprehensive competitors like the Torah or the Vedas. It may be much closer to “what it used to be” than them, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t “tampered with.” The case can easily be made that ‘Uthman’s Rescension was a profound example of “tampering.” Or a more objective view would be that it was part of process by which the koran was created.

You shouldn't expect that those who have studied hisrory will accept the myth of the koran's“miraculous preservation”. You need go no further than compare the text of two different koanic qira’at (say… Hafs and Warsh) to see that the manuscripts are not the same. They are similar, but they are not the same. At least they are no more similar than hundreds of other books, far older than the koran, and that make no claim to divine origin.

i have too much evidence for quran being preserved and explained to you the process by which it was preserved.

if you insist to say (it was changed) without any evidence except to satisfy your desire, then.... i have no help for you.

question: are you arabic speaker?

Without an original manuscript, you have no evidence of what was preserved.

The chain of transmission for the koran is irreparably broken by the compilation under Abu Bakr and the rescension under 'Uthman. No amount of appologetics since can repair that breach.

And that ignores that there is no way to verify the critical transmission of anything from Allah, through Jibreel, to Muhammad in the first place.

That said, the problem with tawatur is that it is itself of questionable accuracy. The most obvious subsequent break in its transmission lies in the first few years after Muhammad's death, roughly between his death and the completion of the 'Uthmanic rescension. We sadly can have no great confidence that what we have in our possession resembles greatly the mushaff of Muhammad. It is, at best, the mushaff of 'Uthman, since even the earlier mushaff of 'Abu Bakr is forever lost to us.

Remember, six of seven Ahruf were destroyed at the time of the ‘Uthmanic rescension. These were textual variants supposedly revealed by Allah, and therefore they were subject to Allah’s “promise” to protect them, since they still existed at the time he made the promise.

Yet they were not protected, and were instead destroyed as the result of a decision by a single human being, i.e. the caliph ‘Uthman. Allah did not therefore “miraculously preserve” six different divinely revealed textual variants of the koran.

Therefore, Q.E.D. the koran has not been preserved as it was claimed to have been originally "revealed".

 

[Mohamed]

That said, the problem with tawatur is that it is itself of questionable accuracy. The most obvious subsequent break in its transmission lies in the first few years after Muhammad's death, roughly between his death and the completion of the 'Uthmanic rescension. We sadly can have no great confidence that what we have in our possession resembles greatly the mushaff of Muhammad. It is, at best, the mushaff of 'Uthman, since even the earlier mushaff of 'Abu Bakr is forever lost to us.

the problem of your approach is that you consider (written text) as the only acceptable evidence.

assume that abu-bakr 's mussahf manuscript was present today, wouldn't you say: how can i make sure it is correctly transmissioned? won't you?

we muslims base our confidence on (persons). confidential persons gave manuscripts its confidentiality.

your statement about 'tawateur' may have some logic if it was (oral) only. but in case we have 'tawateur' of oral/written text it is very confident.

in fact, manuscripts are not always confident, ok any one can write any text he wishes. how we make sure the author of the manuscript was precise and honest.

again: tell me if you can speak arabic.

 

[Mohamed]

Remember, six of seven Ahruf were destroyed at the time of the ‘Uthmanic rescension. These were textual variants supposedly revealed by Allah, and therefore they were subject to Allah’s “promise” to protect them, since they still existed at the time he made the promise.
[\quote]

your idea about seven ahruf is not complete. Osman's mosshaf is not one of the Ahruf.
what we know today is that Ahruf was simply allowance for different readings that includes pronouncial/equivalency/near equivalency variation to Quran recitation and reading. It is agreed among muslims that the ten readings are in fact some hybrid combinations of the seven ahruf.

 

[Hollie]

That said, the problem with tawatur is that it is itself of questionable accuracy. The most obvious subsequent break in its transmission lies in the first few years after Muhammad's death, roughly between his death and the completion of the 'Uthmanic rescension. We sadly can have no great confidence that what we have in our possession resembles greatly the mushaff of Muhammad. It is, at best, the mushaff of 'Uthman, since even the earlier mushaff of 'Abu Bakr is forever lost to us.

the problem of your approach is that you consider (written text) as the only acceptable evidence.

assume that abu-bakr 's mussahf manuscript was present today, wouldn't you say: how can i make sure it is correctly transmissioned? won't you?

we muslims base our confidence on (persons). confidential persons gave manuscripts its confidentiality.

your statement about 'tawateur' may have some logic if it was (oral) only. but in case we have 'tawateur' of oral/written text it is very confident.

in fact, manuscripts are not always confident, ok any one can write any text he wishes. how we make sure the author of the manuscript was precise and honest.

again: tell me if you can speak arabic.

I consider (written text) as the only acceptable evidence because the Koran is a written text.

Now, it is simple math. One text existed after the ‘Uthmanic rescension. More than one text exists today. Where did the new variations come from?

Rather obviously, they were introduced by human copyists in the centuries since the rescension. It does not matter what their motivations were, or what the process of change was. It does not matter if the variants merely reflect in the altered test what the qira’at itself reflects when spoken.

They still constitute changes in the letters of the text of the koran since the ‘Uthmanic rescension.

Therefore, Q.E.D. the Qur’an has not been preserved in the as it was originally revealed. There have been changes since and they can be directly seen by anyone willing to compare any two modern editions of the Hafs and Warsh readings.

 

[Mohamed]

I consider (written text) as the only acceptable evidence because the Koran is a written text.

Now, it is simple math. One text existed after the ‘Uthmanic rescension. More than one text exists today. Where did the new variations come from?

Rather obviously, they were introduced by human copyists in the centuries since the rescension. It does not matter what their motivations were, or what the process of change was. It does not matter if the variants merely reflect in the altered test what the qira’at itself reflects when spoken.

They still constitute changes in the letters of the text of the koran since the ‘Uthmanic rescension.

Therefore, Q.E.D. the Qur’an has not been preserved in the as it was originally revealed. There have been changes since and they can be directly seen by anyone willing to compare any two modern editions of the Hafs and Warsh readings.

sorry but it seems you have some wrong ideas.

the osmani musshaf was written without dots and haraks. and this allowed variation in the readings. according to the historical sources this was known and accepted by all muslims.

our current versions of quran is still in the othman (drawing). the readings only adds dots and haraks.

 

[Hollie]

I consider (written text) as the only acceptable evidence because the Koran is a written text.

Now, it is simple math. One text existed after the ‘Uthmanic rescension. More than one text exists today. Where did the new variations come from?

Rather obviously, they were introduced by human copyists in the centuries since the rescension. It does not matter what their motivations were, or what the process of change was. It does not matter if the variants merely reflect in the altered test what the qira’at itself reflects when spoken.

They still constitute changes in the letters of the text of the koran since the ‘Uthmanic rescension.

Therefore, Q.E.D. the Qur’an has not been preserved in the as it was originally revealed. There have been changes since and they can be directly seen by anyone willing to compare any two modern editions of the Hafs and Warsh readings.

sorry but it seems you have some wrong ideas.

the osmani musshaf was written without dots and haraks. and this allowed variation in the readings. according to the historical sources this was known and accepted by all muslims.

our current versions of quran is still in the othman (drawing). the readings only adds dots and haraks.

Correct. There are variations in the various Korans. As I noted earlier, we have no way of knowing what the earlier Korans contained as they destroyed by Uthman.

 

[Mohamed]

Correct. There are variations in the various Korans. As I noted earlier, we have no way of knowing what the earlier Korans contained as they destroyed by Uthman.

your ignorance is not knowledge.

the real problem with you is that you don't trust sahabas, you are in doubt of them. if you don't trust some one, you won't trust any of his actions.

regarding your descriptions for (various koran), it is wrong it is various readings.

we accept that these variations are attributed to the messenger.

we trust sahabas too much, so we trust their actions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The fact that there is God and that he is only one is obvious and simply proved, it is independent of any religion.

we should first consider three points:

1) The universe is constrained by fixed laws, all beings dead or alive are constrained by these law.

2) The world is very complicated and well designed system, it should be designed by alive and capable entity.

3) The complicated systems in this world sustain to work, even with the many sources of degradation and randomness.

these three points leads directly to the conclusion that the world is created, supervised and constrained by an alive entity which shouldn't be constrained by any physical laws (otherwise it is part of the world not the creator of it).


why this entity should be unique?

assume it is not unique, and there is many entities that are unconstrained by any physical laws.

it is either one of them is more (stronger) than the others that means those others have constraints put on them by the stronger entity..... but this means they are not really unconstrained entities, they are like any other living being that are constrained.

or no one of them is more stronger than the others so every one of them is constrained by the others, but this means none of them are unconstrained.

in the two cases (or any other cases you can think of) there is a contradiction with the assumption that they are unconstrained.

so there is only one entity....... The God ..... Allah.

Allah is not constrained by any physical law, he is the creator, supervisor of all world including earth, skies, galaxies and every thing. The laws that govern this world is imposed by God.

Dude... that's not proof, that's your opinion.

Which combined with $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.​

 

[Mohamed]

Dude... that's not proof, that's your opinion.

Which combined with $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.​

the evidence i base my proof is more stronger than the evidence of (conservation of energy law).

do you have a proof for this law? why you accept it?

the same question for you. please answer.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is Allah the same God as the Christian God?

Yes. The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran.

Non-Jewish access to the infamous God of Abraham was what The New Testament and later The Koran were all about.

 

[Mohamed]

Correct. There are variations in the various Korans. As I noted earlier, we have no way of knowing what the earlier Korans contained as they destroyed by Uthman.

i instruct you to consult these two pages that displays two readings of the quran?
the second reading is warsh's reading.

tell me the difference please besides slightly differing pronunciation

http://www.nquran.com/index.php?group=othm_view&rewaya=33&sora_no=10

http://www.nquran.com/index.php?group=othm_view&rewaya=5&sora_no=10

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dude... that's not proof, that's your opinion.

Which combined with $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.​

the evidence i base my proof is more stronger than the evidence of (conservation of energy law).

do you have a proof for this law? why you accept it?

the same question for you. please answer.

I don't have proof of that law. I don't really care. But few and far between are the people who want to kill me or convert me because of my lackadaisical attitude toward it.

Riddle me this, Brother - If God is, doesn't it make sense that He's WAY bigger than ALL of the ancient stories, let alone any one of them?

What makes Abraham and his God so fucking special? I hear voices in my head too.

Why can't I leave Abraham and his God buried, and talk instead to The God of AVG-JOE?

 

[Mohamed]

I don't have proof of that law. I don't really care. But few and far between are the people who want to kill me or convert me because of my lackadaisical attitude toward it.

we have no interest in forcing you to convert or to force any other christian/ jewish / athesist.

we only give you advice. if you make the wrong decision. it is you who will afford consequences.