[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
1. No. And even if you wanted to consider them Muslim, your statement was that Islam taught it, not Muslims believed it.

2. The Scholar you quoted isn't even accepted by Ahmadiyyas themselves. That's how messed up you have it.



There were 7 Dialects/Ahruf (not versions, again acting dumb), and this was so that this challenge -

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

could be fairly met by all the tribes at that time. No tribe (who were at the time like Shakespeares) could come and say; "oh, it's not in my dialect, so this challenge is unfair" (even though it still would've been, since dialects were so similar at that time). It only further proved Muhammad(pbuh)'s truthfulnes, being an illiterate he could still produce all 7 ahrufs.

Here's the reasons why it was reveaeld in 7 Ahruf -

1) To facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan. This is the only benefit that is explicitly narrated in the hadeeth. The Arabs did not all speak Arabic in the same way; each tribe and locations had slight variations and peculiarities unique to it. If the Qur’aan had only been revealed in one harf, it would have been difficult for the many different Arab tribes to memorise the Qur’aan properly. However, since the Qur’aan was revealed in seven ahruf, this greatly eased its memorisation. This was of primary importance in its preservation and propagation.

2) To prove the miraculous nature of the Qur’aan. For despite all of these differences, the meanings of the ahruf did not contradict one another, but rather were complementary.

3) To prove the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), for despite the fact that he was illiterate, the revelation of the Qur’aan occurred in different tribal dialects and different words, all of which consisted of the most fluent and eloquent speech of his time.

4) To honour the ummah of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and show its superiority over all other nations. No other nations had been given its book in such a manner, in varying ahruf, to ease the process of preservation. Thus, the revelation of the Qur’aan showed the unique status that the Prophet (PBUH), and his ummah, occupied over other nations. In one hadeeth, the Prophet (PBUH) remarked, “The earlier books would be revealed from one door (of heaven), in one harf, but the Qur’aan was revealed from seven doors (of Heaven), in seven ahruf.” ^source

Evidence from hadith;

Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Jibreel recited the Qur’aan to me in one harf, and I recited it back to him, but I requested him to increase (the number of harf) and he continued to increase it for me, until we stopped at seven ahruf.” Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhree (d. 124 A.H.), one of the narrators of the hadeeth, said, “It has reached me that these seven ahruf are essentially one (in meaning), they do not differ about what is permitted or forbidden.”

As for why Uthman(ra) didn't make usage of the other six, then this is why;

“The seven ahruf were revealed by Allaah during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) to facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan, since the dialects of the Arabs were many. This facilitation (i.e., the ahruf) was not necessary to preserve, and eventually there was no need of it. In fact, it became the cause of dissension amongst the Muslims, as those people new to Islaam began arguing over the differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan. Therefore, Allaah inspired 403 ‘Uthmaan to discard the other six ahruf and collect the Qur’aan in one harf, so that the ummah would be united in its recitation. The Companions agreed to this action of his, and the agreement of the Companions is binding on the ummah.” - Ubaydaat, p. 162.

The ahruf chosen was that of the Qureyshy Dialect, which the majority of the Arabs became accustomed with, which inevitably was the dialect of the Prophet(pbuh) himself (his mother toungue basically).



You're not making any sense, if it was an original version, then it would not have been destroyed. There was only one original version that Uthman had standardized, the others were either incomplete, personal usage/tribal based scripture that were in different dialects.

its your that needs to start making sense - you have just stated yourself there were 6 other versions (dialects) of the quran before uthman created his version - therefore they must be original What dies it matter if thet were used by tribes etc, if they were compiled by the first follwers of moahmmed. They would have been the the versions compiled closest to mohammed death- unlike teh 'standardised' version that you use, that we know was compiled a long time after. We are also told by your hadiths, that one of the early codexs used by Uthman to make that newer version (held by hasfah, mohammeds wife) was also destroyed . Why also destroy one of the original qurans as compiled by mohammeds wife - seems strange, if indeed the quran is a holy book

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
its your that needs to start making sense - you have just stated yourself there were 6 other versions (dialects) of the quran before uthman created his version - therefore they must be original What dies it matter if thet were used by tribes etc, if they were compiled by the first follwers of moahmmed. They would have been the the versions compiled closest to mohammed death- unlike teh 'standardised' version that you use, that we know was compiled a long time after. We are also told by your hadiths, that one of the early codexs used by Uthman to make that newer version (held by hasfah, mohammeds wife) was also destroyed . Why also destroy one of the original qurans as compiled by mohammeds wife - seems strange, if indeed the quran is a holy book

Great refutation (NOT, just irrelevant "mad" post), you should've shut up the moment I pasted Academic critics who disagreed with your crap.

And wow you are deluded. Uthman didn't "create his own", he used the Dialect (Ahruf) of the Prophet(pbuh). (As i stated in bold i believe)

Look, I don't believe anyone can be this dumb. SO i'm guessing you're just acting/trying to troll. How boring.

Let me know when you comprehend basic stuff.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Great refutation (NOT, just irrelevant "mad" post), you should've shut up the moment I pasted Academic critics who disagreed with your crap.

And wow you are deluded. Uthman didn't "create his own", he used the Dialect (Ahruf) of the Prophet(pbuh). (As i stated in bold i believe)

Look, I don't believe anyone can be this dumb. SO i'm guessing you're just acting/trying to troll. How boring.

Let me know when you comprehend basic stuff.

yh good effort at avoiding answer my question again i wont press you on that any further as it seems to have got you hot under the collar.

i can then move o to the point AJ12 raised with you in his article link, which referred to extract of the saana quan that was found in the yemen being studied in germany, which states it is older than the uthmanic dated quran, and also differs in wording of verses, orders of verses , as well as dialect.

interesting dont you think?

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
yh good effort at avoiding answer my question again i wont press you on that any further as it seems to have got you hot under the collar.

I've refuted everything you said, but the issue is, you keep saying things that I already refuted. Like for example, you said "Uthman ahruf", when I clearly stated it was the Ahruf of the Prophet(pbuh).

You purposely waste my time. I don't have time for 10 year olds.

And here's the hafsa (which was destroyed AFTER UTHMAN'S standardized Qur'an was done) refutation -

"'Uthman had many copies prepared from this copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later, Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah." http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0009.aspx - (Ulum al Qur'an, The Mushaf of 'Uthman)

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
i can then move o to the point AJ12 raised with you in his article link, which referred to extract of the saana quan that was found in the yemen being studied in germany, which states it is older than the uthmanic dated quran, and also differs in wording of verses, orders of verses , as well as dialect.

interesting dont you think?

You mean the article that doesn't even know that Uthman was the 3rd Calpih?

Anyways, go on, show me the primary source. Act stupid again, and I won't bother replying.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I've refuted everything you said, but the issue is, you keep saying things that I already refuted. Like for example, you said "Uthman ahruf", when I clearly stated it was the Ahruf of the Prophet(pbuh).

You purposely act retarded and waste my time. I don't have time for 10 year olds.

And here's the hafsa (which was destroyed AFTER UTHMAN'S standardized Qur'an was done) refutation -

"'Uthman had many copies prepared from this copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later, Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah." http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0009.aspx - (Ulum al Qur'an, The Mushaf of 'Uthman)

again completly illogical - i asked why would they have the quran form the wife of mohammed destroyed - if anything it would have value of antiquity and a link to your final prophet and could have sat along side your 'standardised' version of the quran. Even from a non reigious aspect, as we hold various artifcats of religious antiquity form all over the world without it affecting whatever religious beliefs you hold.

That is of course, unless the orignal versions were differnt to the uthamn version of the quran, which then i would agree, would have caused divisions as to who is following the proper version of the quran. Then it makes sense for uthman to cnesor or destroy all other version of the quran, no?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
No actually the Bible (and Jesus) condones "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone"

Gamed? Yep.

Cya.

Ah, so there's contradictions, right?

[K the Failure]

(Original post by .eXe)
Yes let's blame the bible for problems that don't even exist. When's the last time you turned on the TV and saw a story on BBC about Christians stoning an adulterer?

Never you say?

exactly.

... Because most Christians aren't ****ed up enough to follow the Bible to the word.

Which to be honest, actually makes them worse than literalists.

At least literalists have the balls to believe in talking snakes and donkeys.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Ah, so there's contradictions, right?

Nope, because Christians follow what Jesus Christ taught. For us, if Jesus said not to cast the first stone...that's enough.

It's not difficult son, we are called CHRISTians for a reason.

[Ms.LastMinute.com]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Ah, so there's contradictions, right?

there are not contradictions only complementations.

[.eXe]

(Original post by K the Failure)
... Because most Christians aren't ****ed up enough to follow the Bible to the word.

Which to be honest, actually makes them worse than literalists.

At least literalists have the balls to believe in talking snakes and donkeys.

Because you imbecile, Christians don't follow the Old Testament. Christians recognize the presence of the OT, because it is history, and it details the past and the prophecies and everything that led up to Jesus but we do not ascribe to the laws in the OT. Neither do the jews for that matter.

For F sakes how hard is it to understand that CHRISTians follow Jesus CHRIST, which is the NEW TESTAMENT.

My God, it's like arguing with illiterates.

[Luminique]

The problem is when holy books are taken literally. Little do many realise that religion is very symbolic. People should not try and interpret stuff on their own. This is when they get the wrong ideas.

Instead they should interpret through more knowledgeable people, and OBVIOUSLY use their common sense.

[Ms.LastMinute.com]

(Original post by .eXe)
Because you imbecile, Christians don't follow the Old Testament. For F sakes how hard is it to understand that CHRISTians follow Jesus CHRIST, which is the NEW TESTAMENT.

My God, it's like arguing with illiterates.

Calm down, do you have anger problems.

[Ms.LastMinute.com]

(Original post by K the Failure)
... Because most Christians aren't ****ed up enough to follow the Bible to the word.

Which to be honest, actually makes them worse than literalists.

At least literalists have the balls to believe in talking snakes and donkeys.

How do you know Christians are not like that?
Most religions always have a sect which do take a literal interpretation.
Because when a certain group is so popular, there are bound to be differentiation and conflict.

[.eXe]

(Original post by y.yousef)
Calm down, do you have anger problems.

I am calm, I just can't stand moronic and ill-informed arguments.

It's such a waste of my time because I usually have like 15 other ranting muslims to respond to, and then I see absolute gibberish like the crap posted above and it's highly frustrating.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by y.yousef)
there are not contradictions only complementations.

1) Stone gay people
2) Don't stone gay people

[Ms.LastMinute.com]

(Original post by .eXe)
I am calm, I just can't stand moronic and ill-informed arguments.

It's such a waste of my time because I usually have like 15 other ranting muslims to respond to, and then I see absolute gibberish like the crap posted above and it's highly frustrating.

Lol.

Well just calm it. If you see someone misunderstand something. Try and 'explain' it to them, so they do understand. Because if they're barking at you, and you're barking back, it's just going to be a clash. And nothing will go in anyone's ear.

Why am i helping a non-muslim

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
Nope, because Christians follow what Jesus Christ taught. For us, if Jesus said not to cast the first stone...that's enough.

It's not difficult son, we are called CHRISTians for a reason.

I see.

Jesus wasn't the same god as the old testament...
God's word isn't eternal...

One of the above has to be true. Face it, denying the old testament is equivalent to denying the new testament.

In addition, Jesus' teachings had contradictions in any case.

1) Treat everyone equal, love everyone.
2) He who is not with me is my enemy.

[Ms.LastMinute.com]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
1) Stone gay people
2) Don't stone gay people

Give me the quotes in where it states that?

what about churches.
1. homosexuality is forbidden
2. you can get married to a gay in churches!!!!


HUGEEE CONTRADICTION.

and stop sending stupid pictures.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by y.yousef)
Lol.

Well just calm it. If you see someone misunderstand something. Try and 'explain' it to them, so they do understand. Because if they're barking at you, and you're barking back, it's just going to be a clash. And nothing will go in anyone's ear.

Why am i helping a non-muslim

...are you serious? The **** is wrong with you?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by y.yousef)
Give me the quotes in where it states that?

what about churches.
1. homosexuality is forbidden
2. you can get married to a gay in churches!!!!


HUGEEE CONTRADICTION.

and stop sending stupid pictures.

Stone people, old testament, almost every chapter.
Don't stone people: given above (something about being sinless before you're allowed to stone people, always comforting to know that you're given the ability to kill if you're a GOOD BOY)