The Qur'an and translations

[TashaN]

TashaN, I'm not gonna quote every single line of yours, but I gather two things from your responds, one is that you do accept that the dots were indeed added after Mohammad (Which you claim are symbols), and second you are claiming something is a fact when in reality it has no evidence to it.

Call them symbols, dots, whatever as long as we know what we both are talking about. English is not my first language. My first language is Arabic.

Ok, since you agree that the dots and the hamza are missing from the pictures that I have shown, what exactly do you want me to point out? I said that the text differs, one has dots, vowels, and hamza and the other one does not, you agreed, yet you're still ripping me for more evidence? If you agree with what I just said, what evidence do you want? Do you want me to literately point out where the dots and the hamza are missing? because I can do that, but if you agree with me, what's the point of pointing that out?

You are either not getting it or just pretend not to. I told you already that what you argument appeared to propose is that the Quran has been changed, and when one hear this, he will think of the bible, which has different versions as we all know.

The thing is, you are ignoring the fact that the Muslims all around the world don't share the same excact *WRITTEN BOOK* but they can READ it in the same EXCACT way. It's different sometimes in the way it shows the verses, but the Muslims don't worship a written book, we just use whatever means in order to read it properly and it doesn't matter what font style that was. The WRITTEN Quran style can change and evolve but it will ALWAYS be read in the same excact manner 100%.

Do you disagree that the Quran is being read in the same way all over the world?

You showed us some verses without dots, and arabic speakers, like me, not4me, and many others in this forum can read it in the same fashion we read the modern book we have today.

So what have been changed?

Quran is not like the Torah, the Quran wasn't sent down as books, but was orally revealed then human beings recorded it to make it easier to memorize, so whatever change occur in the written book to make reading the Quran easier and more accurate, it's perfectly normal as long as it's being read in the same way as have been proved to you when i could read the pictures you have presented without dots.

Second thing is you asked me how the Arabic alphabets were different, I will tell you why they were different, ever heard of the terms abjad hawiz huti kaliman? It's simple, the Arabic language is a semitic language and it used original semitic alphabetical system (22 letters similar to Aramaic and Hebrew), this is what the original alphabets were:

Alaph, Beth, Gamal, Daleth, Heh, Waw, Zain, Khet, Teth, Yod, Kap, Lamad, Meem, Noon, Simkat, Ayin, Peh, Tzadeh, Qop, Resh, Sheen, Taw.

This is the same case in Aramaic and Hebrew, and was the same case in Arabic too, just check out the origins of Arabic:

Ancient Scripts: Nabataean

Arabic was just like Aramaic and Hebrew, it also contained 22 letters and in the exact same order as I put it up there, but now here's what the modern alphabets are like:

Aleph, Baa', Taa', Thaa', Jeem, Haa', Khaa', Daal, Dhaal, Raa', Zaay, Seen, Sheen, Tzaad, Dhaad, Ta, Zha, Ayin, Ghain, Faa, Qaaf, Kaaf, Laam, Meem, Noon, Waw, Haa, Yaa, Hamza.

29 (When you include the hamza), this is your modern Arabic alphabets, which no longer retains some of its original semitic rules.

There's the evidence to my claim, I backed it up and put it in print in the most logical sense where history actually backs up what I say, it has nothing to do with faith or belief which is possibly the only thing you can rely on at this moment, but we both know this is not a religious discussion, it's a historical one, so if you make a claim, put some historical facts and back up what you say, don't just say it's a fact.

Hello my friend?

We are not talking about the history of Arabic here, but we are talking about the Qutan and if it has been changed or not. All the abjid hawiz thing is irrelevant here. The Quran has it's own unique style which arabs never heard of before. It's a perfect arabic, unlike what various arabs used to talk with.

 

[TashaN]

I said why before I stated I'd trust him for now. But I'll repeat it anyway. Because he speaks these languages as his native tongue.

We speak Arabic as our native tongue too, lol.

 

[TashaN]

That's true, but I come from an unbiased point of view where to me it does not concern whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or whatever you wanna believe in is the word of God or not, while you and Tasha are Muslims and if anything goes against what you believe in, you will be more biased.

Usually I would say that the language should be the least concern when it comes to actual evidence because if there's a God and God wants to send out a message to everyone, it will be in all languages, not one language, if that's the case then it's the God of Arabs, not the God of everyone.

That's really a very silly argument. Are you saying that just because i'm a Muslim so people should take every word i say as a biased point of view, and take yours to be accurate for not being a muslim. That's really naive.

 

[TashaN]

Not each letter, and let me point out a small example in 3 of the pages that I provided.

First page:

In the above page, I put the red dot where ever the hamza was missing, and I underlined in blue words that have spelling mistakes, in the new Qurans those words have an extra Aleph, but for some odd reason this copy does not include the Aleph in these two words.

The second page:

In this page where I put the red dot it's missing a letter, and it's not the hamza, but rather the letter Dhaal for the word "Edhaa".

Third page:

In the above page, the red dots mean missing hamzas, and the word underlined in blue is also misspelled in modern Qurans because in the modern Quran it has an Aleph, while as you can see in this page it does not contain that Aleph.

This is only 3 pages out of a 500+ pages book, let me assure you that it has plenty of similar errors like this where there are spelling mistakes and so on, therefore you cannot tell me each letter from the modern Quran represents the same letter from the past Quran, if so we would not see these spelling mistakes which by the way have nothing to do with dots or vowels.

I don't see any errors or misspellings.

When arabs were talking in the past, they have used the word جا to mean جاء. Don't forget also that Allah revealed the Quran as being recited in 7 ways even though it's the same words, so using the same words, we can twist how the tongue spell it. I live in the south of Saudi Arabia "not for now, because i'm studying in Malaysia" and in the arabic we use, we don't say جاء but we say جا. The northern and middle part of Saudi Arabia don't spell it the way we do in the south.

جا محمد مثلا

So, in arabic, both are correct, but any native speaker will know that both mean the same excact thing.

Also, the word نفلة as نافلة and similar words exist in the same fashion even in the modern Quran we have today. For example i'll give you this example from the modern Quran, Surah al-Hijr, verse 42:

إن عبادي ليس لك عليهم سلطن

At first glance, this would appear to be read as saltn or salatan, etc, but we read it as if it was sultan "سلطان".

So if the word has evolved to be the later, later on, how that would be an error?

I really doubt that you have heavily read the Quran, otherwise, you would have encountered such words in the entire Quran. It's dishonest to judge the Quran without reading it as it appear here in the case with you.

Until now you didn't prove that the Quran is being read in a different way. I also find it so hard to believe that you thought there were some errors, because you claimed you knew how to speak arabic, though, i don't know how far you are familiar with *written* arabic.

You have some good grasp of the history of arabic, but i'm not sure how much far you know about written arabic, and how much familiar you are with it.

Let's do a quick test, even though i didn't want to test you before, but please don't cheat, don't ask anybody to read for you. haha j/k

From Surah Al-araf "a3raf", "part of" verse 30.

فريقا هدى وفريقا حق عليهم الضللة

Can you please use english to pronounce the above?

This is something that we did not even discuss yet because I did not bring it up, but since you do mention the word division, I will talk about it.

According to Islamic tradition, Muslims were indeed divided back in the day due to their Qurans, if I'm not mistaken, many had their own version of the Quran that they used to keep, these copies of the Quran were supposed to have errors in them and were not perfect, so Uthman who was the third khaleefa rewrote the Quran, supposedly he got it from Hafza who was one of Mohammad's wives, a claim that has no historical evidence to it of course but you have to have faith to believe it.

What happened to all the other Qurans? they were destroyed by Uthman, so to say the Quran has not gone through such a stage of being rewritten and so on is indeed a big false claim, if that's the case, why did they have to destroy other versions of the Quran? This proves that the Quran had more than one version to it, and one version one chosen in the end and the others were destroyed, do we have the original version today? Based on your faith you believe so, but remember, belief does not equal evidence, so unless you back up the evidence you're not gonna convince anyone but the Muslims who share your beliefs.

Come on, i asked you before, and i'm asking you here again to stop these tactics. You are trying to give the impression to the reader that whatever argument we will bring, it will be based on belief, and based on evidence, so please stop playing games and save your effort to raise real arguments, not a misleading one, and one based on ignorance of the true lingustic nature of the Quran.

All the companions has parts of the Quran, and what Othman did was to agree in one COMPLETE version with consensus from all of those who memorized the Quran, and get rid of the rest. That's all.

Not sure what exactly this uniqueness that you speak of, I believe there's no such thing as special language, Arabic is just like other languages, in fact if we are to talk about the Arabic in the Quran itself, we find some minor influences from other languages too such as Aramaic or Greek, this is why I mentioned earlier that as I read parts of the Quran I noticed an Aramaic word or two in there.

The Quran is a pure arabic book, and the uniqueness is not in arabic itself, but in the unique arabic structure used in the Quran.

and if you're referring to the historical facts of the Quran, the three pages above prove my point that the Quran is not identical to the original as you claim it is, and clearly indicates an alteration and a few errors, this is common sense with the daleel and the burhaan.

That's a false daleel, and i proved to you above why. In fact, it's a burhaan of the lack of depth study of the modern Quran we have today in your part.

 

[Ashuri10]

You are either not getting it or just pretend not to. I told you already that what you argument appeared to propose is that the Quran has been changed, and when one hear this, he will think of the bible, which has different versions as we all know.

The thing is, you are ignoring the fact that the Muslims all around the world don't share the same excact *WRITTEN BOOK* but they can READ it in the same EXCACT way. It's different sometimes in the way it shows the verses, but the Muslims don't worship a written book, we just use whatever means in order to read it properly and it doesn't matter what font style that was. The WRITTEN Quran style can change and evolve but it will ALWAYS be read in the same excact manner 100%.

Do you disagree that the Quran is being read in the same way all over the world?

You showed us some verses without dots, and arabic speakers, like me, not4me, and many others in this forum can read it in the same fashion we read the modern book we have today.

So what have been changed?

Syriac Assyrian churches also have the same Bible all around the world, and no matter where ever you go, they all pronounce the Bible by the same exact words, all in Aramaic, Jews all have one Hebrew Torah too, all pronounced the same way, what's your point exactly?

You mistake the Bible to being changed in the sense that it was rewritten completely into a different context, that's not the case, in fact it was translated into other languages yes, but the original languages of the Bible remain Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the manuscripts agree with that, the only problem with the Bible is the books that are in the Bible were selected by the Church, much like how Uthman assembled the Quran.

You can claim oral tradition all you want, but without a written base, oral tradition means it will have flaws, the same claim could be made about the Gospels, these were also oral traditions, and you can tell by the way some of these Gospels differ, the only difference between the Gospels and the Quran is that the Gospels were all kept by the Church, even the ones that were not included in the Bible, they are still available to this day, while the different versions of the Quran were all burned by Uthman.

Quran is not like the Torah, the Quran wasn't sent down as books, but was orally revealed then human beings recorded it to make it easier to memorize, so whatever change occur in the written book to make reading the Quran easier and more accurate, it's perfectly normal as long as it's being read in the same way as have been proved to you when i could read the pictures you have presented without dots.

Ahh yes, the miracle that includes no evidence, that's fine, you can believe in that, but let's no forget that a belief is not a fact, let us also not forget that Uthman assembled the Quran, in other words your faith rests upon Uthman's assembly of the Quran, a normal human being that is prone to making errors.

Hello my friend?

We are not talking about the history of Arabic here, but we are talking about the Qutan and if it has been changed or not. All the abjid hawiz thing is irrelevant here. The Quran has it's own unique style which arabs never heard of before. It's a perfect arabic, unlike what various arabs used to talk with.

But it is relevant, when you tell people the original Quran is a perfect book they will expect a perfect book indeed, the problem is the book contains spelling mistakes, this has nothing to do with language evolution, a spelling mistake is an error, not evolution.

The other thing is the Arabic in the Quran is not perfect Arabic either, when you borrow foreign words from Aramaic and Greek it's clearly not perfect, the fact is the word Qur'an itself comes from an Aramaic word, not Arabic, for the original word in Arabic is Qeraa'a, while the Aramaic word is Quryana, this is a very accepted claim among most semitic language scholars, the only ones that object are the Islamic scholars, and if you disagree, go research the etymology of the word "Qur'an", the word itself does not even exist in a proper Arabic dictionary in the sense for the meaning of reading or recitation, so go figure.

 

[Ashuri10]

I don't see any errors or misspellings.

When arabs were talking in the past, they have used the word جا to mean جاء. Don't forget also that Allah revealed the Quran as being recited in 7 ways even though it's the same words, so using the same words, we can twist how the tongue spell it. I live in the south of Saudi Arabia "not for now, because i'm studying in Malaysia" and in the arabic we use, we don't say جاء but we say جا. The northern and middle part of Saudi Arabia don't spell it the way we do in the south.

جا محمد مثلا

So, in arabic, both are correct, but any native speaker will know that both mean the same excact thing.

Also, the word نفلة as نافلة and similar words exist in the same fashion even in the modern Quran we have today. For example i'll give you this example from the modern Quran, Surah al-Hijr, verse 42:

إن عبادي ليس لك عليهم سلطن

At first glance, this would appear to be read as saltn or salatan, etc, but we read it as if it was sultan "سلطان".

So if the word has evolved to be the later, later on, how that would be an error?

I really doubt that you have heavily read the Quran, otherwise, you would have encountered such words in the entire Quran. It's dishonest to judge the Quran without reading it as it appear here in the case with you.

Until now you didn't prove that the Quran is being read in a different way. I also find it so hard to believe that you thought there were some errors, because you claimed you knew how to speak arabic, though, i don't know how far you are familiar with *written* arabic.

Ok, what about the word اذا‎ , where did the dhaal (Or should I say Daleth) go missing? Is that a dialect thing too...

And if the Quran was all one and just differs in pronunciation as you claim, why did Uthman burn the other copies of the Quran? And what makes you think he assembled the correct 100% accurate version? Because he claims that?

You have some good grasp of the history of arabic, but i'm not sure how much far you know about written arabic, and how much familiar you are with it.

Let's do a quick test, even though i didn't want to test you before, but please don't cheat, don't ask anybody to read for you. haha j/k

From Surah Al-araf "a3raf", "part of" verse 30.

فريقا هدى وفريقا حق عليهم الضللة

Can you please use english to pronounce the above?

I'm not sure why you still doubt my Arabic, if I did not know how to read Arabic would I be able to tell the differences between the spelling between the two Quran versions? Clearly not.

But to prove that I can read Arabic, here you go:

"Fareeqan hada wa fareeqan 7aqa 3alayhim al-Dhalaalah"

Now do you believe?

Come on, i asked you before, and i'm asking you here again to stop these tactics. You are trying to give the impression to the reader that whatever argument we will bring, it will be based on belief, and based on evidence, so please stop playing games and save your effort to raise real arguments, not a misleading one, and one based on ignorance of the true lingustic nature of the Quran.

All the companions has parts of the Quran, and what Othman did was to agree in one COMPLETE version with consensus from all of those who memorized the Quran, and get rid of the rest. That's all.

Let me break it down:

1-
I claim the Quran has a rewritten history - Evidence (Check)
You claim it was not rewritten - Evidence (No)

2-
I claim the Quran had different versions - Evidence (Check)
You claim the same - Evidence (Check)

3-
I claim the Quran was written by man - Evidence (No, this is based on my belief in logic)
you claim it came down to Mohammad from God himself - Evidence (No)

4-
I claim that the Quran must have had contradictions - Evidence (Semi-Check, unfortunately the other copies were burned so we will never know, but they were burned for a reason)

You claim it does not - Evidence (Only based on modern Qurans, not the Qurans before Uthman's days, so therefore no evidence).

 

[Peace]

Let me break it down:

1-
I claim the Quran has a rewritten history - Evidence (Check)
You claim it was not rewritten - Evidence (No)

2-
I claim the Quran had different versions - Evidence (Check)
You claim the same - Evidence (Check)

3-
I claim the Quran was written by man - Evidence (No, this is based on my belief in logic)
you claim it came down to Mohammad from God himself - Evidence (No)

4-
I claim that the Quran must have had contradictions - Evidence (Semi-Check, unfortunately the other copies were burned so we will never know, but they were burned for a reason)

You claim it does not - Evidence (Only based on modern Qurans, not the Qurans before Uthman's days, so therefore no evidence).

Ashuri,

For your information and you can go back to history, transmission in the traditional learning in the Arab world was based on oral tradition as well as a written one. The Arabs were famous by excelling in reporting poetry, scripture...etc through oral transmision to generations without a single change. The same thing with the huffaadh (those who memorize the Quran), the chain of the latters was never broken and thus Quran has reached us in 2 forms; the memorized version as well as the written version which are identical. the memorized version has reached us through the scholarly chain and the written version through the companions initial recording.
If the Quran has been changed as you claim there would be a huge discrepanicies between the oral version and the written version. And the Quran has reached the isolated communities through the memorized form and never a difference has been recorded between the oral transmission and the written transmission of the Quran. You can bring two persons, even childs who memorize the Quran, from different countries, let's say one from Pakistan and another one from Saudi Arabia and ask them to memorize any chapter from the Quran you can hear from both the same recitation with no change. you can apply this to so many people as you like and no difference you can ever find.
the Quran was recorded during the lifetime of our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and was written down in totality during his life. Whenver a verse was revealed the Prophet would call immediately for the scribes to write it down and showing them exactly in which chapter the verse should be put and in which order. Thousands of the Companions had memorized the Quran directly from the Prophet pbuh and thus they were Huffaadh (memorizeres of the Quran). Similtanously, there were scribes who were appointed by the Prophet to write the Quran down hearing it from the mouth of the prophet, and the among the famous scribes was Hassan Ibn Thabit who also memorized the whole of the Quran . And the whole of the Quran was recorded and written down and arranged in the life time of the Prophet.
For your information Ahuri, the Quran was compiled into a book in the Caliphate of Abu Bakr as-Sidiq, the first Caliph. During the latter's rule, there were battles of rebellion which led to the death of so many Huffaadh. Omar (the 2nd Caliph to be) was worried about the knowledge of the Quran and thus convinced Abu Bakr to compile the Quran into a book. Zayd Ibn Thabit who was entrusted with this task and followed strict methods in his compilaton and had so many huffaadh to recheck his work so as to be sure of its accuracy. Abu Bakr who memorized the Quran approved of it. However as the Muslim empire expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had difficulty in learning the correct pronunciation of the text. thus the Caliph Uthman consulted the companions and they decided that official copies of the Quran should be inscribed using only one pronunciation that of the Quraysh tribe that the Prophet spoke. Again Zayd Ibn Thabit was given this assignment and three other huffaadh to help him in his task. Together the four scribes borrowed the original borrowed teh original complete copy of the Quran and duplicated it manually many times and then distributed them everywhere in the Muslim empire. You can find by the way these copies in the musuem of Istanbul and also somewhere else.

But to prove that I can read Arabic, here you go:

"Fareeqan hada wa fareeqan 7aqa 3alayhim al-Dhalaalah"

Now do you believe?

How ironic Do you mean the meaning of that?
Yes we do believe in the words of Allah.

 

[Peace]

The other thing is the Arabic in the Quran is not perfect Arabic either, when you borrow foreign words from Aramaic and Greek it's clearly not perfect, the fact is the word Qur'an itself comes from an Aramaic word, not Arabic, for the original word in Arabic is Qeraa'a, while the Aramaic word is Quryana, this is a very accepted claim among most semitic language scholars, the only ones that object are the Islamic scholars, and if you disagree, go research the etymology of the word "Qur'an", the word itself does not even exist in a proper Arabic dictionary in the sense for the meaning of reading or recitation, so go figure.

What??? come on please don't say such a rubbish that the orientalists claim as well. The word Qur'an is an Arabic word which comes from the original word Qara'a and both words are mentioned in the Quran and they are Arabic words and they are mentioned in the Hadith as well. the word Qur'an is the name of the holy book of Allah and the original meaning of the word is "reading"
So don't come up with what the orientatlists claim falsely and go figure.

 

[Ashuri10]

What??? come on please don't say such a rubbish that the orientalists claim as well. The word Qur'an is an Arabic word which comes from the original word Qara'a and both words are mentioned in the Quran and they are Arabic words and they are mentioned in the Hadith as well. the word Qur'an is the name of the holy book of Allah and the original meaning of the word is "reading"
So don't come up with what the orientatlists claim falsely and go figure.

I don't claim falsely, I claim it as I see it for I know both languages, Arabic and Aramaic, and I have done extensive comparisons between the two to see which word is closer to what, the fact is there are some words in the Quran that are indeed NOT Arabic.

The word Qur'an has an Aramaic resemblance more than the Arabic word, for that reason you hear the letter "Noon" in there, there's no such thing as letter "Noon" in Qeraa'a, but in Aramaic, Quryana or simply Quryan means "The Reading", Qur'an sounds closer to Quryan to me than Qeraa'a.

The other thing is these oriental scholars that you speak of have put many years of hard work and study to achieve their knowledge, you don't just blow their hard word a side because your belief does not agree with it.

And finally, I must have said this a number of times in this thread, but every time someone new comes in I have to repeat it for them, the Qur'an had more than one version, and the modern Qur'an is based on the Uthmani Qur'an, the others were all destroyed by Uthman, in fact the Qur'an of Uthman was supposed to be the oldest copy, but in reality that was before they discovered the Sana'a manuscripts which is accepted to be the oldest Qur'an today, the only problem is the government of Yemen does not want any scholars examining that Qur'an, I wonder why

 

[TashaN]

Syriac Assyrian churches also have the same Bible all around the world, and no matter where ever you go, they all pronounce the Bible by the same exact words, all in Aramaic, Jews all have one Hebrew Torah too, all pronounced the same way, what's your point exactly?

You mistake the Bible to being changed in the sense that it was rewritten completely into a different context, that's not the case, in fact it was translated into other languages yes, but the original languages of the Bible remain Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the manuscripts agree with that, the only problem with the Bible is the books that are in the Bible were selected by the Church, much like how Uthman assembled the Quran.

You go and tell that to many christian scholars who claim that even the english version of the bible is the word of God, word by word, and dot by dot, and i have no idea whether the original one has been changed as well or not.

You can claim oral tradition all you want, but without a written base, oral tradition means it will have flaws, the same claim could be made about the Gospels, these were also oral traditions, and you can tell by the way some of these Gospels differ, the only difference between the Gospels and the Quran is that the Gospels were all kept by the Church, even the ones that were not included in the Bible, they are still available to this day, while the different versions of the Quran were all burned by Uthman.

You keep charging Othman of something he didn't do. You make him look as if he was dectator or something. They all agreed on a specific perfect version accepted by all because each one of them had or memorized some parts of it. He got the complete one and ignored the rest, because he didn't want people to get confused in the future. They know the Quran well, but they were afraid the new non-arabs muslims would got confused.

Ahh yes, the miracle that includes no evidence, that's fine, you can believe in that, but let's no forget that a belief is not a fact, let us also not forget that Uthman assembled the Quran, in other words your faith rests upon Uthman's assembly of the Quran, a normal human being that is prone to making errors.

No. It's upon consensus of the trust worthy Sahabat, whom Allah blessed and love. The best Muslim generation ever. Prophet Mohammed said the entire Ummah will never have a consensus on something wrong or evil.

But it is relevant, when you tell people the original Quran is a perfect book they will expect a perfect book indeed, the problem is the book contains spelling mistakes, this has nothing to do with language evolution, a spelling mistake is an error, not evolution.

Till now i didn't see any errors, and you presented NONE so far.

The other thing is the Arabic in the Quran is not perfect Arabic either, when you borrow foreign words from Aramaic and Greek it's clearly not perfect, the fact is the word Qur'an itself comes from an Aramaic word, not Arabic, for the original word in Arabic is Qeraa'a, while the Aramaic word is Quryana, this is a very accepted claim among most semitic language scholars, the only ones that object are the Islamic scholars, and if you disagree, go research the etymology of the word "Qur'an", the word itself does not even exist in a proper Arabic dictionary in the sense for the meaning of reading or recitation, so go figure.

What a great lie. The Quran is in pure Arabic, and you don't have any evidence that it's not. Regarding the meaning of the word Quran, sister Peace already have explained it.

 

[TashaN]

Ok, what about the word اذا‎ , where did the dhaal (Or should I say Daleth) go missing? Is that a dialect thing too...

Where? is it in one of the pictures of yours?

And if the Quran was all one and just differs in pronunciation as you claim, why did Uthman burn the other copies of the Quran? And what makes you think he assembled the correct 100% accurate version? Because he claims that?

I already answered this one.

I'm not sure why you still doubt my Arabic, if I did not know how to read Arabic would I be able to tell the differences between the spelling between the two Quran versions? Clearly not.

But to prove that I can read Arabic, here you go:

"Fareeqan hada wa fareeqan 7aqa 3alayhim al-Dhalaalah"

Now do you believe?

Thank you so much. But here you fell in a contradiction. How could you read Al-Dhalaalah ضلالة as such even though the word is being written as Dhalaleh ضللة ?

Now i have the *daleel* and the *burhan* that it didn't matter to you that the alef was missing "ا" in الضلالة. Got it or not yet?

Yeah, by the way, you passed the test.

Let me break it down:

1-
I claim the Quran has a rewritten history - Evidence (Check)

No evidence. The Quran stil the same and you yourself just confirmed that in your previous post.

2-
I claim the Quran had different versions - Evidence (Check)

No evidence, just false accusations which been refusted.

3-
I claim the Quran was written by man - Evidence (No, this is based on my belief in logic)
you claim it came down to Mohammad from God himself - Evidence (No)

Off-topic.

4-
I claim that the Quran must have had contradictions - Evidence (Semi-Check, unfortunately the other copies were burned so we will never know, but they were burned for a reason)

You claim it does not - Evidence (Only based on modern Qurans, not the Qurans before Uthman's days, so therefore no evidence).

Keep doubting without evidence. It might lead to some info. here or there. Share it with me when you have any.

 

[TashaN]

I don't claim falsely, I claim it as I see it for I know both languages, Arabic and Aramaic, and I have done extensive comparisons between the two to see which word is closer to what, the fact is there are some words in the Quran that are indeed NOT Arabic.

This is how YOU see it only, so keep it to yourself if you don't have any evidence.

The word Qur'an has an Aramaic resemblance more than the Arabic word, for that reason you hear the letter "Noon" in there, there's no such thing as letter "Noon" in Qeraa'a, but in Aramaic, Quryana or simply Quryan means "The Reading", Qur'an sounds closer to Quryan to me than Qeraa'a.

I don't know your language, but even if your language have some similarities with ours, so what? many languages share terms and concepts. French is similar to English, and English have some similarties with Spanish, etc. This is how human beings lived. I'm not seeing your point.

The other thing is these oriental scholars that you speak of have put many years of hard work and study to achieve their knowledge, you don't just blow their hard word a side because your belief does not agree with it.

I respect alot of works of many of them, but i feel sorry for that they were getting wrong conclusions after alot of hard work. Their conclusion doesn't match sometimes with their findings, and sometimes, it's biased. But on the other hand, alot of them had some pretty good findings and conclusions.

And finally, I must have said this a number of times in this thread, but every time someone new comes in I have to repeat it for them, the Qur'an had more than one version, and the modern Qur'an is based on the Uthmani Qur'an, the others were all destroyed by Uthman, in fact the Qur'an of Uthman was supposed to be the oldest copy, but in reality that was before they discovered the Sana'a manuscripts which is accepted to be the oldest Qur'an today, the only problem is the government of Yemen does not want any scholars examining that Qur'an, I wonder why

Repeat it all you want, but you are going off-topic because you are speaking of the unknown, and for something which doesn't exist except in your mind, and tons of hateful anti-islamic websites, and you know well what i'm talking about, don't you?

 

[Ashuri10]

You go and tell that to many christian scholars who claim that even the english version of the bible is the word of God, word by word, and dot by dot, and i have no idea whether the original one has been changed as well or not.

Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted, so now you say you don't know whether it's corrupted or not? Interesting.

You keep charging Othman of something he didn't do. You make him look as if he was dectator or something. They all agreed on a specific perfect version accepted by all because each one of them had or memorized some parts of it. He got the complete one and ignored the rest, because he didn't want people to get confused in the future. They know the Quran well, but they were afraid the new non-arabs muslims would got confused.

I did not claim anything against Uthman, I said he rewrote the Quran and destroyed all the other versions, did I say anything false? No I did not.

What a great lie. The Quran is in pure Arabic, and you don't have any evidence that it's not. Regarding the meaning of the word Quran, sister Peace already have explained it.

So now you want to get into a language debate?

The problem is, you will claim that the Qur'an is so unique, that no every word can be explained

This is how YOU see it only, so keep it to yourself if you don't have any evidence.

This is what I believe in, why should I keep it to myself? You're a Muslim and you have beliefs too, and at the same time you share these beliefs with others without evidence.

I don't know your language, but even if your language have some similarities with ours, so what? many languages share terms and concepts. French is similar to English, and English have some similarties with Spanish, etc. This is how human beings lived. I'm not seeing your point.

Correct, sharing words between languages is quite a common thing, in our case Arabic and Aramaic are sister languages, but at the same time they are not to be mistaken as the same language, and while they share a lot of similar words, they still have others that differ, for example let's take the word mountain in Arabic, if you look up every dictionary and even the Quran itself, you'll realize that the word in Arabic is جبل, but if we look at one of the Sura's in the Quran (Sura 20:80), you will notice the word طور, this is a clear Aramaic word for mountain and we still use it to this day, yet interesting the word is found in the Qur'an itself, and to prove that this is not coming out of my behind, here's an online Arabic dictionary for the word mountain:
Electronic Dictionary, Electronic Translator, Software for Translation for 45 languages - ECTACO UK

And here's for the word mount just in case you wanna twist the argument:
Electronic Dictionary, Electronic Translator, Software for Translation for 45 languages - ECTACO UK

Now here's an online Hebrew lexicon which shows the word mountain in Hebrew and Aramaic:
Mountain - KJV Hebrew Lexicon

Here's an Aramaic lexicon (You will need to know how to read Aramaic letters and the Syriac font):
http://www.pe****ta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

Clearly the word comes from Aramaic since Arabic already has a word of its own for mountain, you should do more research on this, you will find a few other words.

Repeat it all you want, but you are going off-topic because you are speaking of the unknown, and for something which doesn't exist except in your mind, and tons of hateful anti-islamic websites, and you know well what i'm talking about, don't you?

I actually don't know what you're talking about, so perhaps you want to clarify.

Where? is it in one of the pictures of yours?

This is the page I provided (Go to the red dot):

And this is the modern one for it which not4me posted:

Check out the last line in the modern one.

Thank you so much. But here you fell in a contradiction. How could you read Al-Dhalaalah ضلالة as such even though the word is being written as Dhalaleh ضللة ?

Now i have the *daleel* and the *burhan* that it didn't matter to you that the alef was missing "ا" in الضلالة. Got it or not yet?

Yeah, by the way, you passed the test.

I'm glad I passed your test, now let me show you why I made that pronunciation, you are correct, that word could be "Dhalalah" more than anything else, but I made the liberty to checking out this page and reading with the vowels and symbols provided:

JA\QURAN\araf\7araf

Go down to your verse and you'll know why I said "Dhalaalah"...

Not only did I prove that I can read the Arabic language, but I just proved that I can read it with vowels too, that's my daleel and burhaan

 

[TashaN]

The Qur'anic Manuscripts​

There has been a polemic going on that the Qur'an does not have manuscripts from the first century of hijra. However, this is not true. Many fragments of early Qur'anic manuscripts were shown by Orientalists notably Nabia Abbott in her work The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Kur'anic development, with a full description of the Kur'an manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (1939, University of Chicago Press). There she discusses some of the Quranic manuscripts, dated from second half of the first century hijra onwards, at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. The aim of this page is to highlight some of the early Qur'anic manuscripts to refute the claim that the Qur'an lacks manuscripts from the first century of hijra.

The dig at the Great Mosque in Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen, had found a large number of manuscripts of the Qur'an dating from first century of hijra. The date of building the Great Mosque in Ṣanʿāʾ goes back to 6th year of hijra when the Prophet Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a mosque. The mosque was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time. In 1385 H/1965 CE heavy rains fell on Ṣanʿāʾ. The Great Mosque was affected and the ceiling in the north west corner was damaged. During the survey, the workers discovered a large vault full of parchment and paper manuscripts of both the Qur'an and non-Qur'anic material.

The UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, had compiled a CD containing some of the dated Ṣanʿāʾ manuscripts as a part of "Memory of the World" programme. In this CD there are more than 40 Qur'anic manuscripts which are dated from 1st century of hijra, one of them belonging to early 1st century. More than 45 manuscripts have been dated from the period 1st / 2nd century of hijra.We will be showing only a few examples below.

A few more examples of the 1st and 1st / 2nd century Qur'anic manuscripts can be found in the book Maṣāḥif Ṣanʿāʾ (1985, Dār al-Athar al-Islāmiyyah). This book is a catalogue of an exhibition at the Kuwait National Museum, with articles by Hussa Sabah Salim al-Sabah, G. R. Puin, M. Jenkins, U. Dreibholz in both Arabic and English. It is expected that the Ṣanʿāʾ manuscripts will throw a great deal of light on the early Islamic history of calligraphy and illumination and even the various ahruf (they were seven) in which the Qur'an was revealed.

A few words of caution concerning the dating of the Qur'anic manuscripts need to be mentioned. It is to be remembered that assigning a date to an undated early Qur'anic manuscript is rarely simple especially in the absence of wakf marking.

There is a tendency to assume that those in large scripts and without vowels are of the earliest date. This assumption, true to some extent, is nevertheless misleading in two respects. It ignores that fact that small as well as large maṣāḥif of the Qur'an were among the earliest written and that both types continued to be written thereafter. Though the assumption that manuscripts with the vowels must be considered later than those without is true in some cases, it is not always so, for some very early manuscripts of the Qur'an, originally written without vowels, may well have been voweled later. Furthermore, the first vowel system came into use shortly after the first maṣāḥif were written. There are also examples of later maṣāḥif which were unvoweled even after 3 centuries after hijra!

ALL YOUR QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED BELOW:

1. The Qur'anic Script & Palaeography

On The Origins Of The Kufic Script

The Christian missionaries have claimed that the Kufic script originated not earlier than 150 years after hijra. They have argued that it is also the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi. This article is a devastating refutation of their claims.
​

The Dotting Of A Script And The Dating Of An Era: The Strange Neglect Of PERF 558, A. Jones, Islamic Culture, 1998, Volume LXXII, No. 4, pp. 95-103.

It is usually assumed that the dotting of the Arabic script began with the advent of dotting of Qur'anic manuscripts. However, recent observation on a 70 year old Arabic papyri has shown conclusively that dotting was available as early as 22 AH, perhaps even earlier.
​

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating And The Qur'anic Manuscripts

Radiocarbon dating of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts in the literature is very rare. Can radiocarbon dating provide more accurate results than traditional palaeographic techniques and associated methods? A discussion of the scientific principles underpinning this radiometric dating technique, together with some practical examples from actual Qur'anic manuscripts, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of this procedure as compared to more traditional palaeographic based methods.
​

From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an

A path-breaking discourse or is it yet another headline grabbing exercise? You decide!
​

Dated Texts Containing The Qur’an From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE.

The corpus of dated texts containing the Qur'an from 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE proving the early codification of the Qur'an in Arabic.
​

2. Examples Of The Qur'anic Manuscripts

THE ʿUTHMĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS​

No discussion about the Qur'anic manuscripts begins without the mention of the ʿUthmānic manuscripts of the Qur'an. Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph ʿUthmān, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are some copies that are attributed to ʿUthmān. However, it is to be added that there is a disagreement between the scholars whether they are truly ʿUthmānic. Some Western scholars have rejected the Qur'anic manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān as "pious forgeries" without showing any scientific evidence (i.e., study of the parchment, script, ink etc.). This itself is unscientific to an extreme. We will discuss some important manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān below.

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan, From 2nd Century Hijra.

A folio from a Qur'anic manuscript in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, commonly attributed to caliph ʿUthmān, has recently been subject to radiocarbon tests at Oxford, United Kingdom. Although the dates generated by this radiometric technique at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ʿUthmān's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.
​

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At The Topkapi Museum, Istanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra.

This manuscript was written in Kufic script and contains 408 folios. The extant folios contain more than 99% of the text of the Qur'an. Only two folios are missing. The manuscript shows the script, illumination and marking of vowels that are from the Umayyad times (i.e., late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra).
​

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At St. Petersburg (Russia), Katta Langar, Bukhārā And Tashkent (Uzbekistan), From 2nd Century Hijra.

A manuscript written in the late ḥijāzī script, containing about 40% of the text of the Qur'an, with full texts of 22 surahs and fragments of another 22.
​

The Al-Hussein Mosque Manuscript.
​

 

[TashaN]

FIRST CENTURY HIJRA​

There exist at least four Qur'anic manuscripts that are primarily dated to first half of the first century of hijra (i.e., before 50 AH / 670 CE). These are not the ‘Uthmanic Qur'ans and are parchments written in the ḥijazi script.

Codex Ṣanʿāʾ – Inv. No. 01-27.1: Mid-1st Century Of Hijra.​

Perhaps the most significant manuscript of the Qur'an palimpsest so far discovered at Ṣanʿāʾ, this codex is datable to the middle of the first century of hijra. The leaves from codex Ṣanʿāʾ inv. 01-27.1 have appeared under the hammer at auction houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonham's; the most recent one at Christie's in 2008 fetching a remarkable sum of £2,200,000, around fifteen times the estimated asking price. This codex exemplifies the principal tendencies of the early ḥijāzī script and is of tremendous importance regarding the textual transmission of the Qur'an, Arabic palaeography, codicology and other related disciplines. Below is a detailed description of some of the folios from this codex.



A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah Luqmān And Sūrah al-Sajda.​

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen. This palimpsest from Ṣan‘a' is dated to first half of the first century of hijra. An image acquired using ultraviolet photography is also shown in order to appreciate the improvement of contrast of the washed-off writing. This manuscript may have belonged to the same codex as the one discussed below.​

​

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah al-Sajda And Sūrah al-Ahzāb.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen. This manuscript from Ṣan‘a' is dated to first half of the first century of hijra by Hans-Casper Graf von Bothmer.​

​

Surah al-‘Imran. Verses number : End Of Verse 45 To 54 And Part Of 55.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.​

​

Surah al-Shura, Surah al-Zukhruf. Verses number : End Of Verse 49 Of Surah Al-Shura To Verse 31 Of Surah al-Zukhruf And Part Of 32.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.​

​

Below are the examples of the 1st century hijra manuscripts written in the ḥijāzī and the Kufic scripts.

Arabe 328a: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.​

This is one of the most important manuscripts written in the ḥijāzī script from first century hijra. It has 58 folios; 56 of them at the the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris and one each at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and the Nasser David Khalili Collection. This manuscript has 58 folios which contains about 28% of the total text of the Qur'an.​

Vat. Ar. 1605: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.​

A manuscript from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [Vatican Library] written in the ḥijāzī script. This manuscript, one folio in the Nasser David Khalili Collection (Accession No. KFQ 60, published by Déroche) and 56 folios in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Arabe 328a) are parts of the same muṣḥaf. They all are dated to first century of hijra.​

​

MS. Or. 2165: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The 1st Century Hijra In The British Library.

Hailed as by the earlier keepers of it as "probably the earliest Qur'an ever brought to Europe", the British Library says that it is the "oldest Qur'an manuscript" in their possession. This manuscript is written in the ḥijāzī (or ma'il) script. It is usually dated around the mid-second century of hijra. However, a recent study by Yasin Dutton has shown that this manuscript is remarkably similar to the first century Qur'anic manuscript MS. Arabe 328a in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Based on the similarity between MS. Arabe 328a and MS. Or. 2165, he suggests redating this manuscript to the time just before the Umayyad Caliph Walid (r. 86-96 AH), i.e., within the period 30-85 AH with the latter end of this time scale being safer. This manuscript has 121 folios which contains about 53% of the total text of the Qur'an.​

​

The “Great Umayyad Qur'ān” From The Time Of Caliph Al-Walīd, Late 1st Century Hijra.

This monumental and the earliest Kufic Qur'anic manuscript, perhaps one of the most well-studied and is dated to the last decade of the 1st century of hijra, around 710 - 715 CE, in the reign of the Umayyad Caliph al-Walīd. This manuscript is unique in the sense that it open with a group of full page images. These images are the only known Qur'an illustrations and are absolutely unique among extant Qur'an manuscripts. Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.​

​

The ‘Mingana Palimpsest’ – A Manuscript Containing Qur'ān From 1st Century Hijra.

Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis was the first scholar to publish this unique palimpsest that has scriptio superior which is a Christian material (Arabic Christian homilies) and the scriptio inferior consisting of the Qur'anic verses. Mingana presented a full transcription of the Qur'anic text of the scriptio inferior of the manuscript, with the parallel text from the present day Qur'an. But his claim of "variants" in the Qur'anic text has come under suspicion partly because of his own history of being involved in suspected forgeries. Recent study by Fedeli on this manuscript has confirmed that the "inevitable and easy conclusion" is that all of Mingana's transcription can be suspected to be wrong. A recent surge of interest in this manuscript is due to the fact that the scriptio inferior was written in the ḥijāzī script.​

​

 

[TashaN]

Surah al-An‘am. Verses number : Part Of Verse 5 To 19 And Part Of 20.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

​

Surah al-Nahl. Verses number : End Of Verse 73 To 88 And Part Of 89.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

​

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah Maryam & Sūrah Ṭāhā.

This folio has probably been written by two different copyists as the script in the first half is different from the second. It is italic in the first half and regular in the second half of the fragment except for the letter alīf. The ornamentation here is simple. Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

​

A Qur'anic Manuscript In The Ḥijazi Script From c. 700 CE.

Eight leaves (one fragmentary), 20-27 lines to the page written in brown ḥijāzī script, diacritical marks, where present, consists of oval dots or angled dashes, no vowel points, clusters of brown ink dots to indicate verse divisions, circular devices consisting of green and red dots every ten verses, one long, narrow rectangular panel of green and red decoration with a circular marginal device consisting of coloured dots on final folio, probably to indicate the sūrah heading of Sūrah al-Nisa‘, leaves sewn together with original stitching. It contains Sūrah āl-‘Imrān, verses 34-184.

​

A Perg. 2: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra.

​

A manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna, written in the ḥijāzī script.

​

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Surah al-Ma'idah. Verses 7 Through 12.

A manuscript from the Beit al-Qur'an, Manama, Bahrain, written in the Kufic script.

​

P. Michaélidès No. 32 - A Qur'anic Manuscript From First Century Hijra.

Manuscript from the Collection George Michaélidès, Cairo (Egypt) written in the Kufic(?) script.

​

A Ma‘il Manuscript in Kuwait - A Qur'anic Manuscript From First Century Hijra.

Manuscript from the Tariq Rajab Museum, Kuwait. Written in the ma‘il script [External Link].

Source: The Qur'anic Manuscripts​

 

[TashaN]

From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an​

1. Introduction

The history of orientalism is quite peculiar. According to a few of them the history of Islam and Muslims is quite possibly a lie. They also claimed that Arabic sources on Islam are inherently unreliable whereas non-Islamic sources and speculative opinions are given an aura of truthfulness. As far as the Qur'an is concerned, it was not the revelation given to the Prophet, but simply a compilation of stolen liturgical material from the mass of Judeo-Christian and Zoroastrian traditions. One such example of an orientalist belonging to this class was that of Reverend Alphonse Mingana.

Mingana attempted to teach Muslims about the transmission of their sacred Book down to even the Arabic alphabet! His hypothesis was that the Qur'an had strong imprints of Syriac. The "author" integrated a host of Syriac loan words into the language and thus brought about the linguistic revolution of what is now called the Qur'an.[1] Mingana catalogued the alleged "Syriac" vocabulary in the Qur'an and argued for the widespread presence of Syriac Christianity and its important role in the origins of Islam. His work, along with the more comprehensive work of Arthur Jeffery's The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Qur'an,[2] gave impetus for further research into the connection between the "foreign" vocabulary of the Qur'an and the historical circumstances of its appearance. Recently, Mingana's work was given a resurrection with a new twist by Christoph Luxenberg's Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache.[3]


Please read the details in the link below:

From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an

Dated Muslim Texts From 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE: Documentary Evidence For Early Islam​

1. Introduction


A host of recent publications have challenged the traditional view of the development of Islam. For example, Christoph Luxenberg has attempted to show that the Qur'an was drafted in a mixed Aramaic-Arabic tongue and based upon Christian Aramaic texts, contrary to the traditional view of its composition in Arabic or derived from Arabian religious traditions.[1] On the other hand, Yehuda Nevo argued that the religious beliefs of the early Arabs constituted paganism along with 'a very simple form of monotheism with Judaeo-Christian overtones'.[2] There is no doubt that the study of early Islamic history is contentious among the Western scholars,[3] where agreement about various issues is quite rare. In this kind of a situation, one might expect that the existing documents such as papyri, coins and inscriptions will be taken into account while formulating a hypothesis. Unfortunately, such has not been the case and the result of which is often the proposal of extravagant hypotheses on the origins of Islam.[4] What makes this situation particularly bizarre is that the Western scholars have access to what can be called a treasure-trove of documentary evidence when compared with other major world religions. Judaeo-Christian scholars studying the earliest Christian artefacts are presently unable to call forward even a single item of documentary evidence from the first one hundred years of Christianity and beyond.[5]

Our aim here is quite modest. It is to simply present the corpus of dated Muslim writings along with their contents from 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE. These writings include inscriptions, coins and papyri. By just going through their content, the reader would be able to establish certain landmarks and conclusions. Why the date 72 AH? This is because when we come to the Marwanid period, the dated Islamic texts become much more numerous and with varied content. After this period the citations from the Qur'an also begin to appear.

The list below is based on Robert Hoyland's collection[6] with some additions from our side.

Please read the details in the link below:

Dated Muslim Texts From 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE: Documentary Evidence For Early Islam


At least we now know where you got your claims from.

Please do your reading then come back after that to discuss. Thank you.

 

[TashaN]

Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted, so now you say you don't know whether it's corrupted or not? Interesting.

I'm being honest with you. I know only only that the english translations have contradictions because i have a KJV in my hand, but some of my Christian friends here in RF adviced me not to rely on that one, and to try to get other more accurate versions. It's off-topic anyway.

I did not claim anything against Uthman, I said he rewrote the Quran and destroyed all the other versions, did I say anything false? No I did not.

So now you want to get into a language debate?

The problem is, you will claim that the Qur'an is so unique, that no every word can be explained

This is what I believe in, why should I keep it to myself? You're a Muslim and you have beliefs too, and at the same time you share these beliefs with others without evidence.

Read my posts above.

Correct, sharing words between languages is quite a common thing, in our case Arabic and Aramaic are sister languages, but at the same time they are not to be mistaken as the same language, and while they share a lot of similar words, they still have others that differ, for example let's take the word mountain in Arabic, if you look up every dictionary and even the Quran itself, you'll realize that the word in Arabic is جبل, but if we look at one of the Sura's in the Quran (Sura 20:80), you will notice the word طور, this is a clear Aramaic word for mountain and we still use it to this day, yet interesting the word is found in the Qur'an itself.

Ok? the word appear in the Quran in this verse:

80. O ye Children of Israel! We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a Covenant with you on the right side of Mount (Sinai), and We sent down to you Manna and quails:

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Are you saying that the Quran's word for mountain is طور ?

This is the page I provided (Go to the red dot):

True, Dhal is not there. That's interesting. Can you please give me the source where you got these images from?

I heard from some scholars that there was some incomplete or wrong scripts which have ben written, and it wasn't properly destroyed, and i want to make sure whether that one was one of them or not.

I would love to examine it myself and i'll come back to you.

I'm glad I passed your test, now let me show you why I made that pronunciation, you are correct, that word could be "Dhalalah" more than anything else, but I made the liberty to checking out this page and reading with the vowels and symbols provided:

JA\QURAN\araf\7araf

Go down to your verse and you'll know why I said "Dhalaalah"...

Great, i hope you understand now even with today's modern Quran we have, there are still words without alef for instance but arabs can automatically read it with alef without referring to vowels because it can never make any sense without alef. Got it now?

Not only did I prove that I can read the Arabic language, but I just proved that I can read it with vowels too, that's my daleel and burhaan

Haha, so your daleel for being right is that you can read arabic with and without vowels? yayyyyyyyyyy good job.

 

[maro]

You mistake the Bible to being changed in the sense that it was rewritten completely into a different context, that's not the case, in fact it was translated into other languages yes, but the original languages of the Bible remain Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the manuscripts agree with that, the only problem with the Bible is the books that are in the Bible were selected by the Church, much like how Uthman assembled the Quran.

i guess our problem with the bible is far beyond the probable errors of the translation...the problem is that the original text ,that was being translated , has nothing to do with the injeel revealed to jesus (pbuh)...we believe in the injeel revealed in jesus..but not in the bible that is mostly written by paul..our problem is not with the translation..

[2:79] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby


Ahmed deedat says :

Out of the total of 27 Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by Paul. As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single word of the twenty-seven books. If you can lay your hands on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus (pbuh) - in red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked to find that in this so called "Injeel," the Gospel of Jesus, over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament is printed in black ink!
This is the candid Christian confession on what they call the "Injeel." In actual any confrontation with Christian missionaries, you will find them quoting one hundred percent from Paul.

 

[maro]

i guess you are intentionally confusing things here

What happened to all the other Qurans? they were destroyed by Uthman, so to say the Quran has not gone through such a stage of being rewritten and so on is indeed a big false claim, if that's the case, why did they have to destroy other versions of the Quran?

you claim that the reason there is only one quranic version after the dots and vowels were added is that Othman picked one and got rid of the others ,but this is plain falsehood..you know why ?...simply because the quran compiled by othman was without any dots or vowels !!!

Here is the Mos7af of othman

Also you claim that new letters were added to the arabic alphabet , which is true, but this happened much earlier than the revealation of the quran..what you call the modern alphapet was already known before Islam..the letters Baa ' , Taa' , Thaa' were distinct in the arabic tongue..only written the same ,without the dots

This is a letter send by the prophet (PBUH) to one of the kings..you will be able to see the letters Baa' ,Taa' and Thaa'..So what you are saying about the adding of new letters is no more than intentional misleading