after five years, i left islam. here's one huge contradiction in the qur`an

[firedragon]

Why should I trust the sanad when the same scholars got so much else wrong? You don't trust the scholars either.

What makes you think it is more likely the Quran passage was first?

I dont think anything. I just study them for the sake of it.

If at all, the Quran could have been earlier because the manuscripts are earlier than even estimated dates of the Neshana

It is when trying to identify if one appears far more likely than the other, which is what the academic study of history entails.

Well. I am not a historian, I am a theologian. I am no expert in historic studies and you maybe far more qualified than I. But let me tell you something Augustus with all due respect, there is no real proof that Zul Qarnaini in the Quran is Alexander. And there definitely are no proof to quote the Neshana was earlier than the Quran. Even the Romance is not though could be much earlier than Neshana.

And you are absolutely right, the study of hadith narrations has so many errors that I gave up trying to reconcile 10 years ago. Same way, the Alexander narrations written in 7th century or the 3rd century can be so ill with error. The same way Abu Lahab has no relationship to Abu Muttalib. But if you play the same game, the same can be played as a response.

Other respectable people seem to believe it can also mean something else, so both options appear to be on the table.

But I challenge you, not a single respectable person can say no. Zul Karnaini is a plural. Two generations.

Horns was an interpretation born after the Alexander episode centuries later. The word does not mean horns. Thats a nick.

 

[anonymous9887]

Why is it not reliable?

Watch the 3 videos I posted on the other thread based on the Qur'an and muhammad and you will see what I mean. I am fresh on the research so I don't have it completely memorized yet.

 

[uncung]

Watch the 3 videos I posted on the other thread based on the Qur'an and muhammad and you will see what I mean. I am fresh on the research so I don't have it completely memorized yet.

I hate when the response told me to watch the video, let alone watching three videos.

 

[anonymous9887]

I hate when the response told me to watch the video, let alone watching three videos.

Watch at least the 1st one.
At any rate I watch videos against the bible, and I would encourage you to do the same. Those are 3 scholarly videos you can look at.
Sorry. If not as soon as I memorize it I'll get back to you. But the other thread I made covers some of the inconsistencies.

 

[uncung]

Watch at least the 1st one.
At any rate I watch videos against the bible, and I would encourage you to do the same. Those are 3 scholarly videos you can look at.
Sorry. If not as soon as I memorize it I'll get back to you. But the other thread I made covers some of the inconsistencies.

forget it. again youtube does not worth as an answer.

 

[anonymous9887]

forget it. again youtube does not worth as an answer.

Well if facts are presented by known scholars on YouTube are worthless then I guess your right. So you shouldn't be watching zakir naik because it's on YouTube.

 

[uncung]

Well if facts are presented by known scholars on YouTube are worthless then I guess your right. So you shouldn't be watching zakir naik because it's on YouTube.

I used to enjoy watching this India muslim guy preached islam by attacking Christianity on YouTube, but it is no longer impressed me anymore. I am not a Zakir fan. My source is Quran and hadith. anyone who accuses that Quran is false or not reliable as the wordfrom God, then I have to reask him back his proof. But not by using Youtube. I need the frontal answer instead of by watching videos.

 

[anonymous9887]

I used to enjoy watching this India muslim guy preached islam by attacking Christianity on YouTube, but it is no longer impressed me anymore. I am not a Zakir fan. My source is Quran and hadith. anyone who accuses that Quran is false or not reliable as the wordfrom God, then I have to reask him back his proof. But not by using Youtube. I need the frontal answer instead of by watching videos.

Ok. I will play by what I know. Facts.
So you have no problem with the manuscripts which the Qur'an is translated from are all incomplete and all have variants, and are dated 50 years after uthman death (the earliest manuscript)?

If Uthman died in 655roughly and the earliest manuscript is dated to 700, that is a copy of what uthman actually had written.

 

[anonymous9887]

I used to enjoy watching this India muslim guy preached islam by attacking Christianity on YouTube, but it is no longer impressed me anymore. I am not a Zakir fan. My source is Quran and hadith. anyone who accuses that Quran is false or not reliable as the wordfrom God, then I have to reask him back his proof. But not by using Youtube. I need the frontal answer instead of by watching videos.

And no matter what way you slice it, you will still have to go to historians and scholars to get facts. There is facts about the Qur'an and there is opinions about the Qur'an. I am presenting the facts.

 

[anonymous9887]

I used to enjoy watching this India muslim guy preached islam by attacking Christianity on YouTube, but it is no longer impressed me anymore. I am not a Zakir fan. My source is Quran and hadith. anyone who accuses that Quran is false or not reliable as the wordfrom God, then I have to reask him back his proof. But not by using Youtube. I need the frontal answer instead of by watching videos.

The closest manuscript to uthman is missing majority of the wrinings are missing. It is called the San'aa Manuscript.
If this manuscript is probably the most accurate and the Topkapi is different from the San'aa manuscript how can you trust the later writings?
The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable, and Allah promised his word would be preserved, I see no preservation.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. I will play by what I know. Facts.
So you have no problem with the manuscripts which the Qur'an is translated from are all incomplete and all have variants, and are dated 50 years after uthman death (the earliest manuscript)?

If Uthman died in 655roughly and the earliest manuscript is dated to 700, that is a copy of what uthman actually had written.

The closest manuscript to uthman is missing majority of the wrinings are missing. It is called the San'aa Manuscript.
If this manuscript is probably the most accurate and the Topkapi is different from the San'aa manuscript how can you trust the later writings?
The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable, and Allah promised his word would be preserved, I see no preservation.

Birmingham manuscript. Dated latest 643 AD. Earliest 6th century.

 

[uncung]

The closest manuscript to uthman is missing majority of the wrinings are missing. It is called the San'aa Manuscript.
If this manuscript is probably the most accurate and the Topkapi is different from the San'aa manuscript how can you trust the later writings?
The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable, and Allah promised his word would be preserved, I see no preservation.

the existing Quran nowadays is the true and the original Quran, no matter the way the earlier muslims compiled it.

 

[anonymous9887]

the existing Quran nowadays is the true and the original Quran, no matter the way the earlier muslims compiled it.

So you go by blind faith, how do we know it's gods word and not mans. It should be traceable if it is God's word. I guess this conversation is over because there is nothing I could say.

 

[firedragon]

So you go by blind faith, how do we know it's gods word and not mans. It should be traceable if it is God's word. I guess this conversation is over because there is nothing I could say.

First of all Paul, you are going with no knowledge in the Quranic tradition.

Nevertheless, tell me, what are the variants in the manuscripts?

For you to say that the original Quran is lost of whatever, there has to be some major serious differences in between old manuscripts that strangely changes things.

So what are they?

 

[firedragon]

Watch the 3 videos I posted on the other thread based on the Qur'an and muhammad and you will see what I mean. I am fresh on the research so I don't have it completely memorized yet.

 

[YmirGF]

Oy vey, eh?

 

[anonymous9887]

You can try to discredit Jay smith all you want on those points so what!! I don't agree with all things he says as I am sure you agree with some things scholars say but not all. He pointed out facts on the research and dating of the manuscripts and even provides references to other scholars.

 

[anonymous9887]

Birmingham manuscript. Dated latest 643 AD. Earliest 6th century.

Earliest "fragments".
Answer these questions
1. Is it complete?
2. Does it have variants from the other 5 manuscripts?
3. Obviously all the copies came from oral tradition and yet it varies and they are all incomplete.
4. They all vary and are incomplete.
5. You say it was kept safe through oral tradition I say what is your evidence that they got it right?

 

[anonymous9887]

First of all Paul, you are going with no knowledge in the Quranic tradition.

Nevertheless, tell me, what are the variants in the manuscripts?

For you to say that the original Quran is lost of whatever, there has to be some major serious differences in between old manuscripts that strangely changes things.

So what are they?

1. Is there variants between the 5 manuscripts and the fragment you mentioned? If so how many? Is it in the thousands?
2. Show me a complete manuscript of the Qur'an (100%complete)?

 

[firedragon]

Earliest "fragments".
Answer these questions
1. Is it complete?
2. Does it have variants from the other 5 manuscripts?
3. Obviously all the copies came from oral tradition and yet it varies and they are all incomplete.
4. They all vary and are incomplete.
5. You say it was kept safe through oral tradition I say what is your evidence that they got it right?

Alright we can begin this discussion.

But first, tell me what are the variances you speak of. Given that I agree there are variations in some of the older manuscripts.

We can discuss oral tradition later. First, you should show the variations because you claim to them and say that the original Quran is lost.