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

[anonymous9887]

Of course. We all know this.

But dont you think that the concept of trinity explained in one verse is not a viable variant if not found in some manuscripts? It is an extremely viable variant.

Did Jesus have compassion towards the leper or get angry?

We dont have to delve deep into textual criticism of the bible because it will just go no where. But you claimed "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable". You should back it up by pointing out the variances and the reason for this kind of huge claims. Otherwise it just will show a character of blurting.

No, because again those are not viable, because the 1 john 5:7 was inserted later, and easily caught. That account about the leper does not change the doctrine, again even if we go to I believe Galatians 1:8 that is a pretty messy variant, but it still does not change no doctrine.

 

[Augustus]

Absolutely wrong.

You assume the calibration of the machine the university of Birmingham used was wrong? And this is not at all akin to dating of other middle eastern texts.

It is exactly like dating other ME texts. Go check how accurate these dates are, or are you arguing that Sanaa 1 was correctly dated to the 6th C?

Ridiculous cherry picking to claim the convenient dating is perfectly accurate but the inconvenient ones are plain wrong.

Scholarly consensus is based on marks. It is because of their preconceived notion that Hadith narrations helped the compilation of the Quran. This manuscripts broke their heart. That is why they make claim to this. Even then, none of the Islamic scholars who were involved ever said early 8th century. The consensus is that the dating could be wrong because of the script, well they could be wrong about the script. For them, its hard to believe that a Quran could have existed during the prophets time. They will never believe it because it discredits ahadith and its role in the compilation of the Quran. The value of friends and followers of the prophet etc. You should get involved more mate.

Yes they could be wrong, as I acknowledged in the post. History is about thinking probabilisticaly though, which you do not.

And it is fair to acknowledge that you yourself have a bit of bias here, if you wish to accuse others of having one...

And when you inspect the folios the only way that the calibration could have gone wrong is with contamination. The issue is this, if you take contamination into consideration the maximum difference will be 22 years. What will stab your stomach is that this will make it earlier, not later.

No, it is not the only way. Calibration has nothing to do with contamination, and everything to do with how they work out how to translate radiocarbon measurements into years. This is problematic for the ME because calibration is done using trees, but the trees are not from the ME, they are from Europe and America. As such, based on the evidence which you can see for yourself in other cases that have nothing to do with your precious Quran so you can be open minded about, RC dating is less accurate in the ME because machines are not calibrated for ME conditions.

Anyway, why will it stab my stomach? If it was found to be Muhammad's own Quran it wouldn't affect any of my beliefs. Can look through some threads here and find me arguing about why the 'too early' thesis is likely incorrect if you want. My view of Islamic history would be unaffected if this was proved to be Muhammad's own personal Quran, having one dated 640 is certainly no problem. It's just that it is a pet annoyance of mine when this figure is quoted as fact when even the person who found the fragment says to be sceptical about the dating. It is more Islamic apologetics that academic history.

The fact remains that this one probably isn't from 640. Apologies if the truth doesn't match what you deeply wish, but hey, that's life.

 

[anonymous9887]

In that case mate, even the most traditional Muslim scholar bearing ahadith and various other studies can pinpoint exactly who were the earliest narrators of the Quran.

No historian or any Christian have any chain to say exactly who wrote some of the bibles contents. None. You just making general statements.



Foot notes? Earliest is P52, no foot or head or arms available in it. Lets not play this game mate.

Again, Vaticanus does not have the pericope of the adulteress. That is a huge variance. Also it has full books which are different from codex vaticanus. What kind of difference is that? Please show me one similar in the Quranic traditions. Just one. Or you can ignore this question as you usually do.

Are manuscripts are pretty reliable and again it is as is we have a 100 piece puzzle and we have 120 pieces. Very simple the added foot notes do not belong.

 

[firedragon]

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.

2. None of the other manuscripts are in agreement with one another.

Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

lets be logical here.
1. there are about 5700 greek new manuscripts give or take
2. 92 % of those manuscripts are of the 9th century and above.
3. the reason there are so many variants is because they use all 5700 manuscripts in comparison, but in reality they don't know how many there are.
4. The less copies of a manuscript you have the less variants you will have.
5. we have older manuscripts that carry more authority than those older ones, and they are traceable to a degree I will admit.
6. so you can bring in any of the added footnotes to the bible, and the added footnotes that are absolutely not traceable back to Pauls time, anyone that does is making assumptions. to me your claims are irrelevant because you are using later manuscripts.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

and your modern Quran is obviously edited. many of these manuscripts Have been available only to muslims, and not too long ago Just became available for public use. the Quran is Just in the infancy stages of it being researched.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

Muslim Claims

1. Muhammad is the final and greatest messenger of god
   
   
2. The Quran was revealed only to Muhammad and is the final revelation
   
   
3. Islam is the final religion
   
   
4. The Quran and Muhammad are inseparable
   

Historical accounts related to the Quran

• 570 Muhammad was born
  
  
• 610 Muhammad met Jibril in the Hira cave
  
  
• 610- 622 Received the Meccan revelations
  
  
• 621 the ‘Mi’raj’ to the 7 heavens happened
  
  
• 622 Hijra from Mecca to Medina
  
  
• 622- 632 received Medinan Revelations
  
  
• 630 conquered Mecca peacefully
  
  
• 632 Muhammad dies
  
  
• 632- 634 appears Abu Bakr
  
  
• 634- 644 appears Umar
  
  
• 644-656 appears Uthman
  
  
• 656- 661 Ali
  

Any Biographies of Muhammad (Haddith and other writings)

• 765 Ibn Ishaq
  
  
• 833 Ibn Hisham
  
  
• 870 Al Bukhari
  
  
• 923 Al Tabari
  

Is there any historical evidence of the religion of Islam or the mention of Muhammad?

The earliest Historical evidence found is in Arabic coin with the name of Muhammad dated to about 691



Quranic Manuscripts

• Topkapi Is dated to about the mid 8th century (incomplete Manuscript)
  
  
• Sammarqand Mushaf Dated to the mid 8th century(incomplete)
  
  
• Ma’il Dated to the late 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Petropolitanus Dated to the late 7th century to early 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Houseini Dated to the 9th century (incomplete)
  
  
• San’aa Dates to about 705 (incomplete, but the earliest manuscript)
  
  
  A question remains about all these manuscripts, are they all in agreement? Is there any variants? If so why?
• can you please name any historical evidence?
• can you name any secular resources that are not biased that can confirm what Muhammad did?
  

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

It is exactly like dating other ME texts. Go check how accurate these dates are, or are you arguing that Sanaa 1 was correctly dated to the 6th C?

Ridiculous cherry picking to claim the convenient dating is perfectly accurate but the inconvenient ones are plain wrong.

Its ridiculous to say it is wrong without knowing. Ridiculous.

And I would like to know which idiot says the Sanaa script is from the 6th century.

And it is fair to acknowledge that you yourself have a bit of bias here, if you wish to accuse others of having one...

You can always accuse me of being bias mate. Of course. Im a Muslim.

But in this case I am saying that they are bias because I know them, I have studied their reasoning and I think its a hypocritical state of affairs.

This is what Dr Saud al-Sarhan said, we would not know what was in the Quran or not if it wasnt for Ahadith. That was prior to the Birmingham knowledge. The importance of the prophets companions is like God for mainstream Islamic clergy. Especially the Saudis. Thus, if this has any chance of being written during the prophets times it reduces their significance. Im gonna drop it now anyway.

No, it is not the only way. Calibration has nothing to do with contamination, and everything to do with how they work out how to translate radiocarbon measurements into years. This is problematic for the ME because calibration is done using trees, but the trees are not from the ME, they are from Europe and America. As such, based on the evidence which you can see for yourself in other cases that have nothing to do with your precious Quran so you can be open minded about, RC dating is less accurate in the ME because machines are not calibrated for ME conditions.

Augustus. Your argument is based on an assumption. But it contains contamination. A maximum of 1%. And hemispheric effect has been highly considered in the dating.

Anyway, why will it stab my stomach? If it was found to be Muhammad's own Quran it wouldn't affect any of my beliefs. Can look through some threads here and find me arguing about why the 'too early' thesis is likely incorrect if you want. My view of Islamic history would be unaffected if this was proved to be Muhammad's own personal Quran, having one dated 640 is certainly no problem. It's just that it is a pet annoyance of mine when this figure is quoted as fact when even the person who found the fragment says to be sceptical about the dating. It is more Islamic apologetics that academic history.

The fact remains that this one probably isn't from 640. Apologies if the truth doesn't match what you deeply wish, but hey, that's life.

Vise Versa my friend.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Muslim Claims

1. Muhammad is the final and greatest messenger of god
   
   
2. The Quran was revealed only to Muhammad and is the final revelation
   
   
3. Islam is the final religion
   
   
4. The Quran and Muhammad are inseparable

Historical accounts related to the Quran

• 570 Muhammad was born
  
  
• 610 Muhammad met Jibril in the Hira cave
  
  
• 610- 622 Received the Meccan revelations
  
  
• 621 the ‘Mi’raj’ to the 7 heavens happened
  
  
• 622 Hijra from Mecca to Medina
  
  
• 622- 632 received Medinan Revelations
  
  
• 630 conquered Mecca peacefully
  
  
• 632 Muhammad dies
  
  
• 632- 634 appears Abu Bakr
  
  
• 634- 644 appears Umar
  
  
• 644-656 appears Uthman
  
  
• 656- 661 Ali

Any Biographies of Muhammad (Haddith and other writings)

• 765 Ibn Ishaq
  
  
• 833 Ibn Hisham
  
  
• 870 Al Bukhari
  
  
• 923 Al Tabari

Is there any historical evidence of the religion of Islam or the mention of Muhammad?

The earliest Historical evidence found is in Arabic coin with the name of Muhammad dated to about 691



Quranic Manuscripts

• Topkapi Is dated to about the mid 8th century (incomplete Manuscript)
  
  
• Sammarqand Mushaf Dated to the mid 8th century(incomplete)
  
  
• Ma’il Dated to the late 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Petropolitanus Dated to the late 7th century to early 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Houseini Dated to the 9th century (incomplete)
  
  
• San’aa Dates to about 705 (incomplete, but the earliest manuscript)
  
  
  A question remains about all these manuscripts, are they all in agreement? Is there any variants? If so why?
• can you please name any historical evidence?
• can you name any secular resources that are not biased that can confirm what Muhammad did?

You can say a million things to avoid answering basic questions.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, Ive seen the video of your God.

Still, you have not given one major variance. Like the variance of the pericope of the adulteress. One.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

this is for the factual evidence presented

 

[YmirGF]

Absolutely wrong.

You assume the calibration of the machine the university of Birmingham used was wrong? And this is not at all akin to dating of other middle eastern texts.

Scholarly consensus is based on marks. It is because of their preconceived notion that Hadith narrations helped the compilation of the Quran. This manuscripts broke their heart. That is why they make claim to this. Even then, none of the Islamic scholars who were involved ever said early 8th century. The consensus is that the dating could be wrong because of the script, well they could be wrong about the script. For them, its hard to believe that a Quran could have existed during the prophets time. They will never believe it because it discredits ahadith and its role in the compilation of the Quran. The value of friends and followers of the prophet etc. You should get involved more mate.

And when you inspect the folios the only way that the calibration could have gone wrong is with contamination. The issue is this, if you take contamination into consideration the maximum difference will be 22 years. What will stab your stomach is that this will make it earlier, not later.

Though I have an immense amount of respect for @Augustus I do like your post very much. The last line is particularly compelling.

 

[anonymous9887]

Yes, Ive seen the video of your God.

Still, you have not given one major variance. Like the variance of the pericope of the adulteress. One.

the problem is the quran has thousands of variants with the 5 main incomplete manuscripts, and you can answer is its the modern version that is accurate, what I see is cherry picking.

 

[firedragon]

lets be logical here.
1. there are about 5700 greek new manuscripts give or take
2. 92 % of those manuscripts are of the 9th century and above.
3. the reason there are so many variants is because they use all 5700 manuscripts in comparison, but in reality they don't know how many there are.
4. The less copies of a manuscript you have the less variants you will have.
5. we have older manuscripts that carry more authority than those older ones, and they are traceable to a degree I will admit.
6. so you can bring in any of the added footnotes to the bible, and the added footnotes that are absolutely not traceable back to Pauls time, anyone that does is making assumptions. to me your claims are irrelevant because you are using later manuscripts.

Nope. I used some of the earliest manuscripts. Including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And Paul, earlier the manuscripts are, the wider the variants. You should do a little more research before you make this kind of claim.

 

[firedragon]

the problem is the quran has thousands of variants with the 5 main incomplete manuscripts, and you can answer is its the modern version that is accurate, what I see is cherry picking.

What are the variants?

 

[anonymous9887]

Yes, Ive seen the video of your God.

Still, you have not given one major variance. Like the variance of the pericope of the adulteress. One.

sure the way is see it for example.
if 1john 5:7 is in a manuscript of the 4th century and no manuscript previous contains this verse, then it did not belong there in the first place.

so you guys don't even have a complete manuscript, and don't have any copies of the copies, and no secular resources, my hands are tied.

 

[anonymous9887]

What are the variants?

ok first off do you agree scholars are aware of over 2000 variants yes or no?

 

[firedragon]

so you guys don't even have a complete manuscript, and don't have any copies of the copies, and no secular resources, my hands are tied.

Alright then, what is the complete bible manuscript?