Reza Aslan Master Schemer And Snake

For the common person this is a thoroughly convincing performance and he comes across as an educated, brilliant speaker. After some more deeper research, anyone can discover the deceptive distortions.

• Claim 1 "Very few people would blame Catholicism or Christianity"

Sounds good! but completely unverified, and highly unlikely considering a vast amount of Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists do credit Catholicism explicitly with it's dark past and intolerance. No evidence for this claim at all.

• Claim 2 "If you are a Christian living over there, you have different beliefs about Jesus from these Christans over here.... likewise with Muslims on Islam" 

Aslan attempts to confuse the audience and connect beliefs about Jesus with location. When really the only beliefs about Jesus that differ are not due to location but rather doctrine, it just so happens that some areas contained more orthodox, catholic or protestants than others. But this master deceiver does not manage to point out they all agree on the fundamentals. Jesus is God and Man. Jesus is the second person of God, Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus was crucified, buried and Resurrected.

He then equates this example of Christians to the same scenario with Muslim beliefs about Islam, pluralism tolerance and diversity, as if Christianity and Islam do not have fundamentals, and beliefs are vast and completely diverse, opposed and complex all dependent on "living conditions". Sam Harris thankfully has already refuted this lie. Terrorists are quite often "not" low class, they are middle or high class, he mentions a few examples in the video.

• Claim 3 Religion alone cannot explain homicide bombing. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Religion doesn't have to explain the specific incident of homicide bombing, it does explain the motivating dogmatism and fundamentalism behind it.

• Claim 4 The Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a Jihadist organisation, they have no objectives similar or like Al Queda. Completely different

Of course this is the most obvious and fake claim of them all. Muslim Brotherhood may not engage in terrorism like Al Qaeda(more likely it is rarely reported), but the objective of Sharia Law in Muslim Lands (and even Western) is identical as seen in Egypt today.

• Claim 5 "Terrorist justifications are not religious in nature but caused by a list of injustices caused by the West, Terrorists saturate this in religious language, just like Christians do the same in America in Politics"

Of course the master deceiver confuses issues. First of all he doesn't clarify that Islam is an ideology that doesn't separate itself from worldly injunctions, it's religious nature is connected to a fully and complete socio-political lifestyle. Sharia encompasses every area of life, we are talking down to the level of even a minute detail like that of stepping into the bathroom or even burping. For every action Islam defines a reaction, Mosque and State are entirely inseparable. This means politics and religion are also both entirely religious in nature.

Of course the master taqiyist does not mention the doctrines of Shayed(Martyrdom), Jihad(spiritual/physical struggle/war) or the notion of the Cosmic Religious Apocalypse and polarized division between believers and disbelievers.

But what is most fundamentally unjust is this man simply has no clue what he is talking about, he has never read a terrorist manifesto in his life.

According to the now deceased Osama Bin Ladin:

"War "fundamentally religious" 

This clearly indicates the nature of this war. This war is fundamentally religious. The people of the East are Muslims. They sympathized with Muslims against the people of the West, who are the crusaders. Those who try to cover this crystal clear fact, which the entire world has admitted, are deceiving the Islamic nation. They are trying to deflect the attention of the Islamic nation from the truth of this conflict. This fact is proven in the book of God Almighty and in the teachings of our messenger, may God's peace and blessings be upon him. Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based ON CREED. "Muslims must stand together"We must be loyal to the believers and those who believe that there is no God but Allah. We should also renounce the atheists and infidels. It suffices me to seek God's help against them.God says: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion." It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair try to depict it. Many thieves belonging to this nation were captured in the past. But, nobody moved. The masses which moved in the East and West have not done so for the sake of Osama.  

Rather, they moved for the sake of their religion. This is because they know that they are right and that they resist the most ferocious, serious, and violent Crusade campaign against Islam ever since the message was revealed to Muhammad, may God's peace and blessings be upon. After this has become clear, the Muslim must know and learn where he is standing vis-a-vis this war." (source)

While Osama Bin Ladin would agree that the "Crusaders" have been the aggressors in the last 83 (now 95) years, Bin Ladin views this as a perpetual cosmic religious battle between Islam and the Crusaders:

"Rather, they moved for the sake of their religion. This is because they know that they are right and that they resist the most ferocious, serious, and violent Crusade campaign against Islam ever since the message was revealed to Muhammad, may God's peace and blessings be upon. After this has become clear, the Muslim must know and learn where he is standing vis-a-vis this war...  

What can those who allege that this is a war against terrorism say? What terrorism are they speaking about at a time when the Islamic nation has been slaughtered for tens of years without hearing their voices and without seeing any action by them? " (source)

And:

Latest stage in "Crusade"

There is no power but in God. Let us investigate whether this war against Afghanistan that broke out a few days ago is a single and unique one or if it is a link to a long series of crusader wars against the Islamic world. Following World War I, which ended more than 83 years ago, the whole Islamic world fell under the crusader banner - under the British, French, and Italian governments. They divided the whole world, and Palestine was occupied by the British. Since then, and for more than 83 years, our brothers, sons, and sisters in Palestine have been badly tortured. Hundreds of thousands of them have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of them have been imprisoned or maimed. (source)

Of course this supposed "crusader/zionist" occupation of Palestine was justification enough for terrorism in Palestine. But where did Bin Ladin's real problem begin? 

Well it turns out this hypocrite made no objection to the American Crusaders helping Afghans fight against Russians (since Russians aren't Muslims) in the 80's. But something different happened in 1990. 

The Saudi decision to allow US troops into the country in 1990 to defend against a possible attack by Saddam Hussein upset bin Laden. From his point of view, "for the Muslim Saudi monarchy to invite non-Muslim American troops to fight against Muslim Iraqi soldiers was a serious violation of Islamic law" (DeLong-Bas, Natana (2007). Wahhabi Islam. London: I. B. Tauris. pp. 267–269.)

Now why would Osama Bin Ladin be upset with allowing Americans in Saudi? Of course Americans are not allowed to support Muslims fight Muslims this violates Islamic Law. But of course, the Quran Chapter 9:28 specifically teaches idolaters were no longer allowed to enter the sacred mosque, along with that went the expulsion of all Pagans, Jews and Christians from Arabia as prescribed by the Prophet Mohammed. That's two violations in one stone!

So it does turn out all the criticism of Saudi offered by Osama Bin Ladin is truly religious and Islamic in nature. Bin Ladin is adhering to Islam, Saudi is not.

Of course a masterful deceiver like Reza Aslan isn't going to tell his audience all of these facts, because then as Sam Harris mentions people would know Osama Bin Ladin is advocating a plausible version of Islam.

Sam Harris Pointing Out Islam More Dangerous Than Christianity Today

Two Ex Muslims - From Islam To Universalism (Buddhism/Hinduism)

My man Farhan and his boy discuss the good and bad of Islam (and how they see it from a universalist perspective):

Another Case Of Forced Conversion: Pakistani Hindu Teenage Girl

ISLAMABAD: Hopes for the rapid resolution of a controversy involving the conversion of a Hindu woman to Islam have been dashed after the Pakistan Supreme Court deferred the matter for at least three more weeks.

The court ruled that Rinkel Kumari, a 19-year-old student who converted under disputed circumstances last month, should spend the next three weeks pondering her fate in protective custody with another Hindu woman in a similar situation.

During an emotional and sometimes rowdy hearing in a packed courtroom, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said there had been ''serious allegations of abduction and forced conversion'

The case started in Mirpur Mathelo, a small town, where, in the space of 12 hours on Februaury 24, Ms Kumari left her family home, converted to Islam and married Naveed Shah, a Muslim neighbour who said he had been courting her through Facebook and mobile phone contact.

Her family and Hindu leaders reacted angrily, alleging she had been abducted at gunpoint.

Ms Kumari, who wore a black hijab and was flanked by six police officers, stumbled as she began her evidence. Justice Chaudhry cleared the court to let the women to testify in private.

Tension mounted once the hearing resumed, when Ms Kumari's father, Ramesh Kumar, rushed towards the bench, pleading for his daughter's release.

Moments later he was carried from the court, still shouting, by his hands and feet.

Justice Chaudhry ordered that the two Muslim converts be returned under police escort to a women's shelter in Karachi until the next hearing on April 18.

The New York Times

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/hindu-womans-disputed-conversion-to-islam-goes-on-hold-20120327-1vwkx.html#ixzz1qMJ3E31F

Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub Calls for the Implementation of Islamic Punishments in Egypt: Execution, Crucifixion, and the Amputation of Opposite Hands and Feet

from MEMRI, March 16:

    Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub, which aired on Al-Nas TV on March 16, 2012 :

    Hussein Yaaqub : My brothers, how are we to deal with bullying? First thing by means of religion, by restoring religion to people's lives. To the lives of people and to the life of the Islamic nation… The shari'a must be exalted.

    The Islamic punishment of hiraba must be implemented. The Koran says: "Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive to spread corruption in the land…" If someone robs people of their money, it is as if he fought our Lord and His Messenger. Hiraba applies to a highway robber. A robber who stops someone in the street and says: "Give me your purse" is fighting Allah and His Messenger. If he stops someone in the street and says: "Give me your car," he is fighting Allah and His Messenger.

    The punishment for all this is called hiraba, and it is applied to someone who fights Allah and His Messenger. Anybody who attacks a home, a shop, a bank, a factory, or anything… When an armed gang enters a place in order to take things by force, they are fighting Allah and His Messenger.

    The [hiraba] punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and who strive to spread corruption in the land, is for them to be executed, or to be crucified, or to have their hand and foot chopped off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. The implementation of this punishment will guarantee security.

Europe In Denial Yet Again

It is a familiar pattern. Whenever a terrorist commits an atrocity, his apologists start blaming society or, even worse, the victims. Hence, it was not surprising that after Mohamed Merah, a French jihadist of Algerian descent, killed a rabbi and three Jewish children in Toulouse last week, some immediately blamed the Jews.

Merah had cold-bloodedly videotaped how he chased an eight-year old girl across a school playground and murdered her with three bullets in the head, and how he executed Rabbi Sandler and his three- and six-year old sons. Even so, some did not hesitate to compare his acts to military operations of the Israeli army in Gaza.

That alone is shocking, but that the comparison was made by the head of foreign policy of the European Union makes matters even worse. And yet, one week after comparing the Jewish children that were intentionally murdered in Toulouse with young Palestinian victims of the Israeli army's defensive air strikes in Gaza, Catherine Ashton, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is still in function. Not a single one of the 27 governments of the member states of the European Union is asking for her resignation.

Israeli politicians reacted with indignation to Ashton's comparison. Her remarks, however, are not surprising given her past as an activist who belonged to the "Blame the West first" crowd. Some people, when confronted with sociopathic behavior, collaborate with it or look for arguments to prove that it is actually not a symptom of emotional disorder, but an attempt to right a wrong which someone has committed. (more here)

Vatican Catholic exposes Vatican 2 heretical council as inconsistent with Historic Catholic Church

What were the Crusades, and were they justified?

A vatican1 catholic gives his view:



Some valid points here. It's good to put events in historical perspective.

Support Us

Store

Why the 'historical' ressurection argument doesn't work

Dr Price is a radical skeptic even by the standards of his own liberal scholarship. However one thing most historians agree on, is history cannot go beyond the boundaries of known experience. Here is why:

Dr Michael Brown calls reformed/calvinist God "Schizophrenic"

I just finished listening to a debate that took place back in 2010. A debate between reformed theologian Dr. James R White , and arminian theologian  Dr. Michael Brown.

The two radio debates consisted of the classic protestant debate: "Calvinism vs Arminianism"

In the first debate Dr James R White clearly had the advantage in exegeting John 6, Romans 8, 9 and Ephesians 1 since these passages explicitly teach reformed theology. While Dr Brown had to appeal to passages all over the Bible to "substantiate" his interpretation of each particular passage. What I found lacking in Brown was his focus of the exegesis of the chapter right in front of him, here clearly Dr White had the advantage.

A general good rule to apply exegesis with would be "immediate context", "neighboring context" and then "context of the book", "context of other books in the NT", and "context of the culture and time". Clearly Dr Brown had to skip the first two steps and go straight to context of the book first. What is even more problematic was none of the passages he appealed to before John 6 were actually advocating free will, so the fact that he quoted the passages still seems like a red herring.


In the second debate Dr Michael Brown points out the Schizophrenic nature of a God who has two contrary wills. One will his prescriptive direct will. Also a will where he desires all mankind to be saved. And the second will known as the decreed will of God. A will in which God has decreed the exact opposite of his prescriptive will.

My Conclusion

Both men are right. This entails reformed theology is biblical as argued by Dr White, but as argued by Dr Brown the implications of reformed theology are a schizophrenic God.

Austin Cline, Godless Moral Values: Can Godless Atheists Have Moral Values?

Moral Values do not Require Gods or Religion

A popular claim among religious theists is that atheists have no basis for morality — that religion and gods are needed for moral values. Usually they mean their religion and god, but sometimes they seem willing to accept any religion and any god. The truth is that neither religions nor gods are necessary for morality, ethics, or values. They can exist in a godless, secular context just fine, as demonstrated by all the godless atheists who lead moral lives every day.

Love and Good Will

Good will towards others is vital to morality for two reasons. First, genuinely moral acts must include a desire that others do well — it's not morality to grudgingly help someone you wish would curl up and die. It's also not morality to help someone due to inducements like threats or rewards. Second, an attitude of good will can encourage moral behavior without needing to be prodded and pushed. Good will thus functions as both a context and driving force behind moral behavior.

Reason

Some may not immediately recognize the importance of reason for morality, but it's arguably indispensable. Unless morality is simply obedience to memorized rules or flipping a coin, we have to be able to think clearly and coherently about our moral choices. We have to adequately reason our way through the various options and consequences in order to arrive at any decent conclusion. Without reason, then, we cannot hope to have a moral system or to behave morally.

Compassion and Empathy

Most people realize that empathy plays an important role when it comes to morality, but just how important it is may not be as well understood as it should be. Treating others with dignity does not require orders from any gods, but it does require that we be able to conceptualize how our actions affect others. This, in turn, requires an ability to empathize with others — an ability to be able to imagine what it's like to be them, even if only briefly.

Personal Autonomy

Without personal autonomy, morality is not possible. If we are simply robots following orders, then our actions can only be described as obedient or disobedient; mere obedience, however, cannot be morality. We need the ability to choose what to do and to choose the moral action. Autonomy is also important because we are not treating others morally if we prevent them from enjoying the same level of autonomy which we require for ourselves.

Pleasure

In Western religions, at least, pleasure and morality are often diametrically opposed. This opposition is not necessary in secular, godless morality — on the contrary, seeking to generally increase the ability of people to experience pleasure is often important in godless morality. This is because without any belief in an afterlife, it follows that this life is all we have and so we must make the most of it while we can. If we can't enjoy being alive, what's the point of living?

Justice and Mercy

Justice means ensuring that people receive what they deserve — that a criminal receives the appropriate punishment, for example. Mercy is a countervailing principle which promotes being less harsh than one is entitled to be. Balancing the two is key for dealing with people morally. A lack of justice is wrong, but a lack of mercy can be just as wrong. None of this requires any gods for guidance; on the contrary, it's common for stories of gods to depict them as failing to find balance here.

Honesty

Honesty is important because truth is important; truth is important because an inaccurate picture of reality cannot reliably help us to survive and understand. We need accurate information about what is going on and a reliable method for evaluating that information if we are to achieve anything. False information will hinder or ruin us. There can be no morality without honesty, but there can be honesty without gods. If there are no gods, then dismissing them is the only honest thing to do.

Altruism

Some deny that altruism even exists, but whatever label we give it, the act of sacrificing something for the sake of others is common to all cultures and all social species. You don't need gods or religion to tell you that if you value others, sometimes what they need must take precedence over what you need (or just think you need). A society without self-sacrifice would be a society without love, justice, mercy, empathy, or compassion.

Moral Values Without Gods or Religion

I can almost hear religious believers asking "What's the basis for being moral in the first place? What reason is there to care about behaving morally at all?" Some believers imagine themselves clever for asking this, certain that it cannot be answered. It's only the cleverness of a teenage solipsist who thinks he has stumbled on a way to refute every argument or belief by adopting extreme skepticism. The problem with this question is that it presumes that morality is something that can be separated from human society and consciousness and independently grounded, justified, or explained. It's like removing a person's liver and demanding an explanation for why it — and it alone — exists while ignoring the body they've left bleeding out on the ground.

Morality is as integral to human society as a person's major organs are integral to the human body: although the functions of each can be discussed independently, explanations for each can only occur in the context of the entire system. Religious believers who see morality exclusively in terms of their god and religion are as unable to recognize this as someone who imagines that humans acquire a liver through a process other than through the natural growth that lies behind every other organ. 

So how do we answer the above question in the context of human society? First, there are two questions here: why behave morally in some particular set of circumstances, and why behave morally in general, even if not in every case? Second, religious morality which is ultimately based on the commands of a god cannot answer these questions because "God says so" and "You'll go to hell otherwise" don't work.

There is insufficient space here for a detailed discussion, but the simplest explanation for morality in human society is the fact that human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function. As social animals, we can no more exist without morality than we can without our livers. Everything else is just details.

The Genesis Creation Account As It Is

Bible Scholar, Doctor Michael Heisar challenges the views of Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive and Gap Theorist Creation, with his scholarly view on what the Genesis is actually teaching, and the actual cosmology of the Hebrew Bible

Al Qaeda Claims Responsibility For Deadly Blasts

BAGHDAD — Al-Qaida’s front group in Iraq claimed Wednesday it was behind a wave of attacks that killed 46 people across the country and said the violence shows how weak government security is heading into next week’s Arab League summit in Baghdad.

The attacks on Tuesday struck Shiite pilgrims in the holy city of Karbala, set cars on fire near a police headquarters in Kirkuk and targeted security forces and government officials in Baghdad. In all, insurgents struck eight cities in just under six hours, killing 46 and wounding 200 people.

The statement by the Islamic State of Iraq, posted on a militant website Wednesday, said its “Sunni lions” targeted the plan of the “fool government preparing” for the summit.

“Within few hours, all the security measures adopted by the Shiite government have collapsed and the enemy was taken by surprise,” said the statement. “Several government and security headquarters were attacked.”

The government vowed not to be scared off from hosting the summit – the first to take place in Iraq since 1990 and a chance to prove it is moving toward normalcy after years of war.

On Wednesday, a bomb exploded near a liquor store in central Baghdad and wounded five passers-by, said police and a hospital medic. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

The government said last week that Iraq would deploy an unprecedented number of security forces to protect the capital for the summit. An estimated 26,000 police and soldiers – including more than 4,000 from Iraq’s north and south – are expected to be deployed in Baghdad.

But citizens and lawmakers have questioned whether Baghdad would be safe during the Arab meeting.

Extremists have launched large-scale attacks in Iraq every few weeks for nearly a year. The violence now is nowhere as frequent as it was during the tit-for-tat sectarian fighting a few years ago. But the attacks appear to be more deadly than they were before American military’s withdrawal in late December. (more here)

Abdullah al-Andalusi - Is the Shariah Inhumane?

First of all let me say, I like Mr Al Andalusi. He is a nice, respectful and seems intelligent. And I personally believe he has been mislead into thinking his faith in Islam is rational, and I truly hope one day with the assistance of secularists and agnostics like myself he sees the light of real rational thought, secularism, democracy and liberalism and disbelief in fantasy and superstition.

However as nice as Mr Andalusi the fact of the matter is the organization he belongs to is advocating Sharia. Really this is no surprise considering the innate connection between state and religion found in Islam.

Without further or do, here is what Mr Andalusi has to say:
 


It's quite ironic this speech, many of the arguments made by Mr Andalusi would have to be conceded by Christians, for example his rejection of liberalism and appeal to God's Law. Ultimately God defines justice. And if Allah is God, then everything contained in the Divine Law (Sharia) is just including the horrific punishments and second class rights in the Sharia.

Of course you have to ask yourself the question, if Sharia Law is enacted in Europe or England which version of Sharia will be implemented? Which version of Sharia says not to kill apostates who declare they are indeed apostates? Will we be implementing something like The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, The Egyptian Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Muslim spokesman Anjem Choudary or Mr Andalusi himself?

I do see a small inconsistency from Mr Andalusi in not conceding the literal interpretation and application of the Quran (not that I'm saying he got enough air time, he should have been provided more):

New Species Of Human Found

"First, their skulls are anatomically unique," he said. "They look very different to all modern humans, whether alive today or in Africa 150,000 years ago. And second, the very fact they persisted until almost 11,000 years ago when we know that very modern-looking people lived at the same time immediately to the east and south suggests they must have been isolated from them."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/14/mysterious-dark-skinned-stone-age-people-found/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1pZUPvSIS

Dr James White critiques William Lane Criag use of Cerberus as an illustration of the Trinity

Atheism put to the test on moral vaules

        

          

The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain: Full documentary (PBS)

Open Thiest that believes God perfectly preserves the Bible and Bible isnt corrupted

There are open theist that believes that God suppresses his knowledge of the future and if he doesn't  that would mean man doesn't actually have free will. In light of this particular view that some open theist hold.

  Question is how can the open theist maintain his world view that God suppresses his knowledge of the future. But in the same breath claim that God has perfectly preserved the Bible from future corruption if he supposedly  suppresses his knowledge about the future?
   

Refutation of Jonnykzj and others regarding OPEN THEISM

The open theist claims that the knowledge of God can be limited. They claim that the future doesn't actually exist or either that God looks into the future and chooses what he will not know. God is the author of time, meaning he created time and that he is sovereign over time. When the open theist claims that God doesn't know the future he is basically asserting that God is limited to time.

 This is a change in the nature of God because he is eternal by nature and isn't restricted to time. Also this is a logical contradiction when an open theist takes the position that God looks into the future and chooses what he wants to know in the future.

 If the open theist says that time is a property of God's existence then in order to arrive at the present, which logically would mean infinite amount of time must have passed in order for us to arrive in the present. But we also know it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to be traversed.

 And for the open theist who claims that the future doesn't exist they must account for God accurately predicting future events  and giving details of those events.  Another thing to keep in mind if God is restricted to time therefore he isn't omnipresent, because omnipresence entails he exist in all places in the universe and including outside the universe.

 His attribute of being omnipresent couldn't  be restricted to time because if it was it would negate him for being omnipresent. There are open theist who say he is omnipresent in the present sense which still would mean he is constrained to time.

Regarding freewill the open theist says  is something God chooses to not know in the future.But this causes an issue.  If God knows that in the future someone will make a choice, how can he then decide to not know it since he must know in the future that a free will choice is to be made?

 Basically God knows a choice will be made yet chooses to not know it?  How would he know a free will choice is going to be made in the first place if He doesn't know what the choice is?

This just proves that open theism has no strong foundation to stand on.

I just want to thank  Derek Adams for his support and motivation and  we will continue to expose falsehood.

Quran Burning Resolved

Why did about 30 people have to die for this?

Koran-burning probe clears troops of malicious intent

Challenge to Farhan Qureshi

I recently watched portions of a debate between Farhan Qureshi and Sami Zaatari, the topic was the problem of evil. Farhan seem to suggest that during the debate that he is a  determinist.  In light of this admission that he is a determinist I invite Farhan Qureshi to reconcile how is it even possible for there to be evil in light of HIS WORLD VIEW.

Farhan defines evil as unnecessary suffering during the Q and A session, another question for Farhan since he is a determinist how can he make the claim that certain actions are unnecessary if all of our actions are predetermined?

Since certain actions which people commit are predetermined and those very actions Farhan identifies as causing unnecessary suffering, i.e evil. That presupposes the person who is causing unnecessary suffering didn't  necessarily have to engage in those actions.

Which entails free will and that would be contrary to the position of Farhan Qureshi. I assume Farhan would define a problem in a broad sense as doing things out of the norm. But how is evil even a problem since people are simply acting out their predetermined nature which Farhan would say is normal?

I invite Farhan Qureshi to address my questions in light of his world view.

Muslim radical on child porn, terror threat charges

A convert to radical Islam has appeared in a Sydney court on charges of possessing child pornography and making a hoax terrorist threat against the city's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon is accused of posting the threat on the Facebook page for 2Day FM's Kyle and Jackie O Show.

Police also allege he viewed child abuse material on the internet using his laptop computer between July last year and his arrest on the night of the Mardi Gras parade.

Siddiq-Conlon has previously come to attention in the media for his outspoken views, particularly his call for Australia to become an Islamic state ruled by sharia law.

He faced Burwood Local Court this morning and was granted bail to re-appear in May.

Speaking to reporters outside the court, Siddiq-Conlon said he had posted the hoax threat in a moment of passion and had not meant it.

"It was just a moment of passion and I didn't mean it and that's all," he said.

He denied accessing child pornography from his computer.

"Nothing to say on that - of course is that police believe they have some evidence but you know of course we don't have any of that stuff," he said. (source)

Farrakkhan Exposes Wallace

Austrian MP explodes! Calls it like it is. Turkish Muslims = TROUBLE

FULL film - The Historical Case for Paul: A Critique of Muslim Arguments

I've met Keith (the producer of this documentary) online a few times. While I don't agree with everything here, ultimately he is right about one thing. All the evidence is against the Muslim view of Paul. And Keith does mention a good sample of the evidence.

It is ultimately not just the "Pauline version" of Christianity which has survived, prevailed and been made superior to all other forms of Christianity for over two millennium, but the version of Christianity Paul adopted from James and Peter, including the death, burial resurrection and lordship of Jesus.

If the Quran is correct that the true followers of Jesus are made superior til the day of resurrection and you have the only one dominant brand of Christianity (that is) the Pauline version that contradicts everything Islam teaches, ultimately proving another error in the Quran.

The errors of the Quran are numerous, there simply is "no Muslim followers of Jesus" who one can point to in the first century, or one can point to the supposed "dominance" of those followers.

Since most Muslims already know this they must clearly "reinteprete" the Quran in order to save it, surprise surprise.

Is The Original New Testament Lost? :: A Dialogue with Dr. Bart Ehrman & Dr. Daniel Wallace

I recommend only you real bible geeks watch this.

If you truly new to the topic, then the introduction periods will help you, but you won't be able to follow the rest easily.

High-flying Muslim career women willing to 'share husbands' because of a lack of suitable men

Muslim career women in Britain are choosing to become involved in polygamous relationships because of a lack of suitable men.

Some of them even choosing to become second or third wives to married men, according to the Islamic Sharia Council.

The charity, based in Britain, gives legal guidance to Muslims and has said it is receiving a high number of queries from women struggling to find suitable partners.

Many of the women have also said they would prefer to hold down high-profile jobs rather than look after their husbands.

Taking more than one wife is illegal in the UK but men marry again in a nikah religious ceremony, allowing them to take up to four wives.

Mizan Raja, 35, who organises Muslim marriages around the world, told the Sunday Times, that he has had hundreds of calls in the past six months from women asking about becoming second wives.

Mr Raja said: 'The demand for these relationships is led by the women, not the men. In one generation women have become educated, entrepreneurial and professional.

'The Muslim community is struggling with this, how do you cope with women who wear trousers?'

He said that many Muslim men just wanted a 'homemaker' and to come home to a clean house and a plate of food on the table.

He added the men didn't want the 'headache' of being in a relationship with a professional woman.

It is thought the Muslim women are also actively seeking out married men because they do not want the hassle of having to cook for their husbands after a hard day at work and are quite happy to have part-time relationships.


One woman who spoke to the Sunday Times, and asked not to be named, had an affair with a married man after divorcing her first husband.

When he offered to leave his wife she preferred to become his second wife because she did not want him 'under her shoes 24/7'.

It is thought about 12,000 brides are brought to the UK by Muslim men.

The decline in available husbands has become such a problem it is now referred to as the 'Muslim spinster crisis'.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113366/Muslim-women-share-husbands-lack-suitable-men.html#ixzz1otvyhEVJ

Forcible conversion of Hindu girls on rise in Sindh: HRCP

On an average around 20 to 25 Hindu girls are being forcibly converted to Islam every month in the southern Sindh province, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has said.

Urging the authorities to take note of these forced conversions, HRCP officials told reporters on Saturday that culprits were taking advantage of loopholes in the law.

Amarnath Motumel of the HRCP said that within a month 20 forced conversions had taken place.

“Apart from minor school girls, married women with children are not spared either,” he said.

The issue of Hindu girls being forcibly converted has come to the fore after the case of 18-year-old Rinkle Kumari from Sukkur who has converted and taken the Muslim name of Faryal after marrying a Muslim boy.

The family of the girl claim she was kidnapped and forcibly converted even after she appeared in court in Sukkur and claimed she converted out of her own free will.

But Motumel pointed out that not only were affected families warned of dire consequences but whenever a Hindu girl or her family appeared in court hundreds of religious zealots gather to pressurise them or they take to the streets as pressure tactics and to create an atmosphere of fear.

The families of Rinkle Kumari were also present at the conference in which her brother Inder said that had she been allowed to meet with her family members privately and even once she would never have converted.

“Despite the President’s orders for the girl’s rescue we are still waiting for something to be done.”

HRCP official Professor Badar Soomro said there was a need to enact new laws to restore a sense of security among the Hindu community.

He also said if a girl is kidnapped and her family registers a case she should be kept in a Darul Aman at least for a month before she is produced in court to record her statement.(The Hindu)

Video of Muslim Thug's Funeral in Berlin

Only the green trees, overcast skies and well-paved roads give any clue that this isn't the Middle East. Remember the dead Muslim was part of a mob of 20 who went to a German man's house and attacked him. This time, the infidels fought back. Here are the Muslims at the funeral (looks like something out of Gaza Strip or Egypt, but in Germany wtf?)

Bill Maher - The Islamic Nutcases Are Worst Than Ours

Bill Maher on the Quran burning incident

Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not - Sam Harris

This is just brilliant.

Afghan Women Rights?. Blah

The culture war over Afghan women is heating up. Just over ten years have passed since the international community overthrew the notoriously misogynist Taliban regime, and Afghan women are again at the center of a volatile national debate over whether basic rights and freedoms should be extended to the female half of the population. With the US and Afghan governments reaching out to the Taliban for peace talks and conservatives within the Afghan government making statements in support of restricting women’s dress, freedom of movement, and rights to work, to justice, and to be protected from violence, activists fear they are witnessing the beginning of a major crackdown on women.

Influential conservatives have increasingly focused their advocacy on rolling back aspects of women’s progress ranging from hard-won guarantees of rights to expressions of individuality and happiness. A few of their pet projects:

2010: The Ulema Council, Afghanistan’s advisory council of religious leaders, called for the reintroduction of the death penalty as a punishment in adultery cases.

2011: Conservatives within the Ministry of Women’s Affairs unsuccessfully attempted to take over the country’s NGO-run women’s shelters, and the Ministry of Justice proposed a law banning mixed gender wedding parties and wedding gowns that show women’s curves.

2012: The Ministry of Culture and Information sent a letter to television studios stating that, "all female news presenters must avoid heavy make-up and wear a headscarf.”

Then, this week –as if timed to dominate the discourse around International Women’s Day– the Ulema Council released a statement saying that "men and fundamental and women are secondary.” The statement called for the strict segregation of the sexes in public spaces, and for women to veil and avoid traveling without a male guardian. Disturbingly, it also appeared to sanction violence against women under some circumstances. (The line in question reads: "It needs to be said that teasing, harassment and beating of women without a Shariah-compliant reason, as set forth clearly in the Glorious Qur’an, is prohibited.”)

Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch summed up why the statement caused widespread alarm among human rights activists. (source)

If American "liberated" Afghanistan. I'm the Queen of England.

Taliban suicide bomber kills 15 in Pakistan

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A suicide bomber attacked a funeral attended by an anti-Taliban politician in northwest Pakistan on Sunday, killing at least 15 mourners, officials said.

The politician, Khush Dil Khan, escaped unhurt in the blast on the outskirts of Peshawar, the main city in the northwest.

Islamist militants are fighting a vicious war against Pakistani security forces in and around Peshawar, which lies close to border regions with Afghanistan where extremists hold sway.

Thousands of civilians and security officials have been killed over the last few years in the militants attacks, which appeared to have been decreasing lately due to the Pakistani army's operations in the tribal regions and the elimination of several key Taliban and al-Qaida leaders in U.S. drone strikes.

Police officer Abid Rehman said the attacker managed to get inside the compound where funeral prayers were being held in Badhber village. Peshawar deputy commissioner Siraj Ahmad said the explosion killed 15 people and wounded another 37.

The two officials said several of the wounded people were in critical condition.

"We are devastated," said Zahir Khan, 32, weeping while lying in a hospital bed. His elder brother died in the attack. He said they were chatting when the bomb went off. "I never knew I was going to lose my brother forever."

Khan, the politician, comes from the secular-leaning Awami National Party that holds power in the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. He expressed his party's resolve to continue the struggle against militancy. "It is a fight for the country's survival," he said.

The Pakistani Taliban have targeted several of its leaders in the past. The party has supported various Pakistani military operations against the militants.

On Saturday, security forces claimed to have killed 39 militants in fighting in Bara district in Khyber tribal region, which is close to Peshawar and is the current focus of anti-Taliban operations. Four security force members were also killed, according to a brief statement from the paramilitary Frontier Corps.

The police said it was not yet clear whether the bombing could be a reaction to the latest fighting.

A Pakistani Taliban spokesman Mohammad Afridi downplayed Saturday's operation against the militants saying that such operations "hardly matter" to the militants. He took responsibility for the Sunday suicide bombing and said the politician was targeted because he had set up a militia to battle against the Taliban.

"These militias are the front lines for the Pakistani army," he told The Associated Press by phone from an undisclosed location.


(source)
__

Associated Press Writer Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan contributed to this report.

Sam Harris (Islam is the worst one)

US soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians in Kandahar

A US soldier in Afghanistan has killed at least 16 civilians and wounded five after entering their homes in Kandahar province, senior local officials say. He left his military base in the early hours of the morning and opened fire in at least two homes; women and children were among the dead. Nato said it was investigating the "deeply regrettable incident". Anti-US sentiment is already high in Afghanistan after US soldiers burnt copies of the Koran last month. US officials have apologised repeatedly for the incident at a Nato base in Kabul, but they failed to quell a series of protests and attacks that killed at least 30 people and six US troops. Local people have reportedly gathered near the base in Panjwai district to protest about Sunday's killings, and the US embassy is advising against travel to the area. Lt Gen Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of Nato-led forces, said he was unable to "explain the motivation behind such callous acts", adding that "our thoughts and prayers are with those caught in this tragedy". (more here)

 I thought it was only a matter of time before this happened. This shameful act is more evidence America should leave Afghanistan. And while I think it's utterly disgraceful, you have to think that it was partially American factors that caused this, such as Obama's subjugation of his own troops. Apologizing and showing weakness, distributing pamphlets on how to handle the Quran, advocating the trial of the Quran burners, not adequately dealing with the Americans who were killed. This solider obviously lost the plot. Going to be interesting to see the "investigation" behind why he went insane.

Bill Maher Is A Prophet (Quran = Protests, Bible = nothing will happen) 2010

Sharia4Belgium's Abu Imran: "Democracy is the Opposite of Islam"

Hitchens on Islam in the West (and the PC leftists who enable it)

Hundreds of women call for Islamic governance

Hundreds of Muslim women gathered near Tunis Saturday to call for the return of the caliphate, the defunct Islamic system of governance which they said was the only means of guaranteeing their rights.

The members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir party came from Islamic countries including Arab states, Indonesia and Turkey, as well as from Europe to debate the benefits of the system that disappeared nearly 90 years ago.

"This conference raises questions about the secular liberal way of life and asks whether it is a system that has succeed in securing the dignity and rights of women," chief spokeswoman Nasrin Nawaaz of the British branch of the party told AFP.

"Muslim women are gathering together saying that we no longer want to live under secular liberal democratic systems," she added.

"We want a new system, we want the khalifa system that historically has been tried and has succeeded in securing the rights of women."

Nawaz said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran that promote themselves as Islamic states "in reality they implement nothing but the rules of dictatorship."

Men were banned from the conference, which opened with a film castigating Western political systems and calling for "patient and determined work to re-establish the law of Islam."

Founded in 1953, Hizb ut-Tahir has members and sympathisers in more than 50 countries. It seeks the return of the caliphate, based on Islamic charia law, by political means.

The caliphate was introduced after the death of Mohammed to govern the Muslim world and held by a succession of dynasties based in different cities before the emergence of nation states.

The fifth and last caliphate held sway under the Turkish Ottomans and was abolished in 1924 by the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

A good Muslim's better life cut short by extremists

MUHAMMAD AKRAM climbed on to the back of his grandson's motorcycle to go home for lunch, not knowing he had just minutes to live. The pair rode through the streets of Nawabshah in Pakistan where the Sydney grandfather had spent much of his life. As they parked under a tree, a motorcycle approached. One of two men, his face covered by cloth, put the gun close to Mr Akram's back and fired.

This was the first assassination of an Australian Ahmadi Muslim, say Mr Akram's family. The killing was religiously motivated, says the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan.

Some Muslims regard Ahmadis as heretical and their persecution by Sunni Muslim extremists is as old as Pakistan.

In Australia immigrant people can create new lives, but their old countries - be they Britain, China or Pakistan - pull people back to relatives, friends and lives never fully left behind, even when, like Mr Akram, they left as refugees. Sometimes tragedy results, in Mr Akram's case a killing hatched within a web of local and international politics. The extremists who persecute Ahmadis have links to terrorist organisations there, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including al-Qaeda.

Having joined his Sydney-based family in Claremont Meadows, near Penrith, seven years ago as a refugee, friends and family counselled caution on his return to Pakistan. He went to attend a family wedding and visit his home town, Nawabshah, also known as Benazirabad, where two of his children remain.

And so he came to be riding home on Wednesday, February 29. The bullet pierced a kidney. His grandson Muneeb Ahmed held him and yelled at the fleeing attackers. As he died, aged 78, Muneeb also fell. The bullet had passed through his grandfather and struck him. The 18-year-old lived, after four hours of surgery.

Mr Akram's family in Sydney soon heard the news and saw images of his face and body via a web cam. Six shocked relatives flew out within a day for the funeral last Saturday. (click here for more)

Aussie Muslim women find own voice

(Note the criticism of Muslims/Islam with "Racism")

SYDNEY – Taking the full brunt of racism in the post-9/11 era, young Muslim women in Australia are developing a strong sense of identity to tell the public about themselves and their faith.

“There’s now a generation of young Muslim Australians who have grown up in the shadow of September 11,” Christina Ho, a researcher on migration and cultural diversity, told ABC News on Wednesday, March 7.

Ho said Muslim women have taken the full brunt of racism and abuses following the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

As they faced growing suspicion, Muslim women began to speak out to clear their image and highlight the true face of their faith.

“Muslim women say that they’ve had to answer a lot more questions since September 11, and that obviously is a burden for them,” Ho said.

“But on the other hand it’s also given them an opportunity to speak out.”

Muslims, who have been in Australia for more than 200 years, make up 1.7 percent of its 20-million population.

In post 9/11 Australia, Muslims have been haunted with suspicion and have had their patriotism questioned.

“Muslim women in particular, especially those who wear the hijab or the headscarf, have been quite visible so they have often borne the brunt of the anxiety and racism towards Muslim Australians,” Ho said.

“There have been some pretty horrific cases of abuse, both verbal and physical abuse.

“For instance women have been followed home, people have chased them in cars, screamed at them, pulled off their hijabs. There are a lot of those kinds of stories out there.”

A 2007 poll taken by the Issues Deliberation Australia (IDA) think-tank found that Australians basically see Islam as a threat to the Australian way of life.

A recent governmental report revealed that Muslims are facing deep-seated Islamophobia and race-based treatment like never before.

Articulate Muslims

Facing a growing Islamophobic environment in the post-9/11 era, young Muslims began to speak out to clear misconceptions about themselves and their faith.

“A lot of Muslim women say the flipside to the racism is that a new space has opened up for them to actually talk about themselves, to explain what they believe, and to try to demystify their culture amongst ordinary Australians,” Ho said.

“I am noticing young Muslim women in particular have really become very articulate in talking about these issues, explaining who they are.”

The researcher, who migrated from Hong Kong, says she understands the difficulties that faced Muslims in the 9/11 era.

“My family migrated to Australia in the 70s from Hong Kong, so I guess we were a part of that early wave of Chinese migration to Australia,” she said.

“I always had a sense of culture and of difference, and I suppose I’ve always been drawn to people who have similar stories.

She recalls being approached by a Muslim women group to document their experiences in Australian society.

“A few years ago we at the University of Technology Sydney were approached by a Muslim women’s association which wanted us to document some of the experiences that their members had been having, particularly after September 11 and the fallout from the War on Terror.”

As she got closer to Muslims, Ho found that Muslim women have developed a strong sense of identity to tell the Australian public about themselves and their faith.

“There is this sense of identity about these young people, because they’ve grown up having to answer all these questions and being very visible in public,” Ho said.

“For a lot of women, I think that’s lead to a new sense of being able to articulate their sense of self.

“Because they are often more visible, they are required to take on these roles of speaking out. So I think there’s actually quite an amazing generation of younger Muslim Australian women who are really finding their voice in the community.” (source)

New Zealand Woman Marries Muslim in Egypt, Gets Lesson in Qur'anic Justice

Just saw this on answeringmuslims.com


This one will hit close to home my local readers:

Muhammad's wife Aisha once admitted that Muslim women were treated more harshly than pagan women (Sahih al-Bukhari 5825). Why, you ask? Because Muslim men have a divine obligation to beat their wives into submission (Qur'an 4:34).

EGYPT--Beaten with a slave whip, starved and scared, Kiwi Sharon Churchill believes she would still be a hostage of her Egyptian husband if it wasn't for a team of New Zealand diplomats who helped her to escape.

The 41-year-old from Tirau in Waikato suffered emotional abuse and beatings from her husband of five months - a man she once called the love of her life - and started sleeping with a steel pipe for protection.

But on February 14, she escaped, with the help of embassy staff in Cairo, and is now warning other women about the dangers of holiday romances.

In letters she has sent to the Prime Minister and other ministers, Ms Churchill credits the diplomats with saving her life by working with Egyptian authorities to get her out of the house and on a flight home.

However, her ex-husband denies the claims, saying he never assaulted her and that problems in their relationship were her fault.

"In other countries the man feel the woman she don't respect him and I find that in her. It's not my fault."

Speaking out for the first time since arriving home, she said she was still recovering from an ordeal that had left her with physical and emotional scars and $30,000 out of pocket. . . .

"There were a couple of days I didn't have water or food. I lost 12kg in six weeks. It was semi-starvation."

One hellish night in February, fearing for her safety, Ms Churchill slept on the roof with a steel pipe.

"He came up with an Egyptian slave whip and beat me with it. It cut my arms open and my legs were severely bruised. I was screaming, 'Help me', and he said, 'No one's going to help you'. I knew he would kill me before he would let me out." . . .

Ms Churchill has words of advice for any woman considering a holiday romance in the Middle East: "Have a fling with them, [but] don't get into a relationship. Once you enter into any contract of marriage, you become their property." (Read more.)

Praise be the NZ government.

I actually would really like to visit Egypt (very interesting), but I've always kind of thought of it as redundant aslong as a version of Sharia Law reigns supreme there.

Of course this kind of story isn't all that uncommon either.

Islamic Allah So Called Mathematical And Scientific Miracles In The Holy Quran

Muslim Argument:

Iron is one of the elements highlighted in the Quran. In the chapter known Al-Hadeed, meaning Iron, we are informed:

"And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind..." (Quran 57:25)

The word "anzalna," translated as "sent down" and used for iron in the verse, could be thought of having a metaphorical meaning to explain that iron has been given to benefit people. But, when we take into consideration the literal meaning of the word, which is, "being physically sent down from the sky, as this word usage had not been employed in the Quran except literally, like the descending of the rain or revelation, we realize that this verse implies a very significant scientific miracle. Because, modern astronomical findings have disclosed that the iron found in our world has come from giant stars in outer space.

Not only the iron on earth, but also the iron in the entire Solar System, comes from outer space, since the temperature in the Sun is inadequate for the formation of iron. The sun has a surface temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius, and a core temperature of approximately 20 million degrees. Iron can only be produced in much larger stars than the Sun, where the temperature reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the amount of iron exceeds a certain level in a star, the star can no longer accommodate it, and it eventually explodes in what is called a "nova" or a "supernova." These explosions make it possible for iron to be given off into space.





Convinced Yet?

Naaaah.

That's why I said: "Islamic Allah So Called Mathematical And Scientific Miracles In The Holy Quran"

Guess what else "Allah" has "sent down":

Surely, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'an) in truth that you might judge between men by that which Allah has shown you (i.e. has taught you through Divine Inspiration), so be not a pleader for the treacherous.4:104

That's right, the Quran traveled through space and time in book form.

Wait perhaps the Quran was sent down since it came from heaven?



Okay, okay I agree.

But lets put an end to optimistic thinking shall we?

O children of Adam! We have indeed sent down to you clothing to cover your shame, and (clothing) for beauty and clothing that guards (against evil), that is the best. This is of the communications of Allah that they may be mindful. 7:26

That's right, every item of clothing you by wasn't mass produced by clothing factories like in China, it was sent down by Allah!

errr not quite

Wait! what about this one:

He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is God, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)? 39:6

Right on, cows are sent from above! woooot. Another "literal" passage I pressume. Aheeem. Or "selective miracle of reinterpretations" perhaps?

I know this is a twisted irony but one Muslim "Osama Abdullah" actually thinks that there is scientific evidence that animals descended from heaven. lol, aheeem cough.

Well that's all for now. Any religious scripture can be twisted into duping the naive species that we are. But this one takes the cake! As I said it really is the Islamic Allah So Called Mathematical And Scientific Miracles In The Holy Quran.

When the Moors (Muslims) Ruled Europe: Documentary (full)

Science and Islam: part 3: The Power of Doubt

Science and Islam: Part 2: The Empire of Reason

Science and Islam: Part 1: The Language of Science

Is The Quran Perfectly Preserved? New Discussion

Today I would like to post a discussion I had with "thinker1" at another blog. Thinker is a great thinker to his credit.Originally the discussion was about the dating of specific Qur'anic manuscripts, while I simply had to chime in on his commentary about the supposed "approval" of divine variant readings by the Prophet Mohammed himself.

DISCUSSION


DEREK ADAMS

Greetings Thinker1

Lets get you to do some "thinking" then, shall we?

You said: "Furthermore, i was dismayed to see that you placed little emphasis on the important fact that Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed in 7 different dialects and that, as such, Muhammad actually allowed certain variants in Quranic recitation (as mentioned in numerous hadith), the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman."

1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari[1] (And contradicted by nearly all scholars, more on this soon)

2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc.[2] Meaning, all variants, are actually just variants.

3) Even if those hadith permitting variation are authentic, you now created a further problem by your own admission: "the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman".

Uthman had neither permission from Allah, Gabriel nor Mohammed to tamper with the eternal Quran where Gabriel has specifically given orders to Mohammed to recite in seven ways to make it easier on the people. Unfortunately Uthman cannot abrogate the orders of Gabriel. Abrogations must meet certain criterion.[3]

But what makes this travesty rather absurd, is while Gabriel and Mohammed specifically give orders and permission to the various Muslims to recite in each way, Uthman realizes the exact opposite and observes the Ummah is about to fight like the Christians and Jews before them and directly contradicts the injunction of his Prophet and decides to standardize the reading and burn the rest[4], something prohibited by the messenger.

4) You failed to mention the facts about the seven ways of recital. Islamic Scholars have produced over 40 different assigned meanings and interpretations of the concept since Mohammed never gave an explicit narration defining what they were.

Ibn Sa'adan a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur'aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known only to Allah. Sheik Yasir Qadhi said: "it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."[5]

Of course apart from the problem with the authenticity, the problem with the ambiguous fabricated nature and speculation are all proof this hadith was most likely a fabrication aswell.

Later you say: "Those 7 dialects gave rise to the different readings “qiraat” that Muslims retain today"

Apart from your candid admission that Uthman reduced the seven ahruf, you then proceed to contradict yourself and say the readings gave rise to contemporary Qiraat.

Question: If Uthman reduced the ahruf, then how could there still exist over 10 Qiraat? But this isn't all. This is only the surviving Qiraat. You also have to contend with the fact that between 20-70 Qiraat existed in the Islamic 3rd-4th century, all of now which are obsolete and lost[6].

So even if you take the view that Uthman preserved some ahruf but not others, and you say those ahruf gave rise to 10 Qiraat, you then have to contend with the fact that nearly ALL of the Qiraat are now lost, thanks to your corrupted scholars who only preserved originally 7, and then 3 more. This of course also entails not only has Uthman reduces the Ahruf, but the scholars by losing the Qiraat have most likely lost more parts of the original Ahruf preserved by Uthman.

And yes this is a former-Christian missionary, Shamoun's very own apprentice. But since you can so easily refute the lies of the missionary, then how about you refute anything I've said. ;-)

Bibliography:

[1] http://islamqa.com/en/ref/5142

[2] http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm

[3] Bilal Philips, "Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur'aanic Explanation" PG 165-175

[4] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510

[5] http://answering-islam.org/PQ/notrevealed.htm

[6] http://islamqa.com/en/ref/5142


THINKER1


[PART 1/4]

Dear Derek,

I’m delighted that at least someone has finally attempted to refute my writings- and coming from “a former-Christian missionary, Shamoun's very own apprentice” no less, is very flattering.

However, I’m disappointed at how poor your attempt was.
It does nothing but vividly demonstrate an acute lack of understanding on the topic on your part (that is sadly all too common), so without further ado, allow me to dismantle your posts point by point:

You wrote:

<<< 1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari[1] (And contradicted by nearly all scholars, more on this soon) >>>

And what exactly is your definition of a “dialect’?

My definition of a dialect is that of Webster’s dictionary:

“ a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language” [1]

This definition is entirely consistent with the description of the ahruf that we see not only in the numerous hadiths on the topic narrated from Mohammed and his companions, but that are even represented in Quran manuscripts that date precisely to their time (i.e. the undertext of DAM 01-27-1).

What hadith and/or manuscripts can you present that show that “ahruf” does not equal your as yet unstated definition of “dialects”?

Your quoted reference [1] to reports in Bukhari shows no “direct contradiction” to this definition whatsoever, and the fact that you have failed to elaborate on that claim speaks volumes.

In fact, ironically, the above dictionary definition is also consistent with the definition of ‘ahruf’ given by Islamic scholars on your own reference!:

“...the wording may differ [i.e. vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation] but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction. “
[mine]

<< 2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc.[2] Meaning, all variants, are actually just variants. >>

This claim is even more desperate then it is fallacious.

The hadiths that state that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in 7 dialects are so numerous and well attested that even the very link you quoted in supposed opposition concedes this repeatedly:

“...an independent and probably authentic saying of the Prophet is used, that is, the saying that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf.”

“ The part that is common to these five ahadith is that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. This part is also found in most of the other ahadith we have discussed above and may well be authentic.”

“...the idea of there being seven ahruf is found in ahadith attributed to many companions”

Yet again, bizarrely, you have referenced me to a link that refutes the very point you are trying to make.

The misguided author of your link may have disputes regarding the meaning of these 7 revealed ahruf, yet, as stated above, the nature of the ahruf as being dialects is supported- not just by numerous hadith- but even confirmed in manuscripts dating to the very time of those companions!

What possible evidence do you have- or could you have- that even comes close to rivalling that?

[part 2/4]

You wrote:

<<<3) Even if those hadith permitting variation are authentic, you now created a further problem by your own admission: "the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman".

Uthman had neither permission from Allah, Gabriel nor Mohammed to tamper with the eternal Quran where Gabriel has specifically given orders to Mohammed to recite in seven ways to make it easier on the people. Unfortunately Uthman cannot abrogate the orders of Gabriel. Abrogations must meet certain criterion.[3] >>>

Once more, we have an argument based on ignorance.

Muhammad clearly stated in numerous hadith- such as the one in your first reference that:

“...This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”

In other words, the purpose of revelation in 7 dialects was merely as an initial learning aid to the various Arab tribes of the day.

Muhammad did not command that people must learn or recite the Quran in ALL 7 ways, or in “each way”, nor that the Quran consists of all 7 ahruf combined.

The Quran is *ANY ONE* of the 7 ahruf, thus even if Uthman destroyed 6 ahruf (for example) and kept one, the Quran remains preserved.

And so long as Uthman’s actions preserved the Quran for future genrations, his duty to God and Muhammad is fulfilled, and his destruction of 1, 3, 4, or 6 other dialects constitutes nothing but a red-herring.

[part 3/4]

You wrote:

<<< 4) You failed to mention the facts about the seven ways of recital. Islamic Scholars have produced over 40 different assigned meanings and interpretations of the concept since Mohammed never gave an explicit narration defining what they were. >>

I did indeed fail to mention this, since i often neglect to mention arguments that are based on a statistical lie.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of this subject will know that many of those alleged “40 different assigned meaning” were so similar they were in fact compatible with each other and equally valid.

The remainder were nonsensical and baseless opinions that were never taken seriously by Muslim scholars of past and present.

For example, your referenced site tries to pull this same trick and mentions as one supposed opinion on auruf that:

“Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.”

Unsurprisingly, the author gives no reference for this, so please can you name the Muslim scholar(s) with this view and his/her (their)reasoning behind it?

In fact since you’re so fond of this argument, please can you list me all 40 opinions- fully referenced of course- so we can see exactly how meaningful this claim is?

Or if that’s too hard for you, how about you list me just half of them at 20?

Or perhaps at least just 10? Many thanks in advance.

Yet again, the primary definition of ahruf as dialects consisting of the same Quran yet with different wordings, grammar and pronunciations in places has always been the primary definition of scholars, as is given in the hadith, and as is confirmed in manuscripts dating to the time of the companions.

Or do you have a better definition, Derek? If so, please provide your evidence.

Next you wrote:

<<< Later you say: "Those 7 dialects gave rise to the different readings “qiraat” that Muslims retain today"

Apart from your candid admission that Uthman reduced the seven ahruf, you then proceed to contradict yourself and say the readings gave rise to contemporary Qiraat.

Question: If Uthman reduced the ahruf, then how could there still exist over 10 Qiraat?]. >>


Answer: Because Uthman did not- nor did he ever intend to- eliminate all variant readings based on the different Auruf.

As Bukhari states, Uthman (via Zayd) intended only to write the Quran in the dialect of Qurash, so the vocabulary and spelling of Qurash was used throughout.

In places, this was done at the complete exclusion of others dialectal readings, however, since the vowelisation (dotting) was intentionally left off by Uthman, there are other places where alternative dialectal readings can still be read if different vowels are used (i.e. those readings that are still mainly consistent with the Qurashi wording/constanental text, as dialects do often overlap in certain respects.)

It is such alternative variant readings- based on Uthman’s Qurashi dialect- that largely define the different Qiraat today.

You wrote:

<< You also have to contend with the fact that between 20-70 Qiraat existed in the Islamic 3rd-4th century, all of now which are obsolete and lost[6] >>


As with your claim 3) this is nothing but a red-herring (assuming it’s even true)

Even if a million qiraat were lost in the 3/4th century, this does not touch the Muslim claim of Quranic preservation, since the Quran is not defined as the sum of every dialect or qiraat that has ever existed as you unfortunately seem to think it is.

If just ONE dialect and ONE qiraat of the Quran have been preserved from the mouth of Muhammed, then the Quran has been preserved, and the evidence that at least one has is historically overwhelming.

Finally, while i very much appreciate your posts Derek, i notice that neither you (nor anyone else) has addressed the central issue of this thread- namely Klingschor’s claim that the Quran was corrupted in the time of Abd-Malik and that this is shown by the Sana MSS and the Smarqkand MS that is the supposed “oldest Quran in the word’.

Since this is not your argument, i fully understand that you are not required to defend it, but, as men of truth, will you at least join me in saying that Klingschor should either refute my claims exposing his factual errors, or remove/amend his post/ video on the issue if he cannot?

Best Wishes,
Thinker1


Reference:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialect

DEREK ADAMS

Okay I really can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Let me make clear, if I don't see a rebuttal or a 'dismantling' in your next post, I will not be furthering this discussion.

This is for two reasons, firstly I am involved in many debates, I need people to actually focus and not waste time with semantics and red herrings and obsolete babble, secondly if you claim to dismantle something you need to substantiate this claim with evidence and fact. Now if you retract your comment that you have dismantled anything or if you actually begin to dismantle something, then we can continue. But there is no point in being arrogant unless you really have dismantled what you claim you have.

Your first point was to ask how I define a dialect, which is completely irrelevant to anything, since I am just using the English vernacular. We assume I define 'dialect' how we use the term in the English language, as this is the language we are corresponding in.

Now since I have to take this for you step by step: An acceptable definition was provided by Webster.

But since you still don't understand how this refutes you I will expose you again (at a level you can follow):

“ a REGIONAL VARIETY of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation FROM OTHER REGIONAL VARIETIES and constituting together with them a single language”

Now go back to the website, and reread the report and the conclusion made by the Sheik. Both are said to be of the same tribe (and hence the same region), meaning the differences uttered cannot be dialectical in nature.

Therefore the normative usage of the word 'dialect' does indeed contradict your understanding of ahruf provided by a report in Bukhari. It cannot be 'dialect'.

You also claimed this definition of dialect was CONSISTENT with 'ahruf', apart from contradicting Bukhari, you failed to mention, 'ahruf' is consistent with many number of definitions so that is indeed ANOTHER read herring:

"1) an edge or border; this is the meaning in Qur`an 22:11;

2) a variation, this is the meaning which gives rise to the word tahrif, used in the Qur`an (2:75, 4:46. 5:13, 41);

3) a letter or a word."

You also failed to mention the meaning that you adhere to is NOT consistent with these reports as made clear by the Muslim Author Shafaat again says:

"1) The reliability of the ahadith about seven ahruf is far from being above doubt.

2) The identification of ahruf with variant readings is not supported by most of these ahadith.

3) Not all scholars, probably not even a majority of them, are in agreement with this identification of ahruf with variant readings."

In his article he even goes over the hadith and explains how your particular 'understanding of ahruf' (a variant reading) is contradicted by a number of reports and arguments.

Finally you decided to distort the Sheiks comments by injecting your own interpretation into his words and then adding it in brackets.

If you would have read further down the page you could see what he meant:

"Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction."

And:

"Fourthly:

It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”

So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect.

Next, after you fail to prove 'ahruf' means variant readings, you go on to selectively quote the website I reference and conclude the website refutes my claim, you also assert the website author only has a problem with the meaning of the ahruf.

What can I say to this? I mean this is the sort of stupidity that actually makes me want to stop writing here and now. Even the quotes you cited expose you:

“...an independent and PROBABLY AUTHENTIC saying of the Prophet is used, that is, the saying that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf.”

“ The part that is common to these five ahadith is that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. This part is also found in most of the other ahadith we have discussed above and MAY WELL BE authentic.”

Even after he states his own personal conclusion: "We conclude from the above discussion that in the ahadith about seven ahruf no words or actions attributed to the Prophet are authentic except PROBABLY the bare statement that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. "

The author goes on to say:

"This leads us to the question of the interpretation of ahruf. This question should be raised at two levels: what did the Holy Prophet mean when he said that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf, ASSUMING THE SAYING TO BE? And what do the ahadith mean by seven ahruf? At both levels the question is difficult to answer."

But apart from demonstrating the author is not certain about the authenticity of these narrations, you fail to fully put his perspective in context:

"If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that. Some have suggested that the written text of the Qur`an includes all seven ahruf so that reciting it once automatically implies reciting it in seven ahruf. But if this view is accepted, then there are really no acceptable variants in the Qur`an. It is also suggested that the last double reading abrogated the other six ahruf. There is also the view that the written Qur`an now includes only one of the seven ahruf while other six are transmitted orally. Such views have little explicit support from any of the ahadith."

And:

"The story about Ubayy and the unnamed companion(s), which is not found in Muwatta or Bukhari, has even less claim to authenticity than the story about ‘Umar and Hisham and for some of the same reasons. Ubayy [d. 29 H] belonged to the Ansar tribe of Khazraj. He was one of the first persons of Yathrib to accept Islam. He pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Aqabah around the tenth year of the prophetic ministry or three years before the Hijrah. As noted above during our discussion of the hadith about ‘Umar and Hisham, by this time we expect the idea that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf to be firmly established in the recitation of the Qur`an and to be well known. Moreover, the story talks of “the mosque”, which probably refers to the mosque in Madinah. That means it took place at least about three years after Ubayy’s conversion. By this time Ubayy had enough time to know that there were as many as seven ways to recite the Qur`an. But in the story he is completely surprised by the idea and even feels a denial in his heart for it."

You then go on to say:

"In other words, the purpose of revelation in 7 dialects was merely as an initial learning aid to the various Arab tribes of the day."

After quoting this: “...This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”"

:|

Recite it in the way EASIEST FOR YOU, means the Quran was specifically REVEALED directly to recite it in the easiest way for each person. Uthman cannot abrogate that "recite it in the easiest way for you" is a direct command.

As for the interpretive interpolation "an initial learning aid to various tribes", I laughed out loud. But since Muslims have to add to their sources to get away from brute facts that is when you know the dialogue ends. As for your final straw man about each person having to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS. I never made that argument. But thanks for the straw man, non-sequitor and red herring, three in one.

However you clearly did make a implied claim, each ahruf is THE COMPLETE QUR'AN. Now while each ahruf maybe fully sufficient for the reader adopting that harf, there is no single hadith narration that says each ahruf is the full essence of the Quran and for good reason to.

Even if there were that would be an impossible and logically fallacious claim to make. For several reasons. First, the ahruf cannot be *fully* the Quran to the exclusion of the other Ahruf. If you say the Ahruf is *the full and complete Quran* then you have conceded the other ahruf are not part of that fullness that constitutes the Quran. If you say "one ahruf is the fully what compromises the Quran" you leave out to the exclusion all the other ahruf.

Just like if you were to say "the box is fully empty" then there can be nothing else in that box. Unless of course you admit there is "another fully empty box" which means there is two boxes. In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.

The second and most obvious reason is that the full Quran is in the eternal tablet in heaven. All of the seven ahruf constitute this Quran, this is the full and identical word of God. Meaning lets say if one harf was missing from this tablet, then this could no longer be the Quran, similarly if one harf was missing on the heavenly "revealed" Quran on earth, it could no longer be the full Quran.

Later you say: "Even if a million qiraat were lost in the 3/4th century, this does not touch the Muslim claim of Quranic preservation, since the Quran is not defined as the sum of every dialect or qiraat that has ever existed as you unfortunately seem to think it is." And: "If just ONE dialect and ONE qiraat of the Quran have been preserved from the mouth of Mohammed, then the Quran has been preserved, and the evidence that at least one has is historically overwhelming."

Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.

So now lets re-look at the facts like you ought to have refuted the first time

1) The Angel and the Prophet both give a command "recite in the way easiest for you". The command is then abrogated by Uthman contradicting the will of God, the angel and the prophet. And contradicting the rules of Abrogation as mentioned by Muslim Scholar Bilal Philips.

2) No hadith says "each harf is the FULL Quran"
3) If any hadith did say that, we can see this is a logically fallcious claim and of course incompatible with what Islamic theology says about the 'real' Quran

Later you go on to say: "Anyone with even a basic knowledge of this subject will know that many of those alleged “40 different assigned meaning” were so similar they were in fact compatible with each other and equally valid."

However you also say: "In fact since you’re so fond of this argument, please can you list me all 40 opinions- fully referenced of course- so we can see exactly how meaningful this claim is?"


Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..

Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed), and have shown about four already. These four are all distinct views, the scholars who have read the opinions seem to think they are actually differing opinions. Which is good enough for me since all of the opinions I have read so far are distinct, and believe the rest are according to scholars who have read them.

Now lets go back and look at the original facts I posted:

1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)

2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)

3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)

4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact)

5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.")

6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]

[1]Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi Chapter 11 of An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, pp. 184-202 (1999), Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. Under the title ""The Other Types of Qira'aat"

Thinker1 here is some last observations you ought to think about. As you surely have the capacity to "think".

Firstly. You ought to know better than to misrepresent Shafaat like that, you should accurately be able to detect what arguments I am deriving from the source and why I am using them. You know better than that.

Second, I have caught you in at least two red herrings and two straw man. Make sure to actually adequately read what you are trying to refute as this is time wasting.

The final and most IMPORTANT observation.

Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:

"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence"

Now apart from this claim being completely false. As exposed by the Quran and Bukhari which both assert the Quran was revealed in a tongue to Qurashi, one singular tongue. And then you have the dubious nature of all of the ahruf reports in general (And that's being nice because I haven't even challenged the collection of Bukhari, Muslim and Malik yet).

You also have to think about the other side.

"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text"

Like you, the Christians also have a very unique criterion that they try to make unfalsifiable.

Of course the most important issue is to realize anyone can define their position into existence, and that's exactly what you have done. You have defined the 'ahruf' as you see fit in order to make sure the Quran has not been falsified, and that is the most circular method of all. You also have failed to even call into question the ahruf hadith (and dispute the objections made by Shaafaat), and you also failed to mention why Mohammed forgot to tell Umar for 16 years, and why the earliest source in Muslim history makes no reference to this post-ad hoc explanation of variants.

Follow facts, don't assume your conclusion.

THINKER1 

Derek,

Please find all your points (1-6), along with your conclusion, refuted below.

Since you probably won’t be responding, it’s been nice chatting:

***POINT 1***

<< 1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)>>

This argument is so weak that it is refuted by just 3 words in the famous “Uthman compilation” hadith, also from Bukhari:

“...write it in the *DIALECT OF QURASH*..” [Arabic: harf al-Quarsh]

These words prove that the seven ahruf were in fact defined along tribal lines- and hence regional lines- otherwise the term “dialect *OF QURASH*” would have no meaning.

As for the other Bukhari narration that two Qurahsi’s were disagreeing on how to recite Surat Furquan, are you seriously suggesting that every Arab MUST have learnt every sura in their own dialect- without A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTION?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the Qurashi Ibn Hakeem could have been taught the Quran- or even just that one sura- from a non-Qurashi?

While i obviously agree that most Arab would have learnt the Quran in their own dialect, Islam bought together many Arabs from many tribes, so for you to say that there could NEVER be a SINGLE EXAMPLE of inter-tribal Quran teaching OF A SINGLE SURA is an absurdly weak assumption on your part.

In conclusion, while i have an EXPLICILT STATEMENT from Bukhari proving that Arhruf= regional dialects (i.e. “dialect of Qurash”), you have nothing but a weak assumption to the contrary (i.e that ALL Arabs CAN ONLY learn EVERY SURA in their own dialect).

Now on what planet does “weak assumption” from Bukhari trump “explicit statement” in Bukhari?

***POINT 2***

<<<2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)>>>

Here you claim that i “selectively quote” your website and that in doing so “even the quotes you cited expose you”.

Really Derek??

Well let’s compare the exact words of your claim with the exact words of your favourite website on these hadith and see who really ends up exposed..

You describe the hadith on the 7 ahruf as: “dubious and probably ad hoc”

My quote reveals that the author’s actual view on those hadith is: “probably authentic”

On what planet does “dubious” = “probably authentic”?

Do you even know what the word “dubious” means, or do i need to link you to our favourite Webster’s dictionary again?

And on what planet does the author’s “probably authentic” = your “probably ad hoc”?

I think this transcends the realms of “stupidity” into retardation.

As for the authors so called “key arguments” that you are so mesmerised by, let’s take a closer look:

<<“ It is related from Abu Hurayrah: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur`an with the Prophet once a year....
If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that.”>>

“no indication” of that? Is that all?

And where does that same hadith provide any “indication” that Gabrial was reciting the Quran every year in strictly ONE dialect?

None whatsoever, so all you have here is a fallacious argument from silence.

The bottom line is that this particular hadith says NOTHING on the issue either way, however, we know from NUMEROUS other hadith narrated from (according to the author) “many companions” that are “probably authentic” that Gabrial DID previously recited the Quran in 7 dialects, so why assume that this time was any different?

Most logically, it was the same rather than not.

Furthermore, in your extreme bias, it seems you have been completely fooled by the obscene hypocrisy of the author’s logic here.

He (supposedly) expects us to reject ALL the hadith on the 7 dialects -even though they are “probably authentic” and “narrated from at least ten companions” because:

“No single form of the hadith goes back to more than a few companions. We need therefore to examine the authenticity of each form separately.”

But if that’s the case, how many companions narrated THIS hadith on Gabrial reciting the quran every year?

How many different companions narrated his “Ubayy and his unnamed companions” hadith?

Why doesn’t he reject THOSE two hadith on the same criteria, instead of the dozens on the 7 ahruf??

This is nothing but a gross double-standard where the bar of evidence is kept stringently sky-high for ALL the ‘7 ahruf’ hadith, but kept down in the gutter for any single hadith that APPEARS to go against them.

What a laughable nonsense.

Finally, you then ignore the manuscript evidence (that the author was oblivious to) which i find dishonest, but understandable.

As i told you repeatedly the type of variants attributed to the different pre-Uthmanic dialects in the hadith are of the exact same nature of those variants found in the undertext of DAM 01.27.1 that has been carbon-14 dated to around the time of Uthman.

Those variants were then destroyed and written over with the Uthmanic text we have today- just as the hadith state they were.

This is manuscript **PROOF** that such hadith on the
existence, nature and fate of the 7 dialects are emphatically vindicated and proved historically accurate.

And yet you still deny their authenticity??

***PONIT 3***

<<<3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)>>

This is where we observe an impressive trinity of ignorance, confusion desperation on your part.

First to your confusion: You accuse me of a straw-man for allegedly claiming that you argued that “each person has to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS,” but then you state:

“No hadith says each harf is the FULL Quran"

So what exactly are you claiming then? Please make up your mind.

If any one harf is NOT the full Quran, then this can only imply that ALL 7 ahruf are the “full Quran”, yet you deny both!

What do you believe, and where is YOUR hadith to back that up?

The only question at hand here is: What constitutes ‘the Quran’ in terms of the 7 ahruf?

This is made explicit with the hadith which you are clearly ignorant of:

...Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in WHICHEVER DIALECT they recite, THEY WILL BE CORRECT.
(Muslim no.1787)

This clearly states (as i said) that every and any one dialect is the FULL QURAN, yet you object in saying:

<<"In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.">

Finally we see your desperation in all its glory.

If you want to say its “seven Qurans” as opposed to seven dialects of the same Quran, then go ahead. That’s just childish semantics that i have no time for.

Either way as long as one dialect or “one quran” has been preserved, then the Quran has been preserved, and that is all that matters rather than your red-herring of how you choose to label things.

As for Uthman not having divine permission to reduce the scope of dialectal variants, Ok, let me concede that argument to you and we’ll see where that gets you:

Uthman had no right to destroy the other dialects, and he’s and bad, bad man who committed a bad, bad sin, for which i’m sure Allah will punish him.

So now what?

How does that admission show that the Quran of Uthman we have today is not a Quran Muhammad would consider correct?

Again, since Muhammad explicitly said Muslims can recite in “whichever dialect” and “STILL BE CORRECT”, this proves that Uthman’s destruction of other dialects has no bearing on Quranic preservation- so long as just ONE harf survived.

And both oral and manuscript evidence scream that it did.

<"The second and most obvious reason is that the full Quran is in the eternal tablet in heaven">>>

Once more we have an argument from ignorance.

Please go and read the hadith and you will see that the tablet is not just about the Quran, but a record of every event and detail of human destiny, thus containing all aspects of the Quran and all books whether preserved on earth or not.

***PONIT 4***

<<<4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact) >>>

I already refuted that in relation to point 3).

Even if other Qiraat were lost after Uthman in the “3/4th century”, so long as ONE harf and ONE qiraat are preserved from Muhammed, the Quran is preserved, so this is a red-herring.

Your only response was:

“Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.”

Which ironically, only shows how desperate YOU really are in giving no meaningful rebuttal.

However, despite your lack of any mature response on this, allow me to refute this even further- even though you have yet to provide any credible evidence for this “undisputed fact”.

The claim that some Qiraat we destroyed in 3/4th century (i.e. 9th /10th century CE), is beyond ignorant since there are literally HUNDRENDS of Quran manuscripts from the 7th/8th century that essentially conform to the current text.

So please can you point to any such 7th/8th CE manuscript of your choice and tell me the qiraat of any verse you think was destroyed in the 9th/10th century, along with your evidence?

Many thanks..

In fact, just to educate you further on this, there are even c.7th century MSS were its qiraat can be identified (dispite its lack of vowels), such as Arabe 328a in Paris which is in the canonical reading of ibn Amir (as opposed to the most common Haf of today).

Other c.7th century MSS like Or. 2165 in London are reckoned to be in the non-canonical reading of Himsi, thus proving that we know what kind of qiraat may have been destroyed in the 3/4th century, just like we know what kind of variants were destroyed by Uthman via DAM 01-27-1.

In both cases, sadly for people like you, the nature of destryoed varients are very unspectacular.

***POINT 5***

<<< 5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.") >>>

As mentioned in my refutation of your point 1) the words “dialect of Qurash” that you quote ironically demolishes your entire argument that the ahruf are not regional dialects.

Uthman’s words of “revealed in their tough” does not mean the Quran was ONLY revealed in the Qurashi dialect, but simply that it was ORGINALLY revealed to Muhammad in that dialect, since that was his own.

This is explicitly stated in the hadith on that issue that explain how Gabriel first revealed the Quran in one dialect (i.e. the Qurashi of Muhammed), and only later added more dialects upon Muhammad’s plea that “my **NATION/PEOPLE** are not capable of this”

The mention of “nation/people” shows how Muhammad was considering all Arabs, and hence all regions- hence the need for more DIALECTS.

Furthermore, if you read that hadith properly, the whole purpose of Uthman selecting the “dialect of Qurash” was to settle the differences in recitation between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq who were taught by Ubyy ibn Ka’b (from the tribe of Khrazja) and Ibn Masuud (Thaqif tribe)
respectively, hence yet further proof that the differences in recitation were due to REGIONAL differences, and hence dialects.

[Point 5 cont below]

On my challenging you to list the so-called "40 opinions" you wrote:

<<"Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..">>>

Of course i haven’t read the “40 opinions” because i can’t read what doesn’t exist- hence my reference to them as the *ALLEDGED* 40 opinions (if you were paying attention).

My claim that many of the alleged ‘40 opinions’ would be compatible (if they existed) is based on the fact that this is true of the multiple 10 or so opinions i do know of.

YOU are the one who claimed there **ARE** 40 opinions, so you are the one who now looks like a dishonest “ignoramus” for not being able to back up even half that number!

In fact, having been embarrassingly exposed, you are now forced to admit:

<<<"Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed)">>>

So you claimed 40, but have only read “about ten”!! And it gets worse...

The “about 10” are actually 8, mentioned on your Shafaat site as (I-VIII) ,since all these 8 encompass the other few definitions on the QA site.

Now of those 8, the very first shaaft mentions is (surprise, surprise!) my favoured opinion of:

“Ahruf means dialects”, a view he even describes as “most plausible”

This now leaves just 7 opposing opinions which are:

1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an

2) Ahruf means synonyms

3) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,

4) Ahruf means different ways of pronunciation

5) Ahruf means variant readings

6) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.

7) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood.

However opinions 2), 4) and 5) are all compatible with the favoured ‘dialects’ opinion, which is precisely what i was saying.

This now only leaves just 4 opposing opinions of:

1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an

2) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,

3) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.

4) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood

Options 1) and 3) have no reference to them whatsoever, and are both nameless and baseless.

I even asked you to provide a reference/evidence for 3), and you predictably failed.

Opinion 2) is based solely on narrations from Tabari which are almost certainly weak, as he even admits in his intro.
Please can you provide their full isnads so we can securitize them to the same high standard that Shaaft tried to do with the “7 dialects” hadith in his paper??

I’m afraid I will need to see a “single form that goes back to more than a few companions” ;-)

This thus leaves just TWO opinions (DOWN FROM 40!) of :

1) Ahruf = dialects (and the other opinions that encompasses)

2)The meaning cannot be understood.

Now given all the evidence from the hadith, CONTEMPARY MANUSCRIPTS, and scholars, i would say we CAN know what ahruf mean, and that excludes option 2) .

This was always the most obvious meaning, yet people like you try to deceptively cast doubt on that with lies of “40 opinions”. Shame on you.

As for scholarly support, you wrote:

<< So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect. >>

But different dialects would include “different words, synonyms” etc!

So the only dispute between me and the sheik is on the ORIGIN of those differences (i.e. from different regions of not?), not on the NATURE of the ahruf which we agree.

I say the word differences are regional (with all my evidence), he says they are not. That issue is largely irrelevant.

***POINT 6***

<<6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]>>

No one disputes there have existed fake qiraat, and no one disputes there have existed genuine qiraat that no longer exist (i.e. from the other ahruf).

The bottom line is that Muslims have an oral tradition AND manuscript tradition that both go back to the eyewitness and very companions of Muhammad himself, and that’s how we know Muhammed would agree with every word of today’s Quran.

That’s also why none of the thousands of MSS that exist from that time till today contain any serious or intentional variants worth talking about.

***YOUR CONCLUSION***

You wrote:

<<<"The final and most IMPORTANT observation.

Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:

"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence">>>


Utter rubbish.

All you have to do to falsify the Muslim claim of preservation to me is to show from Quran manuscripts that the Quran has been as poorly preserved throughout history as we know the Bible has from biblical manuscripts.

In fact just to prove what that entails and why you’re wrong, here’s a simple challenge for you:

Please show me the 3 most serious MANUSCRIPT variants you can find in the Quran.

Since almost all the hundreds of earliest Quran MSS from the 7th/8th centuries in existence have either been published in the West, exist in the West, or examined by western scholars, this shouldn’t prove too hard.

I would like to know:

1) What the variant is in both Arabic and English- AND HOW IT EFFECTS THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE.

2) How many other manuscript of the Quran contain that same variant.

3) What those MSS are, when they date from, and where they are located.

If you can show me a single, serious and intentional manuscript variant that managed to fool a significant portion of Muslims, for a significant ammount of time at any point in history after Uthman into thinking it was genuine Quran, then i will happily conceded the argument.

I can most certainly do the same with the Bible in 5 minutes.

But unfortunately for you, you’ll only find that Quran MSS show how strong the oral tradition (which the bible never had... Oh, expect for with John 3:16!) is which, in turn, is reflected in the manuscript tradition.

The Quran has HUNDERDS of MSS from the first 7th/8th century.

The NT has less than 10 (tiny) MSS from the 1/2nd century.

Even if you include the sizable MSS from the 3rd/4th centuries onwards all you get is a mess of SERIOUS AND INTENTIONAL variants to the point where Christians have never, in places, agreed on what the “word of God” is supposed to be- and still can’t today (e.g. Mark 16:9-20)

All I’m asking is that you show me the same with the Quran’s manuscripts.

You wrote:

<<"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text">>

As you admit, this is unfailsiable, yet my view on the Quran (as above) is not.

The message of the Bible (and Quran) is that it is inerrant.

When Christians can't, and never have, been able to agree on what the Bible even is- because of variants- then it cannot be inerrant and its “message” is not preserved.

Good Luck.



P.S. As for your comments on Naik, Deedat etc, I fully agree that they have been guilty of embarrassing errors.

However, if you won’t be asking Klingschor to remove/amend his errors (despite your agreement with me that he is indeed in error), then you equally cannot complain about such Muslim apologists who propagate misinformation either.

Anyone who is guilty of spreading mistruth should correct their actions (which now includes you).

The reason i am singling out Klingschor on this as opposed to Naik and co is because I believe- as he does- that he is superior to them in both academic prowess and intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately however, his lack of engagement on this particular issue gives me good cause to reconsider that view. 

LATEST RESPONSE  (7/3/12)

***POINT 1***

Thinker1 said:

“This argument is so weak that it is refuted by just 3 words in the famous “Uthman compilation” hadith, also from Bukhari:...write it in the *DIALECT OF QURASH*..” [Arabic: harf al-Quarsh] These words prove that the seven ahruf were in fact defined along tribal lines- and hence regional lines- otherwise the term “dialect *OF QURASH*” would have no meaning.”

It’s funny how you think one hadith refutes another. Posting a hadith that you think contradicts the hadith I quoted only proves the hadith are unreliable sources in the first place. So I appreciate that.

But what is funny is that you think the Uthmanic compilation hadith supports you, read it again : 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE."

Note the phrase is not “The Quran was ORIGINALLY  revealed in their tongue” The authority to write ALL of the copies in Quraish was because the Quraish was the very REVEALED LANGUAGE of the Quran. If the Quran was revealed in another dialect then Uthman could have just have easily as said: “write it in the dialect of (whatever dialect), the Quran was REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE”. What this means is that Quraish HAD to be the only language the Quran was revealed in, or Uthman could have appealed to any one of the seven Ahruf.

Next more strawman and distortions:

“As for the other Bukhari narration that two Qurahsi’s were disagreeing on how to recite Surat Furquan, are you seriously suggesting that every Arab MUST have learnt every sura in their own dialect- without A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTION?”

“Are you seriously suggesting that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the Qurashi Ibn Hakeem could have been taught the Quran- or even just that one sura- from a non-Qurashi?”

First it’s funny how earlier you said ONE HARF is sufficient, one harf is the complete Quran. Now you are advocating the inter-mixing of the Ahruf. If one harf is sufficient, then having omitted parts of that one harf and random parts of other Ahruf, obviously cannot be accepted. If one harf is sufficient, then taking away from that harf and mixing other parts of random Ahruf is insufficient.

This is confirmed by one of the very hadith in question.

Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, in his "Mu'atta", Umar ibn al-Khattaab (ra) says:

"I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem ibn Hezaam reciting Surah Al-Furqaan [while leading prayers] in a manner different from the way I recited it, and the way the Prophet (pbuh) himself had taught me to recite it. I was about to grab him immediately, and then I decided to give him some time to complete his prayers. At that time I grabbed him by his stole/shawl and pulled him to the Prophet (pbuh). I said to the Prophet (pbuh): O Prophet I heard him recite Surah Al-Furqaan in a different manner than the one that you taught me. The Prophet (pbuh) directed me to let go of him, and then directed Hishaam to recite the Surah. Hishaam recited it in the same way he was reciting it during his prayers. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of his recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then the Prophet (pbuh) directed me to recite the Surah. Then I recited the Surah [as I knew it]. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of my recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then added: The Qur'an was revealed in 'sab`ah ahruf' you can read it according to THE ONE which is suitable for you." 

Here is an explicit command to read the Quran according to the one harf that is suitable for you. Not to integrate the harf and change which harf to read as you go along. The purpose of the Ahruf is explicitly stated.

Second, the dispute wasn’t about being taught “from a non-Qurashi”, since if both were taught in Quraish, and one were taught in an additional harf by a non-Qurashi, then one of them would have easily known that the Quran have various Ahruf.  In this report both of them are “ignorant” of these Ahruf. Plus you didn’t read the report correctly, since Umar said he learn’t DIRECTLY from Mohammed, and hence went to Mohammed to resolve the dispute.

Third this contradicts the stated purpose of the Ahruf. The purpose of the Ahruf is to “recite it in the way that is easiest for you”. The easiest way for two Quraish men wouldn’t be to recite in a different “dialect” since they were Quraish. So it makes no sense that Mohammed would teach them differently when they are from the same tribe, unless of course the Ahruf are simply not dialects, or not limited to the confines of a dialect (which means they are not strictly dialects).

“so for you to say that there could NEVER be a SINGLE EXAMPLE of inter-tribal Quran teaching OF A SINGLE SURA is an absurdly weak assumption on your part.”

I agree, that would be an unsound assumption. An assumption and claim I never made. My assumption is that Umar learn’t directly from Mohammed. Umar is said to have become Muslim in 616C.E. Hisham most likely 630C.E. What this means is for all of this “inter-tribal mixing and surah reciting” that you’re suggesting, Umar had never before heard another harf. This could mean various things:

1. Umar was anti-social and never went to the Mosque or spoke with a person from a different tribe or even his own tribe! (not once in 14-16 years?)
2. The report is authentic and evidence that Mohammed fabricated a story to cover for variants.
3. Mohammed only introduced variants after the conquest at Makkah (contradicted else where)
4. The report is not authentic (even though it has multiple attestation)

All of this from the most “sound collection of authentic hadith(bukhari)” in Muslim sources *chuckle*.

In conclusion, while i have an EXPLICILT STATEMENT from Bukhari proving that Quraish HAD to be the only language the Quran was revealed in or Uthman could have appealed to any one of the seven Ahruf for his authority to write his copies in those dialects if they were revealed in those tongues aswell. You have nothing but straw men, attempts to show contradictions in Bukhari, stretching interpretations of Bukhari and directly contradict your own reasoning and the prophet’s command for each person to recite in one harf, the easiest harf for them.

 ***POINT 2***

Again selectively citing the website you say:

“You describe the hadith on the 7 ahruf as: “dubious and probably ad hoc” My quote reveals that the author’s actual view on those hadith is: “probably authentic” On what planet does “dubious” = “probably authentic”?

What is funny here is that you are deliberately distorting the context of both of our quotes, and it’s shameless. While I was referring to the general state and condition of those hadith as “dubious”. Shafaat was referring to the specific portions of the hadith:

“We conclude from the above discussion that in the ahadith about seven ahruf no words or actions attributed to the Prophet are authentic except probably the bare statement that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. “

Quote mining won’t work and it’s a dishonest tactic.

Next you say: 

"If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that.”

“no indication” of that? Is that all?

And where does that same hadith provide any “indication” that Gabrial was reciting the Quran every year in strictly ONE dialect?”

Now I can answer this one. It might help to read what you just quoted:

 “ It is related from Abu Hurayrah: Gabriel used to repeat THE RECITATION of the Qur`an with the Prophet once a year....”

The text here presupposes “the recitation” meaning “one recitation” a singular recitation. It’s important to read what you quote. You should be able to follow this as the same hadith says “the recitation of THE QURAN”  meaning “a singular Quran” and no other.

Later you say:

”Why doesn’t he reject THOSE two hadith on the same criteria, instead of the dozens on the 7 ahruf?? This is nothing but a gross double-standard where the bar of evidence is kept stringently sky-high for ALL the ‘7 ahruf’ hadith, but kept down in the gutter for any single hadith that APPEARS to go against them.”

Well I can’t speak for him. But here is how I would answer you. He has already made it clear that he thinks the bare minimum of “seven Ahruf” is probably authentic. The reason why he rejects the rest of the extended accounts is because while all the versions contain the “seven Ahruf” element, none of the versions are consistent about the exact nature of these Ahruf. Case in point the report with Hisham and Umar (that he also mentions). He also gives many other reasons (some of which we are still discussing).

You then say:

“As i told you repeatedly the type of variants attributed to the different pre-Uthmanic dialects in the hadith are of the exact same nature of those variants found in the undertext of DAM 01.27.1 that has been carbon-14 dated to around the time of Uthman. Those variants were then destroyed and written over with the Uthmanic text we have today- just as the hadith state they were.”

And you conclude:

 “This is manuscript **PROOF** that such hadith on the existence, nature and fate of the 7 dialects are emphatically vindicated and proved historically accurate.”

The first problem is the “historically reliable” hadith that you are referring to e.g. the Uthmanic compilation does not advocate (as shown above) your view. Yes it asserts the Quranic copies were written down in Quraish and all others were destroyed. The hadith even confirms the existences of conflict and differences. However the hadith does not identify the exact nature of those differences, other hadith attempt to (though they fail). 

Next, it’s quite laughable the absurd reasoning you use. Aside from showing these hadith are not consistent and continuously contradictory (discrediting the nature of these hadith) it’s also been shown the meaning of the Ahruf  hadith are confusing and ambigious, giving rise to multiple intepretations. The single interpretation of “dialect” is a gigantic ignoramus claim to make even as Sheik Yasir Qadhi said: "it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."

You also make it sound as though it’s one big miracle that Muslims in the 9^th/10^th century would have known about a standardized Quran and the destruction of the previous Quran. The destruction of the Quran and the sending of one companion to each region would have been universal knowledge. In fact that is something you would expect would be remembered due to the act being so controversial and wide scale.

   

***POINT 3***

You said:

 “If any one harf is NOT the full Quran, then this can only imply that ALL 7 ahruf are the “full Quran”, yet you deny both!”

I never denied the seven Ahruf are the full Quran. I specifically said: “I never said every Muslim must recite the full Quran(all of the ahruf).”

But this is not a relevant question. The question is DO YOU HAVE THE FULL QURAN, and you don’t.

Next you quote a hadith:

”...Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in WHICHEVER DIALECT they recite, THEY WILL BE CORRECT.
(Muslim no.1787)"

 And conclude:

This clearly states (as i said) that every and any one dialect is the FULL QURAN, yet you object in saying:”

This is boring. I had already said earlier “Not every Muslim must recite the seven Ahruf”, what this hadith confirms is exactly what I had said. Muslims are to choose one harf and that will be acceptable. However you assert that since ONE HARF is sufficient (for a believer to recite) therefore they ARE reciting the full Quran. Not only does THIS HADITH and no other hadith make that claim (as I mentioned before), I also already mentioned several reasons why that would be a logically fallacious and theologically untenable claim. To which you decide to respond as follows:

“If you want to say its “seven Qurans” as opposed to seven dialects of the same Quran, then go ahead. That’s just childish semantics that i have no time for. “

After realizing your inability to respond (meaning you must also join with me in saying this), you conclude this is silly semantics. As I pointed out this is not silly semantics, but rather this is a logical necessity. This is an inescapable conclusion.

You cannot say “each harf is fully the Quran” without implying seven Qurans. In fact let me illustrate this reasoning for you. According to Muslim criticisms of the Trinity, if the Father is fully God, and the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God, then there are THREE DISTINCT GODS. Likewise if each harf is fully the Quran, then there are SEVEN DISTINCT QURANS.

You also say: 

“Please go and read the hadith and you will see that the tablet is not just about the Quran, but a record of every event and detail of human destiny, thus containing all aspects of the Quran and all books whether preserved on earth or not.”

 

Thank you for the red herring. Since the point wasn’t that the tablet contained a full recording, rather that the tablet contains the Quran in all seven modes, the full Quran. But I don’t even need to use the example of the tablet. The clear unequivocal truth is that according to Islam the Quran is eternal, and it is not eternal in the sense that it was part of God’s foreknowledge, rather it is the literal kalema(word and speech) of God.

The eternal Quran consists of seven Ahruf which means the full Quran is only and can only be the Quran that has all seven Ahruf. This Quran was the very same Quran revealed by Gabriel to Mohammed, the very Quran that Uthman destroyed.

Now apart from the uninspired Uthman acting in treason (notice if a kufr destroyed a Quran it wouldn’t be acceptable), you also have to contend with the fact that Uthman destroyed the Eternal Speech of God. How is it possible an unchanging, eternal word of God can be abrogated and burnt by Uthman?

I’ll leave that one for your scholars. Since they can’t use the old canard “We gave the Jews the responsibility”, no they must account for the fact that the eternal word of God the Quran itself that cannot be changed, was actually destroyed by a Muslim.

You then say: 

“As for Uthman not having divine permission to reduce the scope of dialectal variants, Ok, let me concede that argument to you and we’ll see where that gets you: Uthman had no right to destroy the other dialects, and he’s and bad, bad man who committed a bad, bad sin, for which i’m sure Allah will punish him.

So now what?

How does that admission show that the Quran of Uthman we have today is not a Quran Muhammad would consider correct?”

I don’t think I’ve ever argued that the contemporary Quran is a recital Mohammed would not approve of. 

I’ve only argued it’s incomplete. I would also point out not every variant is approved by Mohammed (that would be impossible to substantiate).

I’ve mentioned other difficulties throughout my posts (above) but let me mention one more.

According to the Quran:

 15:9 “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.”

Now this is a passage in the very Quran itself. Presumably when it says it will protect itself it is not referring to one harf of itself, rather it’s complete self.

If it is referring to itself in the sense of the Quran as it stand s in heaven, then it is only referring to the heavenly Quran being protected, contradicting the Muslim view that the Quran they possess on earth is protected by Allah. 

This also creates a divide; there is one Quran in heaven, and one Quran on earth. And only one is being protected.

However if we say that the verse “15:9” is referring to a singular harf then which harf is it referring to? And how we do know which one it means? Then of course this invokes the whole task of splitting the passages of the Quran to identify whether it’s referring to All of itself (all seven Ahruf) or parts of itself (one harf or another), this makes a shambles out of the Quran.

Of course this is even made further problematic by the problem that Shafaat has already pointed out earlier. The Quran makes no mention of these seven Ahruf at all. Which we would expect to since it does mention the clear and ambiguous passages, then we would expect it to reveal the other mysteries of itself.

***POINT 4***

You say:

"Even if other Qiraat were lost after Uthman in the “3/4th century”, so long as ONE harf and ONE qiraat are preserved from Muhammed, the Quran is preserved, so this is a red-herring." 

“Which ironically, only shows how desperate YOU really are in giving no meaningful rebuttal.”

I don’t need to rebut anything I have already substantiated. The burden of proof is on you to prove that one harf constitutes the Quran. When you have shown that you then need to reconcile the logical and theological dilemmas I’ve mentioned. 

But you also have to contend with the fact that no hadith supports your position. No hadith says “one harf is the Quran”. The hadith you recited supports my position that one harf is sufficient for reading, but never states that one harf is the Quran.

Next you say:

 “The claim that some Qiraat we destroyed in 3/4th century (i.e. 9th /10th century CE), is beyond ignorant since there are literally HUNDREDS of Quran manuscripts from the 7th/8th century that essentially conform to the current text.”

As for the evidence firstly the historical reports were already provided by the Sheik. But as for your assertion I never said the Qiraat in the 3^rd4/th century were destroyed, I argued they were lost e.g. they weren’t preserved.

The proof of that comes from today and history. Today there are 10 Qiraats. Why are there only 10 Qiraats? History answers this. The famous Muslim Scholars and Reciters preserved and standardized certain readings, Ibn Mujhaid preserved “7” famous readings. The readings that were not preserved were left out. No one knows the exact number, we only have reports that number between 20-70 readings have not being standardized and hence lost.

Next in your attempt to “educate” me, you end up “vindicating” me (the irony):

“there are even c.7th century MSS were its qiraat can be identified (dispite its lack of vowels), such as Arabe 328a in Paris which is in the canonical reading of ibn Amir (as opposed to the most common Haf of today).

Other c.7th century MSS like Or. 2165 in London are reckoned to be in the non-canonical reading of Himsi, thus proving that we know what kind of qiraat may have been destroyed in the 3/4th century, just like we know what kind of variants were destroyed by Uthman via DAM 01-27-1. “

 I appreciate you confirming the evidence for my position.

 ***POINT 5***
You say: 

“As mentioned in my refutation of your point 1) the words “dialect of Qurash” that you quote ironically demolishes your entire argument that the ahruf are not regional dialects.”

Uthman’s words of “revealed in their tough” does not mean the Quran was ONLY revealed in the Qurashi dialect, but simply that it was ORGINALLY revealed to Muhammad in that dialect, since that was his own.”

Since I’ve already exposed this fabrication, I won’t go over it again.

But you do appeal to provide a contradiction in the corpus:

“This is explicitly stated in the hadith on that issue that explain how Gabriel first revealed the Quran in one dialect (i.e. the Qurashi of Muhammed), and only later added more dialects upon Muhammad’s plea that “my **NATION/PEOPLE** are not capable of this”

Which I appreciate.

Now you humiliate yourself further:

“Furthermore, if you read that hadith properly, the whole purpose of Uthman selecting the “dialect of Qurash” was to settle the differences in recitation between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq who were taught by Ubyy ibn Ka’b (from the tribe of Khrazja) and Ibn Masuud (Thaqif tribe) respectively, hence yet further proof that the differences in recitation were due to REGIONAL differences, and hence dialects.”

Yes except for the fact Syria and Iraq were not different factions of the same umbrella of tribes, meaning they weren’t dialectical. Plus the differences that arose were not DUE to the “regions” themselves but BECAUSE each companion that was sent to a different region TAUGHT the region in his own harf, completely disproving the notion that the REGIONAL differences were based on DIALECT. Rather the differences were based on the companions who were MAINLY QURAISH (as an example was already shown).

[Point 5 cont below]

“Of course i haven’t read the “40 opinions” because i can’t read what doesn’t exist- hence my reference to them as the *ALLEDGED* 40 opinions (if you were paying attention).”

As Suyooti doesn’t exist? Right I got it. We don’t have his works. My bad. Sorry Sheik you got it wrong, ask THINKER1

Now here is the interesting part: 

“My claim that many of the alleged ‘40 opinions’ would be compatible (if they existed) is based on the fact that this is true of the multiple 10 or so opinions i do know of.”

Well lets look into this you say:

 “However opinions 2), 4) and 5) are all compatible with the favoured ‘dialects’ opinion, which is precisely what i was saying.”

Of course they are compatible at the surface level. We are discussing ACTUAL opinions however. I had already quoted more from the Sheik on synonyms. He believes in his understanding that the his view of the synomns is distinct to the dialect view. Showing these two views are different and not totally compatible.

Next you say: 

“Options 1) and 3) have no reference to them whatsoever, and are both nameless and baseless. I even asked you to provide a reference/evidence for 3), and you predictably failed.”

“Opinion 2) is based solely on narrations from Tabari which are almost certainly weak, as he even admits in his intro.”

We had already refuted this, again the Sheik says: 

“Fourthly: It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).” 

Finally you end up with options 1&2 which I partially agree with.

Now since I’ve already provided a good case that the hadith is not supporting your position of dialects (or it is atleast contradicting itself), and the extant manuscripts have nothing to do with the meaning of “Ahruf” I will say option 2.

“This was always the most obvious meaning, yet people like you try to deceptively cast doubt on that with lies of “40 opinions”. Shame on you.”

We are pointing out the obvious. “Ahruf” is not the Arabic word for dialect. It’s meaning is vastly defined differently, it has multiple meanings. And all the reports have ambiguities or conflictions. The only dishonest deceptive snake is the person who Yasir describes as a person who is “certain that one position is true”, while the only thing we can be certain of is that we don’t know the exact meaning.

Oh and the differences between you and the Sheik are not irrelevant, when defining what “Ahruf” are.

  

***POINT 6***

Lastly you confess:

“No one disputes there have existed fake qiraat, and no one disputes there have existed genuine qiraat that no longer exist (i.e. from the other ahruf).”

But also say: 

“That’s also why none of the thousands of MSS that exist from that time till today contain any serious or intentional variants worth talking about.”

***YOUR CONCLUSION***

Finally you say: 

“All you have to do to falsify the Muslim claim of preservation to me is to show from Quran manuscripts that the Quran has been as poorly preserved throughout history as we know the Bible has from biblical manuscripts. In fact just to prove what that entails and why you’re wrong, here’s a simple challenge for you:

And

“If you can show me a single, serious and intentional manuscript variant that managed to fool a significant portion of Muslims, for a significant ammount of time at any point in history after Uthman into thinking it was genuine Quran, then i will happily conceded the argument.”

So while denying my claim that you have put Islam into a non-falsifiable position you end up supporting my claim by making this very statement.

My claim has never been that the Quran was intentionally changed on purpose and someone had duped Muslims into believing it something was part of the Quran. My claim was Uthman, his cronies and the scholars in the 3^rd/4^th century have managed to destroy and lose readings and verses of the Quran. My charge is always been the Quran is incomplete, this is the sense in which the Quran was “changed, you don't have the original Quran in this sense..

But what is really brought to light here is your criterion: “If something is thought to be part of a divine scripture and added to that divine scripture and it turns out it is not part of that divine scripture then that scripture is corrupted”.

Now how can you assert this is this the only way to falsify a scripture from God? When I’ve given you a perfectly sound argument from surah 15:9 showing you other ways to falsify the Quran.

You said: 

<<"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text">> As you admit, this is unfailsiable, yet my view on the Quran (as above) is not.”

Actually this view is not technically unfalsifable, it is just unfalsifiable to us. Likewise the standard you make for the Quran is unfalsifable to us. When there are plenty of good other criterion to test the Quran and Bible by yet the believers are coming up with criterion so out of reach that it cannot be falsified.

An example would be. I could falsify this view of the Christian Scripture, if I were to show the extant MSS and autographs were different. Another way would be if the manuscripts from the first and second century significantly contradicted extant MSS known to us.

You also said:

“The message of the Bible (and Quran) is that it is inerrant.”

Traditionally in Christianity the content is inerrant, that which is inspired not the preservation. God can preserve his book how he wants to, it’s his own prerogative. His scriptural preservation is inerrant, but he can uses errant vessels to bring forth an inerrant scripture. Just like supposedly in Islam God can also use scribes who make copyist errors as well.

“When Christians can't, and never have, been able to agree on what the Bible even is- because of variants- then it cannot be inerrant and its “message” is not preserved.”

Actually all of those Christians who can’t “agree” on what the Bible is still all agree the NT is scripture. And they all agree, Jesus is God and was crucified etc.

I don’t find this very convincing. As for the KJVonlyists, they accept the KJV Bible alone, some even go far as rejecting the TR. But taking what they all have in common, they accept passages that are not found in the earliest MSS. Yet KJVonlyists are not considered part of the mainstream, Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic. They are more like a bottom of the lake protestant sect.

Apart from that one (very new) group, every denomination in Christianity unanimously accept the same New Testament. It’s hard to say what your criterion for accepting the preservation of the NT and the Quran is.

It seems you expect the NT to be like the Quran. Meaning have the NT collected by the disciples of Jesus. Then having the third disciple (who is shepherd over the others, and remains alive since the first two have died) burn and torture alternative Aramaic/Greek readings to finally have the parts of the preserved version finally be lost by Christian scholars such as Augustine and Athanasius  in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries.

If that’s what you want the New Testament to look like I don’t know what to tell you.

Finally you say:

“The reason I am singling out Klingschor on this as opposed to Naik and co is because I believe- as he does- that he is superior to them in both academic prowess and intellectual honesty.”

You dam straight. And I am also superior seeing that I said if I made the mistake, I would personally take it back, but I don’t expect others to, and believe he shouldn’t until you beseech Muslims to do likewise. Show me an e-mail of you rebuking Naik and Deedat to any random Muslim on youtube who have their videos up and I'll certainly tell Kling to take down his post.