Copied from Reddit.

Both Muhammad’s Favorite Wife (Aisha) and the Second Caliph (Umar) Testified That a Verse Was Removed from the Qur'an.

Muslims are fond of boasting that the koran is a perfectly preserved book. However all the historical evidence from most trusted sources show that this claim is simply nonsense.
There are many missing verses from the koran, but the most famous one is called the verse of the Rajam (Stoning of adulterers)

Indeed, the fact that the Qur’an once had, but no longer contains a verse decreeing that adulterers should be stoned is confirmed by two authorities whom muslims have no choice but to believe:

1 .Muhammad’s successor as the Commander of the Faithful, Umar (reigned 634-644 CE) who said:

“Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam the stoning of married persons”

(Sahih Bukhari 8:82:817)

2 And Muhammad's child bride and favourite wife Aisha known as the Mother of the Faithful also tells us how this verse went missing:

“The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.”

(Sunan Ibn Majah 1934)

So according to the Defender of the Faith, Umar and the Mother of the Faithful, Aisha it seems obvious that Allah failed when he declared as follows:

“It is We Who sent down the Qur’an and indeed we will be its guardian”

(Qur’an 15:9)

This of course raises a lot of questions muslims are too confused to answer.

How could Allah have been so spectacularly careless to let part of his perfect guidance to humanity get lost in this way?

If allah was indeed truly the guardian of the koran, why was the Koran's guardian powerless to stop a mere goat from humiliating and embarrassing him?

The common sense answer to this question is obviously that allah only existed in Muhammad's imagination and he was never a real god.

Muslims usually come up with the excuse that the Rajam was abrogated, but the problem with this is that before a verse can be said to have been abrogated, it would have to have been in the koran in the first place.

And a second obvious reason it couldn't have been abrogated is because "abrogate" in the context of the koran means replacement of a verse with something better and that would mean replacement of stoning with something else which obviously hasn't happened.

So muhammad's imaginary friend allah is an epic failure and promise breaker.


https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/f6ix88/allahs_epic_failure/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

IAmStrange:
You don't ask scholars what you do not understand. You don't seek knowledge rather you'll just address matters as it appears to you.

And when it's explained to you, your malicious intentions wont make you accept. I don't even expect you to accept this too because that's your way.

Read these sources to educate yourself concerning abrogation and removal of verses.

I have already told you, if you have an issue, go and consult scholars. but you will choose to come here and call out people who are still very little in knowledge and if they can't answer, you'll think in your mind, you win.

Anyway, read these references and WATCH OUT FOR THE NEXT COMMENT.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/178209/response-to-some-misunderstandings-of-the-texts-which-make-the-questioner-think-that-the-quran-is-not-preserved

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/105746/abrogation-in-the-quran-and-the-order-of-its-soorahs-and-verses

1. God of the bible RESTED and WAS REFRESHED?

Exodus: 31. 17. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. - Bible Offline

2. Does the God of the bible sleep and needs to be woke up? And in another verse, it says he woke up as a drunkard shouts from sleep? And even if the sleep is not actual sleep but metaphorical, then it's gonna stand for something derogatory to God like God being in a state of forgetfulness or ignorance or heedlessness or not doing His duty. How's these sleeping verses to be explained?

Psalm: 44. 23. Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. - Bible Offline

Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, as a warrior wakes from the stupor of wine. Psalm 78:65

3. Who is the first born of Abraham? Isaac or Ishmael. If Ishmael is the first born, then the following verse is a fallacy in the bible. Because the following verse, God called Isaac, the ONLY son of Abraham. How could this have been possible when Isaac had an elder brother? If Isaac was second and he had Ishmael as an elder brother, then God should never have called him "Only Son". Can you explain that?

Genesis: 22. 2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. - Bible Offline

4. I thought you people said God only allows one husband, one wife. But the below verse suggests God allowed it (polygyny) and was even regulating it. How come? And if you say God later cancelled it in New testament, then show me the proof that God did so. Is that not a verse regulating polygamy? Please explain.

Exodus 21:10 - If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Then lastly for now, does the following verse not suggest that God of the bible was not condemning rather he was supporting and was even regulating a man selling his daughter into being a maidservant? Regulating where not the daughter come maidservant should go to? If it is so, then how do you explain such apparent atrocity of God? Please explain.

Exodus: 21. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - Bible Offline

IAmStrange:
After I have answered you and directed you to where you can get answer to your question because you can bring this usual attitude and say I did not answer rather I went to the bible...

Please answer these questions too.

3. Who is the first born of Abraham? Isaac or Ishmael. If Ishmael is the first born, then the following verse is a fallacy in the bible. Because the following verse, God called Isaac, the ONLY son of Abraham. How could this have been possible when Isaac had an elder brother? If Isaac was second and he had Ishmael as an elder brother, then God should never have called him "Only Son". Can you explain that?

Genesis: 22. 2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. - Bible Offline

4. I thought you people said God only allows one husband, one wife. But the below verse suggests God allowed it (polygyny) and was even regulating it. How come? And if you say God later cancelled it in New testament, then show me the proof that God did so. Is that not a verse regulating polygamy? Please explain.

Exodus 21:10 - If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

5. How can Jesus according to bible, worsen a situation
instead of bettering it? How can he curse a tree instead of praying for it to bear fruit? Destroying Trees like this translates to losses and so on. Imagine if he did that multiple times, that will cause an adverse effect to the economy?

Just explain how Jesus who is supposed to be large hearted and have good character, why he cursed a tree never to bear fruit instead of praying for the situation to be better? Is that Jesus way? That he ruins things further than they were instead of bettering it? Just explain please.

Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to
the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road,
he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22
NIV

Then lastly for now, does the following verse not suggest that God of the bible was not condemning rather he was supporting and was even regulating a man selling his daughter into being a maidservant? Regulating where not the daughter come maidservant should go to? If it is so, then how do you explain such apparent atrocity of God? Please explain.

Exodus: 21. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - Bible Offline

So there they are. Kindly explain those five. AntiChristian brother let's watch as the theological genius defends his God.

May Allaah save us from confusion.

EkunKekere:


The Bible is very explicit that God NEVER grows weary and is NEVER tired:

"He will not let your foot be moved, he who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121:3-4

"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary, his understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28

God’s true Word also states that there is nothing too hard for Yahweh:

"Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, in the spring, and Sarah shall have a son." Genesis 18:14

"‘Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who has made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts, …’ The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: ‘Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?’" Jeremiah 32:17-18, 26-27

In light of the foregoing we can now more fully appreciate and understand the point God was making to the Israelites in Exodus 31:17. The text is essentially saying that God was refreshed in the sense of receiving satisfaction from what he had created since he saw that everything he made was very good:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." Genesis 1:31

Putting it simply, saying that God rested and was refreshed is simply a vividly poetic way of saying that Yahweh received great delight and pleasure after surveying the work of his creation.

Isaac was the promised child, the Child of Covenant and not a child born out of wedlock like Ishmael. In Judaism, a bastard could never claim the same rights as a legitimate son.

Polygamy was introduced by man but God stepped in to regulate it and prevent man from abusing it. In God's ideal and perfect plan as revealed in the garden of Eden, the first Man, Adam only had one wife. And whenever marriage is spoken of in the Bible by God, he always references it as a union between a man and a woman. He never for once considers it to be a union between a man and multiple women.

I think we have to understand that these laws were for a specific place and time. In this case, it is one Israelite man paying an amount that included the bride price for another Israelite man’s daughter. Given how difficult life could be in the ancient world, such an agreement may represent great benefit to the daughter. The law here makes it clear that the man who took the daughter into his house must not treat her unfairly or sell her to a foreign nation. In fact, if he is displeased with her she can be redeemed or redeem herself and go free. And if he mistreats her by denying food, clothing or marital rights (kids) she can leave without paying a dime.

God was not saying that this culture was ideal, but rather He was working within the existing culture to move it in a redemptive direction and protect the rights of the woman.

ContractKiller:

TheExecutioner:
Yes, the removal of verses by a goat A goat became allah's annointed servant and editor in chief of the koran. Your beloved "scholars" are liars.

EkunKekere:
The text of the koran we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an (Zaid Bin Thabit’s Koran), because it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi.

Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years AD 660-714, was a teacher of the Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik Ibn Marawan and after him his son al-Waleed Ibn Abd al-Malik.

Because Al-Hajjaj taught Arabic, he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph Uthman's Qur'an, which is an indication that he did not believe that the Qur'an was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved."

For brevity's sake we will only mention a few of these changes:

1. In Surah Yunus 10:22, he changed the word yanshorokom, which means "spread you," to yousayerokom, which means "makes you to go on."

2. In Surah Ash-Shuara 26:116, he changed the word Al-Mukhrageen, which means "the cast out," to Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be stoned [to death]."

3. In Surah Ash-Shuara 26:167, he changed the word Min Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be stoned to death," to Al-Mukhrageen, which means "those who will assuredly be cast out."

4. In Surah Muhammad 47:15, he changed the word yasen, which is poor Arabic to Asen, which means "unpolluted."

5. In Surah al-Hadid 57:7, he changed the word wataqu, which means "feared Allah," to Wa-anfaqu, which means "spend in charity."

There have been hundreds of textual changes and meanings of words in the koran almost from the word go and they're still doing it to this day. Go and read the clear and concise koran and you'll see how several of the verses have been changed.

IAmStrange:


So that's the interpretation. If you don't mind, did you just think this or that's how the scholars of the bible interpreted it? Because one of your Christian apologists explained it differently. What's your source in this interpretation when the verse itself apparently looks very literal. But since you say it's metaphorical, What's your source for the interpretation? Or do you guys just give verse metaphorical meanings the way it suits you?

AND MIND YOU, you didn't answer the ones concerning sleeping.

Wow, so Abraham of all people had an illegitimate child which means a child born out of adultery? I'm not surprised. This is not the first time you people cast aspersions on the image of Prophets of God.

That's how you say Lut was made drunk and was slept with by his two daughters and they begot bastard children for their father.

That's how you say God commanded Isaiah to extract his cloths from his loins and Isaiah walked naked and barefoot in the streets of Jerusalem.

That's how you say David killed a neighbour and committed adultery with his wife.

Well, in short, that terms "your only son" meant your only legitimate son, right? Okay!



You people normally say what God allows is one man, one woman. That God forbids polygamy. Do you think it makes sense or it's right to regulate what you forbid?

If I say for example, Stealing a car is forbidden. Then tomorrow, I write a book that is titled "Guidelines on how to steal a car successfully", how does that sound to you?

For God to have regulated it, even if it was introduced by man, it means He ALLOWED it. God can never regulate what he forbids. That's ridiculous. or is that how the God of the bible works?

MIND YOU, you didn't answer the one concerning worsening an already bad situation. what was the wisdom behind it?

Hello, you said "in this case, it is one man paying an amount that included the bride price". But I'm sorry, bride price or marriage or anything concerning wedlock was missing in that verse.

It says it explicitly to be "sold as a maidservant". How can someone imagine that anything concerning wedlock can be described in this manner or that the money the father collected can be bride price?

To know that the contract was a contract of being a maidservant, the verse says "let her not go out as manservants do". So here the bible was comparing her or referring to her in the same terms as a manservant. So she, being a maidservant should not go out as her "male counterparts" do.

It's very clear that the matter here is a matter of the man selling his daughter to be a maidservant (a wife is never spoken of in such manner).

And even you said these yourself that "The law here makes it clear that the man who took the daughter into his house must not treat her unfairly or sell her to a foreign nation. In fact, if he is displeased with her she can be redeemed or redeem herself and go free. And if he mistreats her by denying food, clothing or marital rights (kids) she can leave without paying a dime."

All these words you said, can they be used in the concept of a wife or bride price? You said the man who took her must not sell her to a foreign nation. Can someone who was taken in by virtue of bride price which translates to bring a bride be SOLD? Do people sell brides?

You said if he's displeased with her, she can redeem herself or be redeemed? Do these processes apply if it's a "bride" that's involved?

You said if he mistreats her, she can leave without paying a dime. Does all these also apply if it's a "bride" we are talking about?

Its very clear from the verse and even from your explanation that the girl is sold to be a maidservant. Simple.

And God was regulating it.

So maybe you can clarify all these better to us and those you didn't answer too, if you know the answer. Thank you.

IAmStrange:


So that's the interpretation. If you don't mind, did you just think this or that's how the scholars of the bible interpreted it? Because one of your Christian apologists explained it differently. What's your source in this interpretation when the verse itself apparently looks very literal. But since you say it's metaphorical, What's your source for the interpretation? Or do you guys just give verse metaphorical meanings the way it suits you?

AND MIND YOU, you didn't answer the ones concerning sleeping.



Wow, so Abraham of all people had an illegitimate child which means a child born out of adultery? I'm not surprised. This is not the first time you people cast aspersions on the image of Prophets of God.

That's how you say Lut was made drunk and was slept with by his two daughters and they begot bastard children for their father.

That's how you say God commanded Isaiah to extract his cloths from his loins and Isaiah walked naked and barefoot in the streets of Jerusalem.

That's how you say David killed a neighbour and committed adultery with his wife.

Well, in short, that terms "your only son" meant your only legitimate son, right? Okay!



You people normally say what God allows is one man, one woman. That God forbids polygamy. Do you think it makes sense or it's right to regulate what you forbid?

If I say for example, Stealing a car is forbidden. Then tomorrow, I write a book that is titled "Guidelines on how to steal a car successfully", how does that sound to you?

For God to have regulated it, even if it was introduced by man, it means He ALLOWED it. God can never regulate what he forbids. That's ridiculous. or is that how the God of the bible works?

MIND YOU, you didn't answer the one concerning worsening an already bad situation. what was the wisdom behind it?



Hello, you said "in this case, it is one man paying an amount that included the bride price". But I'm sorry, bride price or marriage or anything concerning wedlock was missing in that verse.

It says it explicitly to be "sold as a maidservant". How can someone imagine that anything concerning wedlock can be described in this manner or that the money the father collected can be bride price?

To know that the contract was a contract of being a maidservant, the verse says "let her not go out as manservants do". So here the bible was comparing her or referring to her in the same terms as a manservant. So she, being a maidservant should not go out as her "male counterparts" do.

It's very clear that the matter here is a matter of the man selling his daughter to be a maidservant (a wife is never spoken of in such manner).

And even you said these yourself that "The law here makes it clear that the man who took the daughter into his house must not treat her unfairly or sell her to a foreign nation. In fact, if he is displeased with her she can be redeemed or redeem herself and go free. And if he mistreats her by denying food, clothing or marital rights (kids) she can leave without paying a dime."

All these words you said, can they be used in the concept of a wife or bride price? You said the man who took her must not sell her to a foreign nation. Can someone who was taken in by virtue of bride price which translates to bring a bride be SOLD? Do people sell brides?

You said if he's displeased with her, she can redeem herself or be redeemed? Do these processes apply if it's a "bride" that's involved?

You said if he mistreats her, she can leave without paying a dime. Does all these also apply if it's a "bride" we are talking about?

Its very clear from the verse and even from your explanation that the girl is sold to be a maidservant. Simple.

And God was regulating it.

So maybe you can clarify all these better to us and those you didn't answer too, if you know the answer. Thank you.