My friend don't you know that large portion of the Quran was lost because of those Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama? Don't you know that the codex of Zaid bin Thabit which was cononized by Uthman was different from the codes of Ibn Masid and Ubayy bin Ka'ba? who Muhammad said the Quran should be recited form these guys. Why will Uthman then Burned their materials if there are no disagreements? And Allah already said he will persevere the Quran to the Smallest details. Think before you start typing... Even a baby after looking at all these wi know that Allah Broke his promise when he said he will preserve the Quran. In that case allah can't be God. Think.

haekymbahd:
who made the Hafiz of the Quran able to memorized and completely remember the Quran if not Allah. What inspiration is Greater than that, moreover the Hafiz of the Quran had recited it during the time of the prophet while he was alive so why are you asking if prophet did not write it down, who taught and explain to the memorized how to read the Quran if not the prophet..

Quran is a dictated word of Allah, so far it is written and compiled by the Hafiz and also written materials can you tell me what other inspiration is needed to write it down what greater inspiration is Greater than this tell me

Allah SWT said:

سَنُقْرِئُكَ فَلَا تَنْسٰىٓ
"We will have you recite, the Qur’ān, so that you will not forget, what you recite,"
(QS. Al-A'laa 87: Verse 6)

* Via Qur'an English http://quran-en.com

innotutorial:
My friend don't you know that large portion of the Quran was lost because of those Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama? Don't you know that the codex of Zaid bin Thabit which was cononized by Uthman was different from the codes of Ibn Masid and Ubayy bin Ka'ba? who Muhammad said the Quran should be recited form these guys. Why will Uthman then Burned their materials if there are no disagreements? And Allah already said he will persevere the Quran to the Smallest details. Think before you start typing... Even a baby after looking at all these wi know that Allah Broke his promise when he said he will preserve the Quran. In that case allah can't be God. Think.

Whether you like it or not there is only one Quran. Even you do not understand what you are saying, can you tell us the disagreements? whiçh I know you can't because there is certainly no disagreement.

Arabs has dialects , every tribe used to have its own way , and what it was right to say in their dialect was wrong in other regions .

The prophet peace be upon him taught those Arabic tribes the holy Quran in their way. The Quran is the miracle of our prophet so it must be perfect for every tribe and that what it was ; but after the death of the prophet peace be upon him ; the Islamic territory expanded and non-arabic speaker introduced to Islam , so they faced problems reading the Quran . To solve this problem, the Qalif Uthman may Allah accept him, gathered the Companions of the prophet PBUH, and they used the dialect of Korich “قريش” which is the tribe of the prophet.

This doesn’t mean that the destroyed versions wasn’t genuine versions of Quran ,but there was a purpose to gather all the Omah ‘people’ on one version. Unless you want to tell us the dialect Quraish is not approved by the prophet..

Before Uthman burned copies of the Qur’an, the Book already had a history. As soon as the verses were revealed they learned by heart and recited during prayers. There may have different ways of reciting it but that does not mean there were different versions as some people would like us to believe.

What non-Muslim do not, or prefer not to know, is that Umar instituted the practice of Tarawi prayer during which the whole of the Qur’an is recited in front of the congregation. Had there been the least deviation the Hadith writers would have mentioned it. There is not a single word written about any discussion about the recitation in the Tarawi. This simply means that the Qur’an was already intact.

From the very outset, the Prophet employed two independent but mutually complementary methods for preserving the revelations. The two methods used for this purpose were memorisation and inscription. Besides ensuring independently the transmission of the revelation, the two methods also served as internal checks, thus ensuring its accurate preservation.

Bro I doubt you read your hadiths. Al Bukhari
clearly state in 6: 509-510 that a large portion of the Quran was lost because of the Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama. According to Asiha in Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 it clearly state that the verse of stoning and breastfeeding and adult 10 times was eaten by sheep.

Read you source bro before you start something you know nothing about. The Quran has clearly change. Read bro. It is in your hadith.

haekymbahd:
Whether you like it or not there is only one Quran. Even you do not understand what you are saying, can you tell us the disagreements? whiçh I know you can't because there is certainly no disagreement.

Arabs has dialects , every tribe used to have its own way , and what it was right to say in their dialect was wrong in other regions .

The prophet peace be upon him taught those Arabic tribes the holy Quran in their way. The Quran is the miracle of our prophet so it must be perfect for every tribe and that what it was ; but after the death of the prophet peace be upon him ; the Islamic territory expanded and non-arabic speaker introduced to Islam , so they faced problems reading the Quran . To solve this problem, the Qalif Uthman may Allah accept him, gathered the Companions of the prophet PBUH, and they used the dialect of Korich “قريش” which is the tribe of the prophet.

This doesn’t mean that the destroyed versions wasn’t genuine versions of Quran ,but there was a purpose to gather all the Omah ‘people’ on one version. Unless you want to tell us the dialect Quraish is not approved by the prophet..

Before Uthman burned copies of the Qur’an, the Book already had a history. As soon as the verses were revealed they learned by heart and recited during prayers. There may have different ways of reciting it but that does not mean there were different versions as some people would like us to believe.

What non-Muslim do not, or prefer not to know, is that Umar instituted the practice of Tarawi prayer during which the whole of the Qur’an is recited in front of the congregation. Had there been the least deviation the Hadith writers would have mentioned it. There is not a single word written about any discussion about the recitation in the Tarawi. This simply means that the Qur’an was already intact.

From the very outset, the Prophet employed two independent but mutually complementary methods for preserving the revelations. The two methods used for this purpose were memorisation and inscription. Besides ensuring independently the transmission of the revelation, the two methods also served as internal checks, thus ensuring its accurate preservation.

innotutorial:
Bro I doubt you read your hadiths. Al Bukhari
clearly state in 6: 509-510 that a large portion of the Quran was lost because of the Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama. According to Asiha in Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 it clearly state that the verse of stoning and breastfeeding and adult 10 times was eaten by sheep.

Read you source bro before you start something you know nothing about. The Quran has clearly change. Read bro. It is in your hadith.

it is a wrong statement for you to say large portion of Quran was lost due to death of huffaz because not all Hafiz of the Quran d
died and they only called for written down down the Quran when they realize the inevitable might occur also to make it easy for the non Arab speaking nations who are ready to embrace islam. or else they wouldn't have had to write a Quran it was learnt by memorization and this happened during the time of the prophet if the Hafiz did not include anything in the Quran it means it was not meant to be there in the first place. Rather you should say lot of Quran Hafiz died not large portion of Quran was lost.
[/b]

On the verse of stoning

Umar, in fact, had asked the Prophet (ṣ) for permission to write this verse in the Quran, but he was refused.

Zaid ibn Thabit reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ

The married old man and old woman, if they commit adultery, then stone them irrevocably.

Umar said, “When this was revealed, I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said:

فَكَأَنَّهُ كَرِهَ ذَلِكَ

It was as if the Prophet disliked that.

Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21086, Grade: Sahih


And Abu Muhammad said:

لِأَنَّ آيَةَ الرَّجْمِ إذْ نَزَلَتْ حُفِظَتْ وَعُرِفَتْ وَعَمِلَ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَّا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكْتُبْهَا نُسَّاخُ الْقُرْآنِ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ وَلَا أَثْبَتُوا لَفْظَهَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَقَدْ سَأَلَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ ذَلِكَ كَمَا أَوْرَدْنَا فَلَمْ يُجِبْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَى ذَلِكَ

When the verse of stoning was revealed, it was memorized, acknowledged, and it was acted upon by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, except that he did not have it written in the copies of the Quran, nor did he affirm its wording in the Quran. Umar ibn Al-Khattab asked about that, as we have related, and the Prophet did not obligate him to do it.

Source: al-Muḥallá 12/177




If the verses were to be in the Quran the Hafiz would have memorized it. The Quran was compiled considering both the written and memorized form which I have said earlier..

At least if any sheep eat any verse of the written Quran did it also eat the momorized one in the heart of the Hafiz not like it was only one Hafiz of the Quran that was left on earth then.

Why do you keep arguing? It clearly says a large portion of the Quran may be lost because of the Huffaz who died at Yamama .see the image

haekymbahd:
it is a wrong statement for you to say large portion of Quran was lost due to death of huffaz because not all Hafiz of the Quran d
died and they only called for written down down the Quran when they realize the inevitable might occur also to make it easy for the non Arab speaking nations who are ready to embrace islam. or else they wouldn't have had to write a Quran it was learnt by memorization and this happened during the time of the prophet if the Hafiz did not include anything in the Quran it means it was not meant to be there in the first place. Rather you should say lot of Quran Hafiz died not large portion of Quran was lost.
[/b]

On the verse of stoning

Umar, in fact, had asked the Prophet (ṣ) for permission to write this verse in the Quran, but he was refused.

Zaid ibn Thabit reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ

The married old man and old woman, if they commit adultery, then stone them irrevocably.

Umar said, “When this was revealed, I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said:

فَكَأَنَّهُ كَرِهَ ذَلِكَ

It was as if the Prophet disliked that.

Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21086, Grade: Sahih


And Abu Muhammad said:

لِأَنَّ آيَةَ الرَّجْمِ إذْ نَزَلَتْ حُفِظَتْ وَعُرِفَتْ وَعَمِلَ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَّا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكْتُبْهَا نُسَّاخُ الْقُرْآنِ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ وَلَا أَثْبَتُوا لَفْظَهَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَقَدْ سَأَلَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ ذَلِكَ كَمَا أَوْرَدْنَا فَلَمْ يُجِبْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَى ذَلِكَ

When the verse of stoning was revealed, it was memorized, acknowledged, and it was acted upon by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, except that he did not have it written in the copies of the Quran, nor did he affirm its wording in the Quran. Umar ibn Al-Khattab asked about that, as we have related, and the Prophet did not obligate him to do it.

Source: al-Muḥallá 12/177




If the verses were to be in the Quran the Hafiz would have memorized it. The Quran was compiled considering both the written and memorized form which I have said earlier..

At least if any sheep eat any verse of the written Quran did it also eat the momorized one.

innotutorial:
Why do you keep arguing? It clearly says a large portion of the Quran may be lost because of the Huffaz who died at Yamama .see the image

You had said this earlier

innotutorial:
Al Bukhari
clearly state in 6: 509-510 that a large portion of the Quran was lost because of the Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama.

You saw a large portion of Quran may be lost and not large portions of Quran was lost. they are 2 different statements and that was the reason the Quran was written down or else it would just be learnt only by memorization and they wouldn't have needed to write it down. So whatever written Quran you see today is only meant for non Arabic speakers to learn.

Quran itself meant the recitation so what I am telling you in essence when two person reads the accepted Arabic Quran they would still say the same thing and have the same meaning throughout to the world.

Not all Hafiz of the Quran who memorized it at the time had died then and they were present during it's written down coupled with the fact they still cross checked with written documents.

If the Hafiz whom were taught to recite the Quran did not include anything in the Quran it means Muhammad taught them that.

Yes but they didn't get all the revelations which they memorised from Muhammad.
That was why he said a large portion of the Quran may be lost because some revelation were already lost. I already show you how Aisha said a sheep came in and eat the verse of stonning and breastfeading an adult 10 times. Think! Why will Utman burn all other manuscripts if they were not different? Now don't tell me it was just dialectic difference because by that time diacritical marks and vowellization didn't exist.

haekymbahd:



You had said this earlier



You saw a large portion of Quran may be lost and not large portions of Quran was lost. they are 2 different statements and that was the reason the Quran was written down or else it would just be learnt only by memorization and they wouldn't have needed to write it down. So whatever written Quran you see today is only meant for non Arabic speakers to learn.

Quran itself meant the recitation so what I am telling you in essence when two person reads the accepted Arabic Quran they would still say the same thing and have the same meaning throughout to the world.

Not all Hafiz of the Quran who memorized it at the time had died then and they were present during it's written down coupled with the fact they still cross checked with written documents.

If the Hafiz whom were taught to recite the Quran did not include anything in the Quran it means Muhammad taught them that.

innotutorial:

Yes but they didn't get all the revelations which they memorised from Muhammad.
That was why he said a large portion of the Quran may be lost because some revelation were already lost. I already show you how Aisha said a sheep came in and eat the verse of stonning and breastfeading an adult 10 times. Think! Why will Utman burn all other manuscripts if they were not different? Now don't tell me it was just dialectic difference because by that time diacritical marks and vowellization didn't exist.

No, he said it may be lost if eventually all Hafiz at the time died so he felt it was better for the Quran Hafiz to sit down and compare also with written copies to write the Quran. As I said if not for that Quran will only be learnt through memorization and they won't have to write it down becuse they already knew the whole Quran off head.

Are you just pretending not to listen Quran had been memorized during the time of the prophet and recited during salat infact during Ramadan the whole Quran was been read couple with fact that there are certain occasion where they read the whole Quran even during the prophet time and after him till date. If there had been an error it would have corrected. Did you also not see the Hadith I posted that nullified the writing of the verse of stoning in the Quran.
Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

رَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَجَمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَرَجَمْتُ وَلَوْلَا أَنِّي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ أَزِيدَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ لَكَتَبْتُهُ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ فَإِنِّي قَدْ خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَجِيءَ أَقْوَامٌ فَلَا يَجِدُونَهُ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَيَكْفُرُونَ بِهِ

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, stoned (the married adulterer), Abu Bakr stoned, and I stone. Were it not that I hate adding to the book of Allah, I would have written it in the copy of the Quran. I fear that people will come and not find it in the book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1431, Grade: Sahih

You are saying uthman burnt the Quran. At the time was he the only one who knew the Quran. He was the leader but then Quran had been memorized before that how will he change without people knowing and who attacked him..

Before Uthman burned copies of the Qur’an, the Book already had a history. As soon as the verses were revealed they learned by heart and recited during prayers. There may have different ways of reciting it but that does not mean there were different versions as some people would like us to believe.

The Noble Quran was revealed in one language and that is Arabic. It has only one original Arabic copy. Arabic 1400 years ago had 7 dialects. There exists today one original copy of the Noble in Saudi Arabia today. A copy of this original copy also exists in Turkey today as well.

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.

The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.

Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.

It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions by some anti-Islamics. The Arabic dialects had problems with each others, and that's why standardizing the Noble Quran with its original Quraishi dialect was essential to keeping it as a perfect Holy Book: For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

In Islam, properly reciting the Words of Allah Almighty is the way it must be practiced. Otherwise, it would be considered a sin and disrespect toward Allah Almighty and the individual would be disobeying Allah Almighty and would gain bad deeds that will count against him in the Day of Judgment if he did it intentionally.


What Uthman only did was to make sure only the Quraish dialect which is the dialect of the prophet himself and that in which the Quran was revealed is what was used throught out the to avoid the confusion of non Arab speaking nations in future. Is the Quraish version not Quran.. if he had omitted anything followers of Islam would told him or reported it. He was only a leader and not the only Muslim.

Look! At that time diacritical marks were not invited but up unto the 8 and 9th century.
There were no dots above and below the alphabets. This was what Bukhari thought when he wrote his hadith thinking that would have been the case of this disagreement. Your hadith clearly state that the differences was not just in the variance but there were differences in the meaning. That was why Ibn Masud and Ubayy bin ka' ba refused to hand over their codes to Uthman when he sort to burn all manuscripts. Ibn Kaba even went on to call the codex of Zaid bin Thabit a deception. And this is the codex which your Quran was gotten from. Muhammad himself told Muslims to learn the Quran from ibn bin Masud, ubayy ka'ba etc yet the codex they compiled was destroyed.

Even if you look at old manuscript like the Sanna manuscript and the Birmingham folio which your scholars has used to decieve you all by saying they are come from Uthman. Those manuscript are totally different from the Hafs Quran we gave today and was dated before Muhammad.
So don't come hear keep telling me your Quran is unchanged.

haekymbahd:
No, he said it may be lost if eventually all Hafiz at the time died so he felt it was better for the Quran Hafiz to sit down and compare also with written copies to write the Quran. As I said if not for that Quran will only be learnt through memorization and they won't have to write it down becuse they already knew the whole Quran off head.

Are you just pretending not to listen Quran had been memorized during the time of the prophet and recited during salat infact during Ramadan the whole Quran was been read couple with fact that there are certain occasion where they read the whole Quran even during the prophet time and after him till date. If there had been an error it would have corrected. Did you also not see the Hadith I posted that nullified the writing of the verse of stoning in the Quran.
Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

رَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَجَمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَرَجَمْتُ وَلَوْلَا أَنِّي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ أَزِيدَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ لَكَتَبْتُهُ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ فَإِنِّي قَدْ خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَجِيءَ أَقْوَامٌ فَلَا يَجِدُونَهُ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَيَكْفُرُونَ بِهِ

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, stoned (the married adulterer), Abu Bakr stoned, and I stone. Were it not that I hate adding to the book of Allah, I would have written it in the copy of the Quran. I fear that people will come and not find it in the book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1431, Grade: Sahih

You are saying uthman burnt the Quran. At the time was he the only one who knew the Quran. He was the leader but then Quran had been memorized before that how will he change without people knowing and who attacked him..

Before Uthman burned copies of the Qur’an, the Book already had a history. As soon as the verses were revealed they learned by heart and recited during prayers. There may have different ways of reciting it but that does not mean there were different versions as some people would like us to believe.

The Noble Quran was revealed in one language and that is Arabic. It has only one original Arabic copy. Arabic 1400 years ago had 7 dialects. There exists today one original copy of the Noble in Saudi Arabia today. A copy of this original copy also exists in Turkey today as well.

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.

The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.

Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.

It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions by some anti-Islamics. The Arabic dialects had problems with each others, and that's why standardizing the Noble Quran with its original Quraishi dialect was essential to keeping it as a perfect Holy Book: For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

In Islam, properly reciting the Words of Allah Almighty is the way it must be practiced. Otherwise, it would be considered a sin and disrespect toward Allah Almighty and the individual would be disobeying Allah Almighty and would gain bad deeds that will count against him in the Day of Judgment if he did it intentionally.


What Uthman only did was to make sure only the Quraish dialect which is the dialect of the prophet himself and that in which the Quran was revealed is what was used throught out the to avoid the confusion of non Arab speaking nations in future. Is the Quraish version not Quran.. if he had omitted anything followers of Islam would told him or reported it. He was only a leader and not the only Muslim.

sagenaija:
The truth about the Koran:
1. The Koran was originally verbal recitation.
2. These recitations were then written down by different people in various materials as much as they could recall from memory.

The companions used to memorize the Qur’aan by heart, and a few of them used to write down some verses or soorahs on animal skins, thin white stones and the like. It was not originally verbal recitation only. When Umar reverted to Islam, he read a part of the Qur'an in written form when he caught his brother in law reading it.

At first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade the writing of anything other than the Qur’aan, and he forbade them to write down his words for a while, so that the Sahaabah would focus on memorizing the Qur’aan and writing it down, and so that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not be confused with the words of Allaah, and so the Qur’aan was protected from anything being added or taken away.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a group of his companions who were trustworthy and knowledgeable to write down the revelation. They are known in their biographies as those who wrote down the Revelation, such as the four Caliphs, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, Zayd ibn Thaabit and others – may Allaah be pleased with them all.

3. Decades after the death of Mohamed, Zaid ibn Thabith was saddled with the task of collecting and confirming which writings were genuine and then binding them into a single volume to become one book. There was also Uthman's version after which he destroyed every other copy of the Koran.

Stop the lies! It was not decades!

Zaid ibn Thabit was among the scribes as written above. The Prophet died in 632. Abu Bakr became the Caliph after him till he died in 634. The Qur'an was compiled by Zaid Ibn Thaabit on the authority of Abu Bakr the first Caliph after the Prophet. The Qur'an was then transferred to Umar the second Caliph who died in 644. Uthman became the Caliph requested for the Qur'an from Hafsah the daughter of Umar.
Evidently it was compiled within two years of the Prophet's death and not decades as you lied!

The Qur’aan continued to be preserved in the hearts of the Sahaabah who had memorized it, and on the skins and other materials until the time of the caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him). During the Riddah wars many of the Sahaabah who had memorized the Qur’aan were killed, and Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was afraid that the Qur’aan would be lost. So he consulted the senior Sahaabah about compiling the Qur’aan in a single book so that it would remain preserved and would not be lost. He entrusted this mission to the chief of memorizers Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him). Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4986) that Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq sent for me when the people of al-Yamaamah had been killed [i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against the false prophet Musaylimah]. (I went to him) and found ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “ ‘Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'aan (i.e. those who knew the Qur’aan by heart) on the day of the battle of al-Yamaamah, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’aan may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’aan be collected.” I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, this is something good." 'Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allaah opened my heart to it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). “You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’aan and compile it in one book." By Allah If they had ordered me to move one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to compile the Qur’aan. Then I said (to Abu Bakr), "How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allaah, it is a good thing." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allaah opened my heart to that to which He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’aan and collecting it from (what it was written on) palm stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, until I found the last Verse of Soorat al-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah al-Ansaari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is (interpretation of the meaning):

"Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty...” [al-Tawbah 9:128] until the end of Soorat Baraa’ah (i.e., al-Tawbah).

Then the complete manuscript (copy) of the Qur’aan remained with Abu Bakr until he died, then with 'Umar until the end of his life, and then with Hafsah, the daughter of 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him).

The Sahaabi Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) knew the Qur’aan by heart but he was methodical in his confirmation; he would not agree to write down any verse until two of the Sahaabah testified that they had heard it from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

This Mus-haf (written copy of the Qur’aan) remained in the hands of the caliphs until the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) had dispersed to different lands, and they used to recite the Qur’aan according to what they had heard of the seven recitations from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and each of their students used to recite according to what he had heard from his shaykh. If a student heard someone reciting in a manner different from what he knew, he would denounce him and accuse him of making a mistake, and this went on until the Sahaabah feared that there would be fitnah (trouble) between the Taabi’een and successive generations. So they thought that they should unite the people in following one recitation, which was in the dialect of Quraysh in which the Qur’aan had first been revealed, so as to dispel any disputes and resolve the matter. ‘Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) was consulted, and he agreed with this opinion.

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Maalik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan came to ‘Uthmaan at the time when the people of Shaam (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan, so he said to 'Uthmaan, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Qur’aan) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthmaan sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Qur’aan so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you."

Hafsah sent it to 'Uthmaan. Then 'Uthmaan ordered Zayd ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa’eed ibn al-‘Aas and ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Haarith ibn Hishaam to copy out the manuscripts. 'Uthmaan said to the three men who were from Quraysh (the tribe of which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a member), “In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thaabit on any point in the Qur’aan, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh, for the Qur’aan was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthmaan returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

'Uthmaan sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'aanic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

4. Even after this compilation some devotees of Mohamed remembered some areas that were part of the recitals but the Islamic leaders did not want to add anything else so as to project the “sacredness” of the book.

The Caliphs, Zaid ibn Thaabit and many other were scribes. They didn't forget anything from the Qur'an. This your comment is a lie and unproven!

5. Mohamed therefore did not directly write anything. No historical record shows him as penning down the Koran. Moslems generally agree that Mohamed was not learned; a questionable issue though.

Yes, he was. Even Allah said he was in the Qur'an. And all of his contemporaries knew he was unlearned.

So can we be sure that those who wrote from memory wrote the right things? Did they write down exactly what they heard?
Were they inspired by Allah?

Yeah, we can. Because even till today hundreds of thousands still memorise the Qur'an without any mistake. Yes, they wrote exactly what they heard! They are not inspired but blessed with accurate memory as seen also in the Hadiths!

The last question is especially relevant because since other persons apart from Mohamed wrote down the Koran the issue of the infallibility of the book is questionable without the writers being inspired. And that is an issue Islam is not ready to face.

Antichristian knows that. haekymbahd knows too.

They need not be inspired to compile the Qur'an. And more so, the Qur'an has already been completed and memorized by a lot of companions. Muhammad was inspired and the companions wrote down the inspiration accurately!

Related ahadith.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

NB Abu Bakr commissioned Zaid Ibn Thaabit to compile the Qur'an
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. '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." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

NB Uthmani Qur'an was obtained from Hafsah daughter of Umar
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)

NB Abu Bakr commissioned Zaid Ibn Thaabit to compile the Qur'an
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Bara:
There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:

'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

NB Zaid Ibn Thaabit used to write down the Qur'an in the Prophet's lifetime

innotutorial

There is no need for all these off topic long text. You have not answer my question.. why did Ibn Masud and ubayy bin Kaba Quran different from Zyd bin Thabit Quran? These where not dialectic difference but totally different meaning. That should be why Uthman burned the other Qurans. Think my friend..

AntiChristian:


The companions used to memorize the Qur’aan by heart, and a few of them used to write down some verses or soorahs on animal skins, thin white stones and the like. It was not originally verbal recitation only. When Umar reverted to Islam, he read a part of the Qur'an in written form when he caught his brother in law reading it.

At first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade the writing of anything other than the Qur’aan, and he forbade them to write down his words for a while, so that the Sahaabah would focus on memorizing the Qur’aan and writing it down, and so that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not be confused with the words of Allaah, and so the Qur’aan was protected from anything being added or taken away.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a group of his companions who were trustworthy and knowledgeable to write down the revelation. They are known in their biographies as those who wrote down the Revelation, such as the four Caliphs, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, Zayd ibn Thaabit and others – may Allaah be pleased with them all.


Stop the lies! It was not decades!

Zaid ibn Thabit was among the scribes as written above. The Prophet died in 632. Abu Bakr became the Caliph after him till he died in 634. The Qur'an was compiled by Zaid Ibn Thaabit on the authority of Abu Bakr the first Caliph after the Prophet. The Qur'an was then transferred to Umar the second Caliph who died in 644. Uthman became the Caliph requested for the Qur'an from Hafsah the daughter of Umar.
Evidently it was compiled within two years of the Prophet's death and not decades as you lied!

The Qur’aan continued to be preserved in the hearts of the Sahaabah who had memorized it, and on the skins and other materials until the time of the caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him). During the Riddah wars many of the Sahaabah who had memorized the Qur’aan were killed, and Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was afraid that the Qur’aan would be lost. So he consulted the senior Sahaabah about compiling the Qur’aan in a single book so that it would remain preserved and would not be lost. He entrusted this mission to the chief of memorizers Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him). Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4986) that Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq sent for me when the people of al-Yamaamah had been killed [i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against the false prophet Musaylimah]. (I went to him) and found ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “ ‘Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'aan (i.e. those who knew the Qur’aan by heart) on the day of the battle of al-Yamaamah, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’aan may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’aan be collected.” I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, this is something good." 'Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allaah opened my heart to it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). “You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’aan and compile it in one book." By Allah If they had ordered me to move one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to compile the Qur’aan. Then I said (to Abu Bakr), "How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allaah, it is a good thing." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allaah opened my heart to that to which He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’aan and collecting it from (what it was written on) palm stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, until I found the last Verse of Soorat al-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah al-Ansaari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is (interpretation of the meaning):

"Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty...” [al-Tawbah 9:128] until the end of Soorat Baraa’ah (i.e., al-Tawbah).

Then the complete manuscript (copy) of the Qur’aan remained with Abu Bakr until he died, then with 'Umar until the end of his life, and then with Hafsah, the daughter of 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him).

The Sahaabi Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) knew the Qur’aan by heart but he was methodical in his confirmation; he would not agree to write down any verse until two of the Sahaabah testified that they had heard it from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

This Mus-haf (written copy of the Qur’aan) remained in the hands of the caliphs until the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) had dispersed to different lands, and they used to recite the Qur’aan according to what they had heard of the seven recitations from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and each of their students used to recite according to what he had heard from his shaykh. If a student heard someone reciting in a manner different from what he knew, he would denounce him and accuse him of making a mistake, and this went on until the Sahaabah feared that there would be fitnah (trouble) between the Taabi’een and successive generations. So they thought that they should unite the people in following one recitation, which was in the dialect of Quraysh in which the Qur’aan had first been revealed, so as to dispel any disputes and resolve the matter. ‘Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) was consulted, and he agreed with this opinion.

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Maalik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan came to ‘Uthmaan at the time when the people of Shaam (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan, so he said to 'Uthmaan, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Qur’aan) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthmaan sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Qur’aan so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you."

Hafsah sent it to 'Uthmaan. Then 'Uthmaan ordered Zayd ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa’eed ibn al-‘Aas and ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Haarith ibn Hishaam to copy out the manuscripts. 'Uthmaan said to the three men who were from Quraysh (the tribe of which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a member), “In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thaabit on any point in the Qur’aan, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh, for the Qur’aan was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthmaan returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

'Uthmaan sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'aanic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

The Caliphs, Zaid ibn Thaabit and many other were scribes. They didn't forget anything from the Qur'an. This your comment is a lie and unproven!

Yes, he was. Even Allah said he was in the Qur'an. And all of his contemporaries knew he was unlearned.

Yeah, we can. Because even till today hundreds of thousands still memorise the Qur'an without any mistake. Yes, they wrote exactly what they heard! They are not inspired but blessed with accurate memory as seen also in the Hadiths!



They need not be inspired to compile the Qur'an. And more so, the Qur'an has already been completed and memorized by a lot of companions. Muhammad was inspired and the companions wrote down the inspiration accurately!

Related ahadith.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

NB Abu Bakr commissioned Zaid Ibn Thaabit to compile the Qur'an
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. '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." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

NB Uthmani Qur'an was obtained from Hafsah daughter of Umar
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)

NB Abu Bakr commissioned Zaid Ibn Thaabit to compile the Qur'an
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Bara:
There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:

'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

NB Zaid Ibn Thaabit used to write down the Qur'an in the Prophet's lifetime

innotutorial

innotutorial:
There is no need for all these off topic long text. You have not answer my question.. why did Ibn Masud and ubayy bin Kaba Quran different from Zyd bin Thabit Quran? These where not dialectic difference but totally different meaning. That should be why Uthman burned the other Qurans. Think my friend..

You are the one not thinking you've been told the reason why this happened Umar wanted the Quran to be recited in one dialect which is the dialect of the Quraish which is also the dialect of the prophet and of which the Quran was revealed.

It was said that ibn masud wrote tafsir and some rulings of some verse in is Quran which uthman prohibited. Ibn masud eventually recanted his position and accepted the uthmanic codex didn't he

Imām al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH) writes (quoting al-Māzirī (d. 536 AH)):

[b]As for Ibn Masʿūd then much has been narrated from him including that which is not reliably established according to the people of transmission. And that which is established which differs from what we say (i.e., recite in our muṣḥaf), then it is interpreted to mean that he wrote in his muṣḥaf some rulings and tafsīr which he believed to not be Qur’an, and he did not believe that to be impermissible as he saw it as a parchment upon which to write what he willed. While ʿUthmān and the community deemed that to be prohibited lest with the passage of time it be assumed to be Qur’an. al-Māzirī said: So the disagreement goes back to a jurisprudential matter (masʾalah fiqhīyah) and that is whether it is allowed to include commentary interspersed in the muṣḥaf. al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bin al-Ḥajjāj (Cairo: Mu’assasat Qurtubah, 1994), 6:157.[/b]

innotutorial:
There is no need for all these off topic long text. You have not answer my question.. why did Ibn Masud and ubayy bin Kaba Quran different from Zyd bin Thabit Quran? These where not dialectic difference but totally different meaning. That should be why Uthman burned the other Qurans. Think my friend..

Bring us the differences and let us see!

The Qur’aan was revealed in seven dialects as was narrated in the saheeh hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2287) and Muslim (818); these were the dialects of the Arabs which were known for their eloquence.

Read and digest these ahadith above and below properly! You can also consult the Holy Spirit if you need to.

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

Bring us the differences and let us see!

Ok I will show you now to destroy all these myth. These are the differences between the hafs and the warsh Quran.. there are more , but these are just fee for now. These totally change the meaning of the verse.. This is why I keep telling you that the diacritical marks which are the dot above and below totally change the content and these were not introduce until the 8th and 9th century. And you all keep claiming that the Quran is the same every and has never been change. Do some research first before you make these claims which you can't defend. These completely destroyed your Notion of a complete and identical Quran.

AntiChristian:


Bring us the differences and let us see!

The Qur’aan was revealed in seven dialects as was narrated in the saheeh hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2287) and Muslim (818); these were the dialects of the Arabs which were known for their eloquence.

Read and digest these ahadith above and below properly! You can also consult the Holy Spirit if you need to.

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

Bring us the differences and let us see!

innotutorial:
Ok I will show you now to destroy all these myth. These are the differences between the hafs and the warsh Quran.. there are more , but these are just fee for now. These totally change the meaning of the verse.. This is why I keep telling you that the diacritical marks which are the dot above and below totally change the content and these were not introduce until the 8th and 9th century. And you all keep claiming that the Quran is the same every and has never been change. Do some research first before you make these claims which you can't defend. These completely destroyed your Notion of a complete and identical Quran.

I am still telling you to read and digest the former two hadith well and tell us if these has not being explained therein!

Shebi you have the Holy Spirit? Why are still so dull?

The last two ahadith explained these!

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.

Read you won't read. Later you'll say you have Holy Spirit!

innotutorial:
Ok I will show you now to destroy all these myth. These are the differences between the hafs and the warsh Quran.. there are more , but these are just fee for now. These totally change the meaning of the verse.. This is why I keep telling you that the diacritical marks which are the dot above and below totally change the content and these were not introduce until the 8th and 9th century. And you all keep claiming that the Quran is the same every and has never been change. Do some research first before you make these claims which you can't defend. These completely destroyed your Notion of a complete and identical Quran.

there is only one Qur’an.

Warsh and Hafs are the main canonical methods of reciting the Qur'an. The recitations of the Qur’an are conducted under the rules of the Tajwid Science.

The differences are in the pronunciation of some words, like the American and British English.

Some people claim that Warsh and Hafs have different meaning, they translate it to English and claim that they have different copies of the Quran, which is wrong.


Please NEVER make the mistake that we have two or more quran. It is only one and no human being will be able to tamper with it because he will be discovered by even a 6 year old child immediately .The quran said so itself that even if ALL the human beings and jinn in this world gather together to produce even ONE chapter of the quran,they will NEVER be able to do so.Many tried but failed since the time of the prophet till date.

So your insinuation here to look as if the quran has more than one version like the christian bibles has FAILED.

The quran has been translated into many languages and if you get any poor translation,it will not be the fault of the quran but the translator and i hope you know that Arabic is one language where you will one dozen of different names for a single item unlike English,chinese,German or whatever language.

Hope my answer has re enlightened you.

I clearly show you what we have today. There was a clear difference in meaning from the Warsh and Hafs. And I don't think you have done your research on this earliest manuscript and the different Qiraat. The different diacritical Mark change the meaning of the text and contradicts itself. Which cause confusions and I think You will like to serve a God who has contradicted it self.

Hatun has done this research. Watch her video on YouTube. Moreover the standardize Qiraat which was chosen was Harfs. Remember Harfs did not live along side Muhammad nor Uthman. These automatically broke your 3rd rule for Qiraat Authentication. Meaning you are using a Qiraat not dated back to Muhammad. Show me where this writers attributed the names and if by the time they attributed the name those whom it were link to where still alive. Listen! All these are nothing more than Isnad... Isnad are oral traditions which after many many years the story get manipulated. Moreover Ibn Kaba and Masud codex were destroyed. Beside there were differences between ibn Ka'ba and Zyd bin Thabit codex. So I don't think you realize what you are saying. So how do you explain this now? I am waiting...

haekymbahd:
Like Antichristian has said bring the differences and let us see.

You brought difference between hafs and warsh I told it was like comparing American English to British. The changes will not change their meaning but only in translation to other language depending on the translator and not the Quran itself

For a qiraa’a to be authentic it has to meet 3 conditions

1. Must conform to Arabic grammar.
2. The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mushafs of Uthman.
3. The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators going back to the Prophet (PBUH).


Is hafs version linked to the prophet Muhammad did he teach to recite that way yes. The chain of narration of the Hafs can be linked to the prophet himself

Chain of Transmission of Hafs
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.


Any Qiraat that doesn't follow this rules is not authentic... Definitely Hafs Qiraat is linked to prophet Muhammad himself and it is widely accepted Qiraat in the Muslim world

That is exactly what I am saying. In that case
the there is difference in the meaning of the text. Listen! This translations where not done by a mediocre in Arabia. These transactions were done by experts in the Arabia language. So there is no way you can prove to me that those translations were wrong. Beside I don't think you have read the Harfs and the Warsh side by side in the Arabic language. This is what the Islamic word has been hiding from non Arabic speaking nations. But experts in Arabic language has done those translations. Even your scholars like shabby ally and Dr Naik are shocked and still can't explain these differences. They keep saying the same
thing.

So please study the Harfs and the warts side by side. Look at those chapters I sent to you. If you know Arabic language you will see the difference if nor consult and arabic speaking expert.

haekymbahd:
it definitely conform with the third rule don't you know imam Hafs was a student to someone also he learnt somewhere and can be traced to uthman and the prophet Muhammad

This is the chain of narration of the Hafs Qiraat


Chain of Transmission of Hafs Qiraat
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.

See what you posted earlier and check the bolded names and cross check with the chain of transmission I posted.



Qiraat is a way of reciting the Quran it doesn't change the meaning of the Quranic verse. Hafs and warsh Is just like comparing British and American English it will mean the same thing the pronunciation might be different but it will mean the same thing the problem with what you posted earlier is with the translators to other language and not the Quran itself..

i hope you know that Arabic is one language where you will one dozen of different names for a single item unlike English,chinese,German or whatever language.


Advice and Advise or Organisation and Organization it still means the same thing what is the difference rather the problem you are having is with the translators..


Most importantly Hafs Qiraat was approved by the prophet himself..

innotutorial:
That is exactly what I am saying. In that case
the there is difference in the meaning of the text. Listen! This translations where not done by a mediocre in Arabia. These transactions were done by experts in the Arabia language. So there is no way you can prove to me that those translations were wrong. Beside I don't think you have read the Harfs and the Warsh side by side in the Arabic language. This is what the Islamic word has been hiding from non Arabic speaking nations. But experts in Arabic language has done those translations. Even your scholars like shabby ally and Dr Naik are shocked and still can't explain these differences. They keep saying the same
thing.

So please study the Harfs and the warts side by side. Look at those chapters I sent to you. If you know Arabic language you will see the difference if nor consult and arabic speaking expert.

What do you understand from this Hadith below?

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

#

Listen! Further than these records there is no evidence in the Hadith literature as to what these seven different readings were. The narrative in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari, also recorded in Vol. 6, p.481, does not tell us how Hisham's recital of Suratul-Furqan differed from Umar's, nor whether the differences were purely dialectal as is suggested in the traditions from the Sahih of Imam Muslim.

There are no other records in the earliest works of Hadith and Sirat literature to give any indication as to what the seven different readings actually were or what form they took. Were there ultimately seven different forms in which the whole Qur'an could be recited? Or was it purely a question of different dialects in which the text could be recited? There is nothing in the earliest records giving any idea of what the sab'at-i-ahruf were or what form they took other than the clear indications in the traditions quoted from the Sahih of Muslim that they were confined to dialectal variants. No more is said than that the Qur'an had actually been revealed in seven different ways in which it could be recited.

So please don't give me this weak argument. These 7 Qira/Ahruf should still agree but the pictures I showed you earlier, there are different in meaning of the text. When that happens, you get consufed because the text contradicts it self. So these were more than the 7 different readings. pleased study those Qurans well before you make claim you can't back up.

AntiChristian:


What do you understand from this Hadith below?

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

Antichristian is specializing in dodging the issues.
You were presented with two different Korans which are currently in use. There were clear differences in them. Instead of explaining (if possible) how those differences can be reconciled here you are bringing up unrelated matter.

If we are to go by your warped logic are we to say that no matter how CONTRADICTORY Koranic versions are Moslems should go by any one they want?

So, no matter how the Koran is recited, interpreted or applied it does not matter. No wonder you guys will condemn the Islamic extremists before people publicly but may support them behind the scenes as following a line of Koranic understanding.

Why are you running away from explaining those two Koranic versions?

sagenaija:
Antichristian is specializing in dodging the issues.
You were presented with two different Korans which are currently in use. There were clear differences in them. Instead of explaining (if possible) how those differences can be reconciled here you are bringing up unrelated matter.

If we are to go by your warped logic are we to say that no matter how CONTRADICTORY Koranic versions are Moslems should go by any one they want?

So, no matter how the Koran is recited, interpreted or applied it does not matter. No wonder you guys will condemn the Islamic extremists before people publicly but may support them behind the scenes as following a line of Koranic understanding.

Why are you running away from explaining those two Koranic versions?

For a qiraa’a to be authentic it has to meet 3 conditions

1. Must conform to Arabic grammar.
2. The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mushafs of Uthman.
3. The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators going back to the Prophet (PBUH).


Is hafs version linked to the prophet Muhammad did he teach to recite that way yes. The chain of narration of the Hafs can be linked to the prophet himself

Chain of Transmission of Hafs
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.

Warsh is also an authentic version even though Hafs version Is the widely accepted.

The Quran is the same the way it is being recited might be different. There aren’t different versions, there are 10 different ways of reciting. Hafs and Warsh are two of them. There’s only one version of warsh and only one of Hafs…etc.

The differences are very minor that it only differs in some words and their pronunciation. So the differences are very well known and there’s no difference in the content.

Is more like comparing American English to British English. Both are accepted by the prophet. This issue didn't just occur it had happened also during the time of the prophet and he gave his ruling on the issue..

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

There is nothing to hide here because this issue had been in existence right from the time of the prophet and not after his death..

There is only one Quran recited in different ways.

For example New York. and ne yark

A Nigerian would normally pronounce New York as written but if an American was to pronounce New York he would say "ne yark" will you now say they are saying different things. Because they have different accents they saying the same word in a different way
thing.

This is Arabic there is no issue, when you try to translate it to another language it might have varing meaning


They are both saying the same thing but different accent. That's why I say there is only one Quran but different way of reciting which must conform with the rules which I have stated earlier...



You can compare this with KJV and RSV version of the bible, you will see there is clear difference.

Innotutorial

innotutorial:
Listen! Further than these records there is no evidence in the Hadith literature as to what these seven different readings were. The narrative in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari, also recorded in Vol. 6, p.481, does not tell us how Hisham's recital of Suratul-Furqan differed from Umar's, nor whether the differences were purely dialectal as is suggested in the traditions from the Sahih of Imam Muslim.

There are no other records in the earliest works of Hadith and Sirat literature to give any indication as to what the seven different readings actually were or what form they took. Were there ultimately seven different forms in which the whole Qur'an could be recited? Or was it purely a question of different dialects in which the text could be recited? There is nothing in the earliest records giving any idea of what the sab'at-i-ahruf were or what form they took other than the clear indications in the traditions quoted from the Sahih of Muslim that they were confined to dialectal variants. No more is said than that the Qur'an had actually been revealed in seven different ways in which it could be recited.

So please don't give me this weak argument. These 7 Qira/Ahruf should still agree but the pictures I showed you earlier, there are different in meaning of the text. When that happens, you get consufed because the text contradicts it self. So these were more than the 7 different readings. pleased study those Qurans well before you make claim you can't back up.

Apart from the explanation I gave above let me give another example.

Can you tell me difference between at the week end and on the weekend?

Both are correct English one is American English while the other is British English, if you are to translate this 2 to another language it will give you different meaning entirely but English speakers knew it is still the same.

That is just how the Hafs and warsh version of Qirrat are the problem is not with the Arabic but the translation to another language. Arabic speakers will know it means the same.

Any Qiraat used to read the Quran must follow 3 rules both warsh and Hafs fulfilled this law hence both are authentic but Hafs is the widely used Qiraat

For a qiraa’a to be authentic it has to meet 3 conditions

1. Must conform to Arabic grammar.
2. The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mushafs of Uthman.
3. The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators going back to the Prophet (PBUH).


Is hafs version linked to the prophet Muhammad did he teach to recite that way yes. The chain of narration of the Hafs can be linked to the prophet himself

Chain of Transmission of Hafs Qiraat
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.



Now there is only one Quran but can be read in different ways and it won't change the content it is accepted. It is not like this issue occured at the hands or after uthman this issue had occured at the time of prophet himself and he gave his ruling on it.


Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

I just searched through your topics why are you so obsessed with Islam shey na Muslims wey talk say make your bible dey corrupt.

You seem like someone seeking for a partner in crime I think that would make you feel better right well whether you like it or not.

The Quran is one and recited in different ways as approved by the prophet himself.


Kindly explain why RSV is accusing your widely accepted version of Bible before I can even take you serious

RSV preface

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision........




Compare RSV and KJV version e.t.c of your Bible and still compare both to the Greek version and still compare all to the early manuscript? Couple with the fact that no disciples of Jesus wrote the gospel that author's claim it was from eye witnesses which they didn't mention any nor documents they copied from and we still have cannonical and non cannonical Gospel also the Catholic bible is even still more than the protestants, also the earliest cannonical which is gospel of Mark has been discovered to be fabricated in the early manuscript it stopped at Chapter 16 verse 8 and it not it up to verse 20 how did that happen only God knows. Even Jesus was not even alive when the cannonical were written to verify it and endorse it, the earliest cannonical was written 70+ A D, and we still don't know the full names of the authors of both cannonical and cannonical Gospels or who they are is this not amazing



Can you tell us the source of your Bible, the chains of narration and how KJV got corrupted that it needed revision?


@innotutorial

Now I see because you can't answer my questions you now decide to turn to the Holy Bible. Well! Jesus Christ is calling you home. I will now show to you why Christianity is true and different from islam which have no ground to stand only got his book from Isnad.. and claim to be from so claim prophets who claim to get his revelation from God. Even the Jews and Christians rejected his message to be a false prophet. Because God can't give such message where he contradicts himself.

Now let me educate you about christianity and bring you to the knowledge of the truth. The gospel were never gotten from Isnad like your so claim book. They were written by the Authors who live and meet Jesus. They were eye witness. Matthew, mark, Luke and John.

1) The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.

2) The books of the New Testament are always quoted as authoritative
and as one of a kind. The ancient writers did not quote these books as
they would quote any ordinary piece of literature. These books were
special and possessed final authority concerning what they said. Paley
provides quoteations from Theophilus, the writer against Artemon,
Hippolytus, Origin (230 A.D.), and many others to prove the point.

3) The books of the New Testament were collected together into one
volume at a very early date. Today we divide the NT into the Gospels
and the Epistles. The ancient writers made a similar distinction,
only they called it the Gospels and the Apostels. Ignatius mentions
collections of NT books into the Gospels and the Apostles. According
to Eusebius, Quadratus distributed the Gospels to converts during his
travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writing which
we today call the NT. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (both about
190-200 A.D.) also refer to the division of Scripture into the Gospels
and the Apostles. This shwos that the Gospels and Epistles were collected
together as the NT at an early date.

4) These writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as "scriptures", "divine
writings", and so forth.

5) They were publically read and preached upon. Paley quotes Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian to prove the point.

6) Copies, commentaries, harmonies of the Gospels were written. Thousands
upon thousands of copies of the NT books are laboriously made by hand.
Many commentaries and other works on them were written by men such as
Panaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and so on. It is especially
noteworthy that during the first three centuries no commentary was written
on any book outside the NT, with the sole exception of Clement's commentary
on the so-called Revelation of Peter. Harmonies, or combinations of the
four Gospels into one, were also composed; for example, Tatian's
Diatessaron (A.D. 170).

7) Moreover, the NT books were accepted by all heretical groups as well
as by orthodox Christians. Examples of such heretics include Basilides,
the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others. Though they all
denied some aspect of the NT teaching, they nevertheless acknowledged
the authenticity of the NT books themselves.

The Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John and 1 Peter
were recognized as authentic writings even by those who doubted the
authenticity of certain other NT Epistles. E.g., Origen cites the book
of Hebrews to support a particular point he is making. He notes that
some persons might doubt the authority of Hebrews, but he says that the
same point could be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture. He
then quotes Matthew and Acts. According to Origen, the four Gospels were
received without doubt by the whole church of God under heaven. In the
same way Eusebius reports that while some doubted certain Epistles, the
four Gospels were unniversally recognized as authentic.

9) The early enemies of Christianity recognized that the Gospels contained
the story on which the faith was founded. Celsus, for example, admits that
the Gospels were written by the apostles. Porphyry attacked the Christian
faith as it is found in the Gospels. The heretic Julian pursued the same
procedure.

10) Lists of authentic Scriptures were published, which always included
the Gospels and Acts. Citations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others
go to prove the point.

11) The Apocryphal books were never treated in the above manner. The
apocryphal books were forgeries which were written in the second century
after Christ. They purported to be writings of the apostles and carried
titles like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and so forth. It
is a simple historical fact that during the first three hundred years,
with one exception, no apocryphal Gospel was ever even quoted by any
known writer. In fact, there is no evidence that any forged Gospel
whatever existed in the first century, when the four Gospels and Acts
were written. The apocryphal Gospels were never quoted, never read or
preached upon in Christian assemblies, not collected into a volume, not
included in the lists of authentic Scriptures, not appealed to by the
heretics, not noticed by Christianities enemies, not the subject of
commentaries or harmonies. They were almost universally rejected by
Christian writers of that age.

Therefore, Paley concludes, the Gospels must be the authentic writings
of the Apostles. Even if it were the case that the names of the Gospel
authors are wrong, it still cannot be denied in the light of the above
arguments that the Gospels do contain the story which the original
apostles told and for which they labored and suffered.

Therefore, unless the story is true, the apostles were all liars. But
this has already been shown to be impossible in the light of their
sufferings and changed lives.

Therefore, the Gospel accounts must be true.
----

Let me summarize. The final binding decision on the list of books in the
NT has been made at a 4th century council, that is true, but apart from
a few quarrels on Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the letters by Jude and
James, and the Revelation, all the other books were unanimously accepted
by the Church from early on. And the canon was not "disputed" and
decided on Nicea, but only confirmed officially, what had been clear
for at least 150 years more or less, and the Gospels have always been
accepted and none of the "apocryphal gospels" has ever been accepted by
the Church. Nicea did not make any "new" decisions in this regard. It
was not that they had a long list of possible gospels and then selected
the current four. No other gospel has ever had any acceptance in the
Church.

I hope I have enlightened and educate you enough? You just can't deny the truth Brother/Sister. Come to Jesus Now. He will save you. It is not too late.

haekymbahd:
I just searched through your topics why are you so obsessed with Islam shey na Muslims wey talk say make your bible dey corrupt.

You seem like someone seeking for a partner in crime I think that would make you feel better right well whether you like it or not.

The Quran is one and recited in different ways as approved by the prophet himself.


Kindly explain why RSV is accusing your widely accepted version of Bible before I can even take you serious

RSV preface

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision........




Compare RSV and KJV version e.t.c of your Bible and still compare both to the Greek version and still compare all to the early manuscript? Couple with the fact that no disciples of Jesus wrote the gospel that author's claim it was from eye witnesses which they didn't mention any nor documents they copied from and we still have cannonical and non cannonical Gospel also the Catholic bible is even still more than the protestants, also the earliest cannonical which is gospel of Mark has been discovered to be fabricated in the early manuscript it stopped at Chapter 16 verse 8 and it not it up to verse 20 how did that happen only God knows. Even Jesus was not even alive when the cannonical were written to verify it and endorse it, the earliest cannonical was written 70+ A D, and we still don't know the full names of the authors of both cannonical and cannonical Gospels or who they are is this not amazing



Can you tell us the source of your Bible, the chains of narration and how KJV got corrupted that it needed revision?


@innotutorial

For over three hundred years the King James Version, published in 1611, was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches. I am Obsess with Islam because Islam is a false Religion which Muhamad Created and not from God. Because the eyes of Muslims are so blinded they can't see. The evidence is so clear that Muhammad was a man who shed blood during his lifetime. It is even in your hadith but you don't read. He murdered innocent women, broke peace treaty and many more. Let me now tell you the bible translations.

For over three hundred years the King James Version, published in 1611, was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches. However, as the English language continued to change, it became increasingly more difficult for people to understand the Old English vernacular. Faced with the obvious need for our society to understand God’s Word, scholars sought to update the scriptures into more contemporary language.

Dr. Lewis Foster, one of those who helped translate the NIV and the NKJV says, “It is necessary to continue making new translations and revising old ones if people are to read the Word of God in their contemporary languages. With the passage of time, words change in meanings. For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘prevent’ could mean ‘come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day rendered 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ But today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV). ...To keep the translation of God’s Word living it must be kept in the living language the people are using.

While new translations have generally been a welcome contribution to the comprehension of scripture, they have also received mixed reactions across the Christian spectrum. One story is told of a pastor who tried to introduce a revised version of the Bible to his rigidly conservative congregation. “So what’s wrong with the King James Version?” said one woman in defense. “In my opinion, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!” The amusing irony is that Jesus obviously did not speak the Old English of the King James Version — neither was the Bible originally recorded in English. Despite the sacred tradition that many revere of the KJV, it is merely a translation of the inspired Word of God, not the initial source. The Old Testament was authored in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. While the original autographs no longer exist, translations are made from ancient manuscript copies, of which there are today at least 24,000, whole or in-part, with which to compare.

An English version of the Bible did not exist until a little more than 600 years ago. Before then, a version translated into Latin by Jerome in the fourth century, called the Latin Vulgate, was the most widely-used Bible translation in the middle ages (the first major book printed on Gutenberg’s press in 1456). Portions of scripture in English began to emerge in the early seventh century, but the first complete English translation was not produced until 1382 by the influence of John Wycliff. Despite fierce opposition of the Roman church, and absence of the printing press, copies of this work were widely circulated. Later in the 16th century, seven more popular English versions were produced, beginning with William Tyndale’s work in 1525. This English version of the New Testament was the first to be translated directly from the Greek instead of Latin texts. Before Tyndale’s completion of the Old Testament, he was tried as a heretic and executed in 1536. After Tyndale, several other famous Bibles were produced in the 16th century. The Cloverdale Bible in 1535, Matthew’s Bible in 1537, The Great Bible in 1539, The Geneva Bible in 1560 (the first to use chapters, verses, and the italicization of added words), and the Bishops Bible in 1568.

Finally in 1604, in an effort to resolve severe factions between Englishmen over Bible versions, King James I authorized the translation of another version that came to bear his name. Forty-seven scholars spent six years on the translation, with all work meticulously reviewed and refined by their combined collaboration. The four existing Massorec texts were used for the Old Testament, and a third edition of the Byzantine Greek text by Stephanus (often referred as the “Textus Receptus”), was used for the New Testament. The King James Version was finally published in 1611, and together with its four revisions (in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769), it remains as the most widely circulated Bible in existence. A few other translations were produced over the centuries, but the real revolution of new Bible versions began to erupt in the 20th century, largely due to the widening language barrier. Some of the more influential, recent translations have been: The Revised Standard Version in 1952, The Amplified Bible in 1965, The New English Bible in 1970, The New American Standard Bible in 1971, The Living Bible in 1971, Today’s English Version in 1976, The New International Version in 1978, and the New King James Version in 1982.

Apart from these versions, there are numerous study Bible editions, such as the Scofield Reference Bible, the Open Bible, the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, or the Spirit Life Bible, etc., but these are not different translations. These volumes merely feature special study helps, commentaries or references added as a supplement to a particular translation. Besides updating the Bible to contemporary language, another controversy with new translations arises over the issue of the original texts. The KJV New Testament (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (A.D. 500 - 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus. But many of the newer translations were produced using a composite of later discoveries of other manuscripts and fragments dating from an earlier period. Among such are The “Alexandrian Family” manuscripts (A.D. 200-400) which include the three oldest: The Codex Alexandrius, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, all which were major contributors to most Bible versions after the King James version. Other important codices come from The Western Family, (of the Western Mediterranean areas), and the Caesarean Family of manuscripts (A.D. 200). (A codex is a manuscript bound together like a book instead of rolled into a scroll. Codices is plural for codex.)

Many scholars feel that the older manuscripts have been somewhat more accurate and important to the refinement of the newer translations. However, this has been disputed by others, especially since the older copies make up a tiny portion of the large quantity of manuscripts available. At least 90% of the 5,400 existing Greek manuscripts come from the Byzantine family (the basis for the Textus Receptus), and due to the overwhelming numbers of copies with which to compare and verify for accuracy, some scholars feel that the small handful of older texts should not be used to overrule the credibility of the majority. Although textual criticism shows only slight differences between the manuscript families, in those passages where the older text differs with the newer, the modern translators usually deferred to the older, primarily from the Alexandrian Family manuscripts — Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. It should be emphasized that none of the revisions in the new era translations, such as the NIV or NASB (compiled with Alexandrian Family Manuscripts), conflict with any rule of faith or doctrinal issue, but some conservative church leaders refuse to accept any tampering with the “tried and proven” Textus Receptus translation of the King James Version. In response to such concerns, the theological community came to see the need for another version, one which would satisfy the need for updated language without venturing beyond the traditional text source. Thus, in the late 1970’s, Thomas Nelson Publishers commissioned a company of scholars to produce a revision of the traditional King James Version. Relying on the familiar Textus Receptus, 130 translators made the needed revisions to modern English and corrections to minor translation errors, while making every effort to retain the traditional phraseology of the old version. This New King James Version, as it was called, was completed in 1982.

Today, most Evangelical churches will make random use of any of the various translations mentioned here. Frequently a pastor will recommend one particular version to be used exclusively by the congregation so that everyone will have an identical source to refer to during the preaching or Bible studies. This not only helps eliminate confusion, but also makes it possible to engage in corporate word-for-word readings of scripture, something that wouldn’t be possible if everyone was reading from a different version. After some research on the various versions, every believer would do well to zero in on a primary version to which they devote their study and commit passages to memory. It’s inadvisable to allow the issue of translations to become a distraction. For the average layman, most of the differences between the translations are relatively insignificant. All the versions we have listed have a high degree of harmony and convey the same general message of God’s Word, but will use some of their own distinctive phrases and words. The following is a summary of the most popular versions, along with a brief evaluation:

The King James Version (KJV) — Translated in 1611 by 47 scholars using the Byzantine family of manuscripts, Textus Receptus. This remains as a good version of the Bible. It has been the most reliable translation for over three centuries, but its Elizabethan style Old English is difficult for modern readers, especially youth. This is still a good translation for those who can deal with the language.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) — Translated in 1971 by 58 scholars of the Lockman Foundation, from Kittle’s Biblia Hebraica and Nestle’s Greek New Testament 23rd ed., which include the Alexandrian Family codices. Though academic in tone, it is said to be the most exact English translation available. A very good version.

The New Living Translation (NLT) — Published in 1996 by the Tyndale House Foundation, this began only as a project to revise to its predecessor, The Living Bible, a 1971 paraphrased rendition of the King James Version by Kenneth Taylor. The work however, evolved into a complete new translation, involving ninety translators over seven years. Rather than a literal word-for-word rendition, this is a simpler “thought by thought” translation, based on Kittle’s, Nestle’s and other Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. It is a significant improvement over the The Living Bible, easy to read and a good version for devotional study.

The New International Version (NIV) — Over 100 translators completed this work in 1978 which was composed from Kittle’s, Nestle’s and United Bible Society’s texts, which include the Alexandrian Family codices. This is considered an “open” style translation. It is a good, easy to read version.

The New King James Version (NKJV) — 130 translators, commissioned by Thomas Nelson Publishers, produced this version from the Byzantine family (Textus Receptus) in 1982. This is a revision of the King James version, updated to modern English with minor translation corrections and retention of traditional phraseology. This is a very good version.

So the Bible is not corrupt as you Muslims were trained to believe. Others tried to Corrupt the bible but it was too late because the Apostles had already wrote the gospels and it was already well used by 1s and 2nd century Churches.

I hope i was able to properly educate and enlighten you?

haekymbahd:
I just searched through your topics why are you so obsessed with Islam shey na Muslims wey talk say make your bible dey corrupt.

You seem like someone seeking for a partner in crime I think that would make you feel better right well whether you like it or not.

The Quran is one and recited in different ways as approved by the prophet himself.


Kindly explain why RSV is accusing your widely accepted version of Bible before I can even take you serious

RSV preface

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision........




Compare RSV and KJV version e.t.c of your Bible and still compare both to the Greek version and still compare all to the early manuscript? Couple with the fact that no disciples of Jesus wrote the gospel that author's claim it was from eye witnesses which they didn't mention any nor documents they copied from and we still have cannonical and non cannonical Gospel also the Catholic bible is even still more than the protestants, also the earliest cannonical which is gospel of Mark has been discovered to be fabricated in the early manuscript it stopped at Chapter 16 verse 8 and it not it up to verse 20 how did that happen only God knows. Even Jesus was not even alive when the cannonical were written to verify it and endorse it, the earliest cannonical was written 70+ A D, and we still don't know the full names of the authors of both cannonical and cannonical Gospels or who they are is this not amazing



Can you tell us the source of your Bible, the chains of narration and how KJV got corrupted that it needed revision?


@innotutorial

Now i will finally destroy Islam and proof to you that the Bible is true using your Quran which i doubt you read.
Your Quran clearly state that the true Christianity prevailed which is the Christianity we have now. I don't think you know this.
Surah 3:55 - Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."
Surah 61:44 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED.

So, According to these passages, Allah gave Christ’s followers the power to prevail over the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. Yet the ones that prevailed were the Apostles such as Paul, as well as his followers. This means that if the Quran is correct, then Paul’s message is the truth since it has become dominant and has prevailed over all other opposing messages. And if that is wrong meaning the Quran is wrong and Islam is False. You see! Where do you stand?

Therefore, Muslims are in a dilemma that they cannot easily resolve. Namely, to accept the Quran is to accept "Pauline" Christianity. Yet to accept "Pauline" Christianity is to reject the Quran, since the Quran contradicts the core teaching of Paul as has been preserved in the pages of the Holy Bible and amongst true Christians historically.

I will make more videos about This.. I pray that our risen Lord and immortal Savior will use this to bring precious Muslims into his glorious love and truth. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you by God’s all powerful, sovereign grace.

haekymbahd:
I just searched through your topics why are you so obsessed with Islam shey na Muslims wey talk say make your bible dey corrupt.

You seem like someone seeking for a partner in crime I think that would make you feel better right well whether you like it or not.

The Quran is one and recited in different ways as approved by the prophet himself.


Kindly explain why RSV is accusing your widely accepted version of Bible before I can even take you serious

RSV preface

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision........




Compare RSV and KJV version e.t.c of your Bible and still compare both to the Greek version and still compare all to the early manuscript? Couple with the fact that no disciples of Jesus wrote the gospel that author's claim it was from eye witnesses which they didn't mention any nor documents they copied from and we still have cannonical and non cannonical Gospel also the Catholic bible is even still more than the protestants, also the earliest cannonical which is gospel of Mark has been discovered to be fabricated in the early manuscript it stopped at Chapter 16 verse 8 and it not it up to verse 20 how did that happen only God knows. Even Jesus was not even alive when the cannonical were written to verify it and endorse it, the earliest cannonical was written 70+ A D, and we still don't know the full names of the authors of both cannonical and cannonical Gospels or who they are is this not amazing



Can you tell us the source of your Bible, the chains of narration and how KJV got corrupted that it needed revision?


@innotutorial

innotutorial:
Now I see because you can't answer my questions you now decide to turn to the Holy Bible. Well! Jesus Christ is calling you home. I will now show to you why Christianity is true and different from islam which have no ground to stand only got his book from Isnad.. and claim to be from so claim prophets who claim to get his revelation from God. Even the Jews and Christians rejected his message to be a false prophet. Because God can't give such message where he contradicts himself.

Khadija and waraqa what religion were there from. Also are you telling no Jew or christians right from the time of Muhammad ever converted to islam stop deluding yourself

innotutorial:

Now let me educate you about christianity and bring you to the knowledge of the truth. The gospel were never gotten from Isnad like your so claim book. They were written by the Authors who live and meet Jesus. They were eye witness. Matthew, mark, Luke and John.

it seems you don't know me yet, nice education I couldn't read any the copy and paste were too much.

Now let me start asking you questions..
From your post above are you saying Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were eye witness ?