₦airaland Forum

Lukuluku69:
Of course Logical questions being asked and answers being giving is part of Faith building.

You never asked any question in that post but went all out to attack a prescribed way of grooming.

Please point me to your logical question Sir.

Don't do those, dont do that,don't eat those,where then is the free will

Perhaps you missed that

ShaheedBinAliyu:
You're the one confused and that's exactly why you're kafir

What is kafir? Oh sorry your god doesn’t understand English.

Na only Arabic e hear.

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Laughing.. so Hadith Hasan is weak? Lol

By who are those narrators condemned?

If some Sahih Bukhari Hadiths or Sahih Muslim Hadiths can be classified as Daif or even Maudu, how much more the ones that have in the chain one person who is unreliable

helinues:
Perhaps you missed that

Don't do those, dont do that,don't eat those,where then is the free will

The concept of Free Will is usually lost with irreligious folks. Free will doesn't mean you can do as you wish once you come into Faith.

I will give you and example that you can relate with, in Fairh, once you come to it there is something like a Code of Conduct you abide with.

Islam regulate what you eat, how you eat, and what you eat. It regulate what you wear, how to wear. It is like a Code of Conduct which you must abide with, but then it is something irreligious folks don't understand.

It is akin to be a Lawyer or a Doctor, certain things are expected of you which is a given and deviation see you as a deviant and not conforming to being in that trade.

Summary Pls, it's too long

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Laughing.. so Hadith Hasan is weak? Lol

By who are those narrators condemned?

I can see how serious you suddenly become and I do not want to waste your time.

This is exactly what you Muslims do when as Christians we challenge you with evidence from Hadiths. It is them Muslims will jump upon the isnad of the hadith as excuse to tear it down. They forget that only Maudu Hadiths can not be trusted as even Daif hadiths pass the credibility test. The fact that isnad isn't perfect doesn't mean that the hadith is false.

I won't distort what your hadiths as as you are very correct according to the hadith that no Muslim man should pray with his hair braided.

Have a nice day sir!

This is just an enlightment and justification of people acts, and a guide.

kushme:
Stop worrying about what other people do with their lives, as long as they don't violate the right of other people. Leqve dem with dem braids.. Plenty of don'ts, life becomes boring.

TenQ:
The grade is Hasan and not Sahih isn't it?

Let me give you my reasons from the chain of transmission

1. Abu Sa'd, is a man from the people of Madinah is unknown
2. Mukhāwil ibn Rāshid is considered fairly trustworthy but with bad memory and precision, making him a weak narrator


Therefore, no one should trust this hadith

Are there hadith of similar wording or context graded Sahih? There indeed is the point outside these 2 narrators are there chains without them?

honesttalk21:
Are there hadith of similar wording or context graded Sahih? There indeed is the point outside these 2 narrators are there chains without them?

Are you telling me that Muslim scholars cannot make up their mind about what is real and untrue in Islam?

TenQ:
Are you telling me that Muslim scholars cannot make up their mind about what is real and untrue in Islam?

No. And that is exactly the point. Scholars are indeed capable of assessing reports, and the very fact that this narration is subject to debate indicates that the system is functioning properly, not failing. Hadith science was designed to distinguish between authentic reports and weak ones which is why scholars will openly classify a narration as ḥasan or ḍaif when a narrator is either unknown or lacks strong precision, as you mentioned. This disagreement isn't a matter of confusion regarding the truth; rather, it reflects methodological integrity.

honesttalk21:
No. And that is exactly the point. Scholars are indeed capable of assessing reports, and the very fact that this narration is subject to debate indicates that the system is functioning properly, not failing. Hadith science was designed to distinguish between authentic reports and weak ones which is why scholars will openly classify a narration as ḥasan or ḍaif when a narrator is either unknown or lacks strong precision, as you mentioned. This disagreement isn't a matter of confusion regarding the truth; rather, it reflects methodological integrity.

You just told me that the grading of hadiths is NOT an exact science as it is subjective.

You also very well know that the only hadith that is considered as useless in Islam is the Maudu Hadiths. Daif Hadiths are not necessarily false and Muslim scholars use it a lot in their mosques.

The only problem occurs when Muslims have to deny a Hadith they consider as shameful or problematic when they are discussing with Christians.

Islam many times CANNOT be trusted even with their own sources. Even Allah is thrown under the bus by Muslim scholars if they do not like what he has said. There is always a dissenting voice among your scholars concerning even the mundane subject

Is it possible to debate a person who had decided to be dishonest with his facts and information?

TenQ:
You just told me that the grading of hadiths is NOT an exact science as it is subjective.

You also very well know that the only hadith that is considered as useless in Islam is the Maudu Hadiths. Daif Hadiths are not necessarily false and Muslim scholars use it a lot in their mosques.

The only problem occurs when Muslims have to deny a Hadith they consider as shameful or problematic when they are discussing with Christians.

Islam many times CANNOT be trusted even with their own sources. Even Allah is thrown under the bus by Muslim scholars if they do not like what he has said. There is always a dissenting voice among your scholars concerning even the mundane subject

Is it possible to debate a person who had decided to be dishonest with his facts and information?

I asked if there were hadith with similar wording to the one graded Hassan? Sure there are and a Hassan hadith is not discarded just because concerns are raised for valid reasons.

Hadith grading is a rigorous methodology rather than a matter of personal opinion. While there is some subjective judgment involved, it operates within established rules that have been accepted across different schools for over 1,200 years. Scholarly disagreement doesn't translate to unreliability it shows thorough evaluation not rejection. Daʿif does not serve as evidence for legal or doctrinal matters, which is exactly why Islam prevents the acceptance of unreliable reports instead of concealing them. What you refer to as dishonesty is in fact a transparent form of self-critique, something that many other traditions do not permit.

Exploring disagreement using objective criteria is not subjectivity!

honesttalk21:
I asked if there were hadith with similar wording to the one graded Hassan? Sure there are and a Hassan hadith is not discarded just because concerns are raised for valid reasons.

Hadith grading is a rigorous methodology rather than a matter of personal opinion. While there is some subjective judgment involved, it operates within established rules that have been accepted across different schools for over 1,200 years. Scholarly disagreement doesn't translate to unreliability it shows thorough evaluation not rejection. Daʿif does not serve as evidence for legal or doctrinal matters, which is exactly why Islam prevents the acceptance of unreliable reports instead of concealing them. What you refer to as dishonesty is in fact a transparent form of self-critique, something that many other traditions do not permit.

Exploring disagreement using objective criteria is not subjectivity!

Let me ask you a question.

Lets test your objective criteria!
If a person is a known liar or fraudulent in character is in the chain of an hadith, according to the science of hadiths, is his hadith graded as Maudu or Daif or ultimately REJECTED?
.
Do you accept that, If your science is exact, you surely must be able to give a repeatable and consistent factual response of objective action.

TenQ:
Let me ask you a question.

Lets test your objective criteria!
If a person is a known liar or fraudulent in character is in the chain of an hadith, according to the science of hadiths, is his hadith graded as Maudu or Daif or ultimately REJECTED?
.
Do you accept that, If your science is exact, you surely must be able to give a repeatable and consistent factual response of objective action.

In hadith science, if there is a known liar or someone accused of fabrication in the chain, the report is outright rejected and deemed mawdu(fabricated) or matruk (abandoned). However, if a narrator is unknown (majhul) or truthful but lacks precision, the report is considered daʿif (weak) not fabricated. I see you conflate these distinct categories into a false dilemma, overlooking the established intermediate rules that guide hadith evaluation.

This is precisely why Ibn Maqjah 1042 is classified as hasan. Its narrators are not liars, the weaknesses are minor, and there are supporting reports with similar wording that elevate a lightly weak chain to hasan li-ghayrih. Remember I questioned you of other hadith with similar wording? Mistaking weakness for fabrication is not a scholarly disagreement; it is a methodological error stemming from polemics rather than from hadith science.

honesttalk21:
In hadith science, if there is a known liar or someone accused of fabrication in the chain, the report is outright rejected and deemed mawdu(fabricated) or matruk (abandoned). However, if a narrator is unknown (majhul) or truthful but lacks precision, the report is considered daʿif (weak) not fabricated. I see you conflate these distinct categories into a false dilemma, overlooking the established intermediate rules that guide hadith evaluation.

This is precisely why Ibn Maqjah 1042 is classified as hasan. Its narrators are not liars, the weaknesses are minor, and there are supporting reports with similar wording that elevate a lightly weak chain to hasan li-ghayrih. Remember I questioned you of other hadith with similar wording? Mistaking weakness for fabrication is not a scholarly disagreement; it is a methodological error stemming from polemics rather than from hadith science.

So, why do Muslims not reject the Qur'an of Hafs?

You very well know that there should be countless other people more credible than Hafs and his father who should have memorised the Qur'an perfectly.

But no! Of all narrators Muslims cannot find any chain of transmission using their own rules but to include at least two fraudulent liars.

Can you see that Muslims pick and choose what they think suits their current position?

TenQ:
So, why do Muslims not reject the Qur'an of Hafs?

You very well know that there should be countless other people more credible than Hafs and his father who should have memorised the Qur'an perfectly.

But no! Of all narrators Muslims cannot find any chain of transmission using their own rules but to include at least two fraudulent liars.

Can you see that Muslims pick and choose what they think suits their current position?

You’re mixing up two distinct fields of study. While Hafs b. Sulayman is considered weak in hadith narration, he is not regarded as weak in Qur’anic recitation, and it's important to note that the Qur’an is transmitted quite differently from hadith.

Hafs was never called a liar. He was deemed weak only in terms of hadith precision due to his memory, not for fabrication. This assessment does not apply to Qur’anic transmission, which is mass-transmitted and confirmed independently across generations. Hafs is simply one transmitter of one reading (ʿAsim) among several equally authentic readings like Warsh, Qalun etc.

Using hadith criticism on the Qur’an is a category mistake; there are no multiple Qur’ans, only different canonical readings of the same text, all preserved through mass transmission. Hadith evaluation is on basis of probability; Qur’anic transmission is collective and public.

honesttalk21:
You’re mixing up two distinct fields of study. While Hafs b. Sulayman is considered weak in hadith narration, he is not regarded as weak in Qur’anic recitation, and it's important to note that the Qur’an is transmitted quite differently from hadith.

Hafs was never called a liar. He was deemed weak only in terms of hadith precision due to his memory, not for fabrication. This assessment does not apply to Qur’anic transmission, which is mass-transmitted and confirmed independently across generations. Hafs is simply one transmitter of one reading (ʿAsim) among several equally authentic readings like Warsh, Qalun etc.

Using hadith criticism on the Qur’an is a category mistake; there are no multiple Qur’ans, only different canonical readings of the same text, all preserved through mass transmission. Hadith evaluation is on basis of probability; Qur’anic transmission is collective and public.

1. Isnt the Qur'an also a Hadith of Allah transmitted through Jibril to Mohammed through other reporters?
2. It seems you don't know Hafs.
Al-ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafā’ al-ʿUqaylī, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿahjī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984), 1:257.
which states:

كَانَ يَسْرِقُ الْكُتُبَ، وَيَضَعُهَا فِي كُتُبِهِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ وَأَبُوهُ مَتْهُونَيْنِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعِيفَيْنِ
"He used to steal books and incorporate them into his own books. He and his father were considered worthless/despised in Ḥadīth, weak."

This is from your own early Islamic books
3. My argument still stands. If there is no falsehood at the foundation of the source of your Qur'an, there should be several sources of the Qur'an as it needn't pass through Hafs not his father.
How many copies of the Qur'an did Uthman make?
How many people memorised the Qur'an completely before the birth of Hafs and his father?

TenQ:
1. Isnt the Qur'an also a Hadith of Allah transmitted through Jibril to Mohammed through other reporters?
2. It seems you don't know Hafs.
Al-ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafā’ al-ʿUqaylī, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿahjī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984), 1:257.
which states:

كَانَ يَسْرِقُ الْكُتُبَ، وَيَضَعُهَا فِي كُتُبِهِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ وَأَبُوهُ مَتْهُونَيْنِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعِيفَيْنِ
"He used to steal books and incorporate them into his own books. He and his father were considered worthless/despised in Ḥadīth, weak."

This is from your own early Islamic books
3. My argument still stands. If there is no falsehood at the foundation of the source of your Qur'an, there should be several sources of the Qur'an as it needn't pass through Hafs not his father.
How many copies of the Qur'an did Uthman make?
How many people memorised the Qur'an completely before the birth of Hafs and his father?

The Qur'an was never reliant on Hafṣ; it had been memorized by thousands and standardized under ʿUthman well before his time. Hafs is simply one canonical reading, not the original source. Criticizing hadith narrators such as Hafs b. Sulayman does not impact the authenticity of the Qur'an.

honesttalk21:
The Qur'an was never reliant on Hafṣ; it had been memorized by thousands and standardized under ʿUthman well before his time. Hafs is simply one canonical reading, not the original source. Criticizing hadith narrators such as Hafs b. Sulayman does not impact the authenticity of the Qur'an.

No problem that the Qur'an was memorised. The problem is that of the hundreds of thousands of the purported memorisers of the Qur'an, you choose Hafs who normally should be disqualified by your own standard of transmission of islamic truths..

So, are you telling me that other credible chain of transmission of the Qur'an somehow disappeared!?

Islamic stories usually have K legs with scrutiny

TenQ:
No problem that the Qur'an was memorised. The problem is that of the hundreds of thousands of the purported memorisers of the Qur'an, you choose Hafs who normally should be disqualified by your own standard of transmission of islamic truths..

So, are you telling me that other credible chain of transmission of the Qur'an somehow disappeared!?

Islamic stories usually have K legs with scrutiny

Oops! Muslims did not choose Hafs. The Qur'an has been preserved through mass transmission (tawatur), public transmission long before and after his time. Hafs is not a starting point; he is merely one transmitter of one canonical reading among others (like Warsh, Qalun, and ad-Duri), all of which have been independently preserved and are still in use today.

No chains disappeared; they coexisted. Hafs became more widespread later due to the convenience of Ottoman printing, not because of any theological reliance; his reading had already been accepted canonically centuries earlier.

Criticizing Hafs applies hadith criteria to Qur'anic transmission, which is a category error. The Qur'an relies on multiple independent mass transmissions rather than a single narrator or a printing press.

honesttalk21:
Oops! Muslims did not choose Hafs. The Qur'an has been preserved through mass transmission (tawatur), public transmission long before and after his time. Hafs is not a starting point; he is merely one transmitter of one canonical reading among others (like Warsh, Qalun, and ad-Duri), all of which have been independently preserved and are still in use today.

No chains disappeared; they coexisted. Hafs became more widespread later due to the convenience of Ottoman printing, not because of any theological reliance; his reading had already been accepted canonically centuries earlier.

Criticizing Hafs applies hadith criteria to Qur'anic transmission, which is a category error. The Qur'an relies on multiple independent mass transmissions rather than a single narrator or a printing press.

So, why did you choose Hafs transmission in 1924 ,where the Cairo edition standardized Hafs Qur'an globally?

The Cairo edition came because Al-Azhar since the Fatimid era (10th century) was the global hub for qira'at scholarship, hosting students from across the Muslim world (North Africa, Levant, Persia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia). The problem was the vast difference in recitations leading to the adoption/promotion of a single version for all Muslims


*Apart from these above, the existing Different Arabic Qurans in the world now is about 32 to 36* . Not one Muslim can tell us which one of them is the exact copy of the Quran of Allah in heaven.
Here is a list of some of the different Arabic Qurans in existent:
_Hafs Quran_
_Warsh Quran_
_Qalun Quran_
_Al-Duri Quran_
_Al-Bazzi Quran_
_Qunbul Quran_
_Al-Suri Quran_
_Ibn `Amir Quran_
_Hisham Quran_
_Ibn Dhakwan Quran_
_Khallad Quran_
_Al-Kisa'i Quran_
_Al-Duri Quran_
_Abu'l-Harith Quran_
_Ibn Wardan Quran_
_Ibn Jamaz Quran_
_Ya`qub al-Hashimi_
_Ruways Quran_
_Rawh Quran_
_Khalaf al-Bazzar Quran_
_Ishaq Quran_
_Idris al-Haddad Quran_
_Khalaf Quran_

The most popular versions are the Hafs Quran and the Warsh Quran


You can clearly see that the claim of the Perfectly Preserved Quran is a fallacy.

TenQ:
So, why did you choose Hafs transmission in 1924 ,where the Cairo edition standardized Hafs Qur'an globally?

The Cairo edition came because Al-Azhar since the Fatimid era (10th century) was the global hub for qira'at scholarship, hosting students from across the Muslim world (North Africa, Levant, Persia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia). The problem was the vast difference in recitations leading to the adoption/promotion of a single version for all Muslims


*Apart from these above, the existing Different Arabic Qurans in the world now is about 32 to 36* . Not one Muslim can tell us which one of them is the exact copy of the Quran of Allah in heaven.
Here is a list of some of the different Arabic Qurans in existent:
_Hafs Quran_
_Warsh Quran_
_Qalun Quran_
_Al-Duri Quran_
_Al-Bazzi Quran_
_Qunbul Quran_
_Al-Suri Quran_
_Ibn `Amir Quran_
_Hisham Quran_
_Ibn Dhakwan Quran_
_Khallad Quran_
_Al-Kisa'i Quran_
_Al-Duri Quran_
_Abu'l-Harith Quran_
_Ibn Wardan Quran_
_Ibn Jamaz Quran_
_Ya`qub al-Hashimi_
_Ruways Quran_
_Rawh Quran_
_Khalaf al-Bazzar Quran_
_Ishaq Quran_
_Idris al-Haddad Quran_
_Khalaf Quran_

The most popular versions are the Hafs Quran and the Warsh Quran


You can clearly see that the claim of the Perfectly Preserved Quran is a fallacy.

1924 didn't select Hafs as God's Qur'an but rather standardized an already accepted reading for educational purposes. All qiraʾat are still valid; having multiple readings of the same text demonstrates preservation rather than corruption, and referring to them as different Qur'ans is a fundamental misunderstanding.

honesttalk21:
1924 didn't select Hafs as God's Qur'an but rather standardized an already accepted reading for educational purposes. All qiraʾat are still valid; having multiple readings of the same text demonstrates preservation rather than corruption, and referring to them as different Qur'ans is a fundamental misunderstanding.

No problem !
The only issue is that before 1924, everyone had their own Qirat of the Qur'an . Hafs version was chosen (even though it had faulty chain of transmission according to Muslim rules) as a STANDARD and now Approximately 95% of Muslims worldwide use the Hafs recitation of the Quran.

Unfortunately, this is another problem
1. Where are the copies of the Qur'an of Uthman?

After Uthman standardised the Qur'an, he made 7 copies of the WRITTEN Qur'an. Copies were sent to key cities like Medina, Mecca, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Yemen, and Bahrain, with orders to burn variant fragments to prevent disputes

If the islamic stories about Qur'an preservation was TRUE, we wouldn't need the RECITATIONS according to.... according to....... according to Hafs.

Where are the copies of copies of Uthmanic Qur'an?

TenQ:
No problem !
The only issue is that before 1924, everyone had their own Qirat of the Qur'an . Hafs version was chosen (even though it had faulty chain of transmission according to Muslim rules) as a STANDARD and now Approximately 95% of Muslims worldwide use the Hafs recitation of the Quran.

Unfortunately, this is another problem
1. Where are the copies of the Qur'an of Uthman?

After Uthman standardised the Qur'an, he made 7 copies of the WRITTEN Qur'an. Copies were sent to key cities like Medina, Mecca, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Yemen, and Bahrain, with orders to burn variant fragments to prevent disputes

If the islamic stories about Qur'an preservation was TRUE, we wouldn't need the RECITATIONS according to.... according to....... according to Hafs.

Where are the copies of copies of Uthmanic Qur'an?

The assertion that everyone had their own qiraa prior to 1924 is incorrect. The established qiraat were standardized by scholarly consensus in the early centuries of Islam and formally codified by Ibn Mujahid in 324 AH (936 CE), almost a thousand years before the Cairo edition, which only standardized printing rather than transmission or revelation. Hafs is not a source of the Quran but rather a transmitter of an already established reading that existed alongside others; his current dominance can be attributed to Ottoman and modern printing methods, while Warsh and other readings continue to be used. Allegations of a faulty chain conflate Hafs, the Quran reciter, with unrelated hadith narrators and misapply single chain hadith critiques to Quranic transmission, which has been preserved through tawatur by countless memorizers. Early Uthmanic codices and fragments exist that align with the consonantal text, but the Quran was mainly maintained through extensive oral transmission, with writing serving as support. Insisting on one original manuscript imposes a document-based standard on a primarily oral system this is a category error. The preservation remains valid.

honesttalk21:
The assertion that everyone had their own qiraa prior to 1924 is incorrect. The established qiraat were standardized by scholarly consensus in the early centuries of Islam and formally codified by Ibn Mujahid in 324 AH (936 CE), almost a thousand years before the Cairo edition, which only standardized printing rather than transmission or revelation. Hafs is not a source of the Quran but rather a transmitter of an already established reading that existed alongside others; his current dominance can be attributed to Ottoman and modern printing methods, while Warsh and other readings continue to be used. Allegations of a faulty chain conflate Hafs, the Quran reciter, with unrelated hadith narrators and misapply single chain hadith critiques to Quranic transmission, which has been preserved through tawatur by countless memorizers. Early Uthmanic codices and fragments exist that align with the consonantal text, but the Quran was mainly maintained through extensive oral transmission, with writing serving as support. Insisting on one original manuscript imposes a document-based standard on a primarily oral system this is a category error. The preservation remains valid.

You are simply just reciting the Standard Islamic Narration about the origin of the written Qur'an.

Here is the problem:
1. Uthman standardised the Quran in one dialect (Quraysh)
2. Uthman wrote down the standardized Qur'an
3. Uthman made 7 identical copies of this standardized Qur'an and distributed it to seven major Islamic regions

BUT Somehow, Muslims couldn't find a copy of copies of the Uthmanic Qurans from ANY of the seven original copies.

Muslims then went on a SPREE of RECITATION according to...... according to...... according to .... according to Hafs.

Can you tell me what happened to the original standardized Qur'an of Uthman?

Evidence within Islamic sources had shown that Muslims have terrible memories and memorisation of their Qur'an. Right from Inception, Ibn Mas'ud differ from the Uthmanic Qur'an. Variations exists from the beginning of Islam such that Abubakar's Quran was to stop this error or memorisation of the Qur'an.

The Pen is mightier than any memory but Muslims disagree. So then we ask them why Allah created the PEN first when he could rely on memory AND can any Muslim tell us the person recognised as the sole authority on the Qur'an that such can correct the extant written Qur'an and you will follow him?

TenQ:
You are simply just reciting the Standard Islamic Narration about the origin of the written Qur'an.

Here is the problem:
1. Uthman standardised the Quran in one dialect (Quraysh)
2. Uthman wrote down the standardized Qur'an
3. Uthman made 7 identical copies of this standardized Qur'an and distributed it to seven major Islamic regions

BUT Somehow, Muslims couldn't find a copy of copies of the Uthmanic Qurans from ANY of the seven original copies.

Muslims then went on a SPREE of RECITATION according to...... according to...... according to .... according to Hafs.

Can you tell me what happened to the original standardized Qur'an of Uthman?

Evidence within Islamic sources had shown that Muslims have terrible memories and memorisation of their Qur'an. Right from Inception, Ibn Mas'ud differ from the Uthmanic Qur'an. Variations exists from the beginning of Islam such that Abubakar's Quran was to stop this error or memorisation of the Qur'an.

The Pen is mightier than any memory but Muslims disagree. So then we ask them why Allah created the PEN first when he could rely on memory AND can any Muslim tell us the person recognised as the sole authority on the Qur'an that such can correct the extant written Qur'an and you will follow him?

You're not identifying a problem; rather, you're mischaracterizing the preservation model.

1. Uthman and the dialect (Quraysh):
ʿUthman standardized the rasm (consonantal skeleton) in the Quraysh dialect to avoid regional disputes, not to replace existing memorization. Oral transmission was already widespread and continuous.


2.No copies of the seven Qur'ans survived?
This is a misleading assertion. Early manuscripts and fragments that align with the ʿUthmānic rasm do exist (Topkapi, Tashkent, Birmingham, Paris, Tübingen). Preservation has never relied on a single museum-quality grade artifact remaining intact for 1400 years.


3. Muslims switched to Hafṣ
I ncorrect. Hafṣ is not a source of the Qur'an; he transmitted one canonical reading among several, all preserved by tawatur. His modern prevalence reflects printing logistics, not the loss of other readings, which continue to exist (Warsh, Qalun, ad-Duri).


4. Ibn Masʿud and early variation:
Ibn Masʿud did not possess a different Qur'an. His personal codex included dialectal variants and notes but no doctrinal differences. ʿUthmān standardized public recitation to unify dialect not to correct poor or failed memory.


5. Abu Bakr's compilation:
This was not aimed at stopping memorization errors. It served as a written backup for what thousands already knew by heart after many memorizers fell in battle. Writing supported memory did not replace or erase it.


6. "Pen vs memory" and Allah creating the Pen:
This is obvious category error. The ḥadīth regarding the Pen pertains to divine decree and foreknowledge (God's eternal knowledge), not human methods of preservation. Islam deliberately employs both:

Oral mass transmission (primary, self-verifying)

Written copies (secondary, corroborative)

7. Who is the sole authority to correct the Qur'an?
There is no single authority by design. Preservation is distributed rather than centralized. Millions of memorizers across generations mutually verify the text. A single authority would create a single point of failure.

You're critiquing a manuscript-only, centralized model that Islam has never advocated for. The Qur'an has been preserved through extensive oral transmission supported by writing not through one narrator, one codex, or one authority.

This is a category error. Preservation remains intact. Your objection fails.

honesttalk21:
You're not identifying a problem; rather, you're mischaracterizing the preservation model.

1. Uthman and the dialect (Quraysh):
ʿUthman standardized the rasm (consonantal skeleton) in the Quraysh dialect to avoid regional disputes, not to replace existing memorization. Oral transmission was already widespread and continuous.

Meaning that
1. Mohammed and Allah were wrong in giveng the Qur'an in more than one Ahruf

Sahih Muslim 821 a
Ubayy b. Ka'b reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Gabriel came to him and said:

Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Qur'an in one dialect. Upon this he said: I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it. He then came for the second time and said: Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Qur'an to your people in two dialects. Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said: I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so. He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in three dialects. Upon this he said: I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it. He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right.

Tell me, why dod Allah agree with Mohammad into giving confusing Ahrufs that ended up corrupting the Qur'an?

honesttalk21:
2.No copies of the seven Qur'ans survived?
This is a misleading assertion. Early manuscripts and fragments that align with the ʿUthmānic rasm do exist (Topkapi, Tashkent, Birmingham, Paris, Tübingen). Preservation has never relied on a single museum-quality grade artifact remaining intact for 1400 years.

So, can you kindly give me the names of these SEVEN ahruf of the Qur'an and the copies of their copy?

honesttalk21:
3. Muslims switched to Hafṣ
I ncorrect. Hafṣ is not a source of the Qur'an; he transmitted one canonical reading among several, all preserved by tawatur. His modern prevalence reflects printing logistics, not the loss of other readings, which continue to exist (Warsh, Qalun, ad-Duri).

You did not answer my questions.
Let me elaborate.

If the Quran was written in the time of Uthman, there should exist only two names in the isnad of your Qur'an: Mohammed and Uthman QED!
But here you have your Qur'an according to the RECITATION not WRITING nor COPY of Uthman's Qur'an.

If there is a physical copy of the Qur'an your other copies must be from it and not from someone's memory.

honesttalk21:
4. Ibn Masʿud and early variation:
Ibn Masʿud did not possess a different Qur'an. His personal codex included dialectal variants and notes but no doctrinal differences. ʿUthmān standardized public recitation to unify dialect not to correct poor or failed memory.

It is shocking that you a Muslim did not know that Ibn Mas'uds Qur'an had ONLY 111 surah. Ibn Mas'ud's version reportedly omitted Surah al-Fatiha (Chapter 1), al-Falaq (113), and an-Nas (114)—known as al-Mu'awwidhatayn.


To you, ommition of two whole chapters is a diacritical or pronunciation problem.
Muslims!!!!

honesttalk21:
5. Abu Bakr's compilation:
This was not aimed at stopping memorization errors. It served as a written backup for what thousands already knew by heart after many memorizers fell in battle. Writing supported memory did not replace or erase it.

Muslims always think they can get away with fabrications like this.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
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 (Qur'an) 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, Sa`id 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.

Did you see DIFFERENCES in the RECITATION of the Qur'an?
SMH!

First, Allah made the mistake of giving the Qur'an in seven dialects. Now, we see that they recite differently the Qur'an.

honesttalk21:
6. "Pen vs memory" and Allah creating the Pen:
This is obvious category error. The ḥadīth regarding the Pen pertains to divine decree and foreknowledge (God's eternal knowledge), not human methods of preservation. Islam deliberately employs both:

Oral mass transmission (primary, self-verifying)

Written copies (secondary, corroborative)

What is the Pen used for?
What is a book?
Is the Umm al-Kitab ("Mother of the Book", Lawh Mahfuz ("Preserved Tablet", or Kitab Maknun ("Concealed Book" REAL or not

honesttalk21:
7. Who is the sole authority to correct the Qur'an?
There is no single authority by design. Preservation is distributed rather than centralized. Millions of memorizers across generations mutually verify the text. A single authority would create a single point of failure.

You're critiquing a manuscript-only, centralized model that Islam has never advocated for. The Qur'an has been preserved through extensive oral transmission supported by writing not through one narrator, one codex, or one authority.

This is a category error. Preservation remains intact. Your objection fails.

Even the first generation of Muslims differed in recital of the Qur'an not to speak of modern Muslims. The Shia Muslims.

The Question is, which of your extant Qur'an is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah?

TenQ:
Meaning that
1. Mohammed and Allah were wrong in giveng the Qur'an in more than one Ahruf

Sahih Muslim 821 a
Ubayy b. Ka'b reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Gabriel came to him and said:

Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Qur'an in one dialect. Upon this he said: I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it. He then came for the second time and said: Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Qur'an to your people in two dialects. Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said: I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so. He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in three dialects. Upon this he said: I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it. He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right.

Tell me, why dod Allah agree with Mohammad into giving confusing Ahrufs that ended up corrupting the Qur'an?


So, can you kindly give me the names of these SEVEN ahruf of the Qur'an and the copies of their copy?



You did not answer my questions.
Let me elaborate.

If the Quran was written in the time of Uthman, there should exist only two names in the isnad of your Qur'an: Mohammed and Uthman QED!
But here you have your Qur'an according to the RECITATION not WRITING nor COPY of Uthman's Qur'an.

If there is a physical copy of the Qur'an your other copies must be from it and not from someone's memory.



It is shocking that you a Muslim did not know that Ibn Mas'uds Qur'an had ONLY 111 surah. Ibn Mas'ud's version reportedly omitted Surah al-Fatiha (Chapter 1), al-Falaq (113), and an-Nas (114)—known as al-Mu'awwidhatayn.


To you, ommition of two whole chapters is a diacritical or pronunciation problem.
Muslims!!!!



Muslims always think they can get away with fabrications like this.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
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 (Qur'an) 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, Sa`id 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.

Did you see DIFFERENCES in the RECITATION of the Qur'an?
SMH!

First, Allah made the mistake of giving the Qur'an in seven dialects. Now, we see that they recite differently the Qur'an.



What is the Pen used for?
What is a book?
Is the Umm al-Kitab ("Mother of the Book", Lawh Mahfuz ("Preserved Tablet", or Kitab Maknun ("Concealed Book" REAL or not





Even the first generation of Muslims differed in recital of the Qur'an not to speak of modern Muslims. The Shia Muslims.

The Question is, which of your extant Qur'an is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah?

You're not identifying contradictions; rather, you're persistently in making category errors.

Seven ahruf do not equal seven Qur’ans. These were divinely allowed oral variations, not competing texts. Authorized variation cannot lead to corruption.

Asking “Name the seven ahruf” is a misguided request. No source states that there were seven named books or lists of dialects. Classical scholars assert that they were practiced rather than cataloged.

Uthman r.a standardized the script, not the revelation itself. He unified the written rasm to eliminate pronunciation disputes and no verses were added, removed, or altered; oral transmission continued with thousands.

Ibn Masʿud never possessed a different Qur’an. Claims of missing surahs are weak and isolated, easily countered by mass transmission (tawstur). No community has ever adhered to a 111-surah Qur’an.

The emphasis on recitation over manuscripts reflects history rather than failure. The Qur’an was mainly preserved through public memorization; writing served as an additional support.

Your question “Which Qur’an is in heaven?” lacks substance. Revelation is maintained as recited text, not as a celestial codex. All canonical readings express the same Qur’an.

There are no multiple Qur’ans. No lost chapters. No corrupt chains.
You are challenging a manuscript-only model that Islam never asserted.
Preservation remains intact. The objection continuously fails.

honesttalk21:
You're not identifying contradictions; rather, you're persistently in making category errors.

Seven ahruf do not equal seven Qur’ans. These were divinely allowed oral variations, not competing texts. Authorized variation cannot lead to corruption.

Asking “Name the seven ahruf” is a misguided request. No source states that there were seven named books or lists of dialects. Classical scholars assert that they were practiced rather than cataloged.

Muslims will twist their own history until it doesn't makes sense even to themselves.
So then, tell me why Uthman standardised his Qur'an into a single Ahruf using the Quraysh dialect?

honesttalk21:
Uthman r.a standardized the script, not the revelation itself. He unified the written rasm to eliminate pronunciation disputes and no verses were added, removed, or altered; oral transmission continued with thousands.

Ibn Masʿud never possessed a different Qur’an. Claims of missing surahs are weak and isolated, easily countered by mass transmission (tawstur). No community has ever adhered to a 111-surah Qur’an.

The emphasis on recitation over manuscripts reflects history rather than failure. The Qur’an was mainly preserved through public memorization; writing served as an additional support.

Your question “Which Qur’an is in heaven?” lacks substance. Revelation is maintained as recited text, not as a celestial codex. All canonical readings express the same Qur’an.

There are no multiple Qur’ans. No lost chapters. No corrupt chains.
You are challenging a manuscript-only model that Islam never asserted.
Preservation remains intact. The objection continuously fails.

Al-Musliimas will rather tell lies than admit the Truth they do not want
Repeating falsehood a million times will not make it become the truth sir.
Sorry, Uthman did NOT standardize the script.
Uthman's Arabic script was without diacritical marks and is known as rasm style.

In this form readers supply vowels via memorization and context. Dots were added later (8th century CE)

So, there exist no Umm al-Kitab with Allah?

Isn't your Qur'an supposed to be word for word identical to the Umm al-Kitab/Lawh Mahfuz

So, the Question again, which one of your Arabic Qur'an is the EXACT copy of the Book of Allah!


It is a fair question based on the claims of Islam