₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
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?




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

You are still merging categories and then blaming Muslims for inconsistency because they reject the confusion you've created.

Uthman did not standardize the Qur’an into a single version. He standardized the written form in the Quraysh dialect, as it was the dialect of the Prophet and most widely understood just as noted in Sahih al-Bukhari. This decision was about orthography, not revelation.

Indeed, the rasm lacked dots or vowels. However, this is not a flaw; it is intentional. The ambiguous script was designed to accommodate oral recitations that were already preserved through mass memorization. When diacritics were introduced later, they didn't alter the text; they merely recorded what the reciters had been publicly transmitting.

You continue to insist on a model of preservation based solely on manuscripts. Islam has never claimed such a model.

Preservation in Islam is tawatur—distributed, convergent, mass transmission anchored to a unified rasm. All canonical qiraʾat:

• Share the same consonantal structure
• Follow the same order of surahs
• Maintain the same verse structure
• Convey identical doctrinal content

If you argue otherwise, please provide a difference in rasm among Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, or ad-Duri. Remove the dots and vowels and demonstrate a different consonantal foundation. You cannot - because it doesn’t exist.

Regarding Maliki vs. Maliki or similar variations; yes, there are minor lexical differences within the same rasm. These have always been known, documented, and transmitted through tawatur. They do not create new doctrines or missing verses nor do they present competing texts. Variation within authorized readings iis not corruption it reflects controlled divinely allowed diversity.

The reference to Umm al-Kitab/Lawh Mahfuz is another category error. It signifies God’s eternal knowledge rather than a physical manuscript with dots in heaven. Revelation came as recitation. What is preserved is the revealed text, and every canonical qiraʾa transmits that same revelation.

There aren’t multiple Qur’ans. There is one Qur’an conveyed through multiple authorized readings within the same rasm.

You are challenging a model of preservation that Islam has never asserted. Eliminate that incorrect assumption, and your objection falls apart.

honesttalk21:
You are still merging categories and then blaming Muslims for inconsistency because they reject the confusion you've created.

Uthman did not standardize the Qur’an into a single version. He standardized the written form in the Quraysh dialect, as it was the dialect of the Prophet and most widely understood just as noted in Sahih al-Bukhari. This decision was about orthography, not revelation.

Muslims with spontaneous fabrications
1. So, were the other six dialects written down or only the Quarysh dialect was written down?
2. Where are the other six Ahruf of your Qur'an


Is it untrue that many scholars Ibn Ḥajar and others interpreted “seven aḥruf” to mean seven dialects/modes of Arabic speech current among the Arab tribes at that time, so that the Qur’an could be firm yet flexible for different groups.
Some of the dialects commonly mentioned in commentary literature include those of Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqīf, and others

Why pretend that you are not aware of this to project false narratives

honesttalk21:
Indeed, the rasm lacked dots or vowels. However, this is not a flaw; it is intentional. The ambiguous script was designed to accommodate oral recitations that were already preserved through mass memorization. When diacritics were introduced later, they didn't alter the text; they merely recorded what the reciters had been publicly transmitting.

You continue to insist on a model of preservation based solely on manuscripts. Islam has never claimed such a model.

All Semitic languages had only consonant letters not by design but because their script was less advanced. It was about the 8th century that they all began to have vowels and diacritical marks which included pronunciations into the text.

Your literatures have repeatedly concluded that memorisation of the Qur'an was a flawed system with verses forgotten, dispute over recitations. Even Mohammed forgot the Qur'an


Sahih al-Bukhari 5037-5038;
Narrated Aishah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such verses of such Surah."

Sahih Muslim 788
A variant wording in Muslim emphasizes: "May Allah have mercy upon him; he reminded me of the verse which I had been made to forget."

But according you, Muslims have better memories than their prophet.
SMH!

honesttalk21:
Preservation in Islam is tawatur—distributed, convergent, mass transmission anchored to a unified rasm. All canonical qiraʾat:

• Share the same consonantal structure
• Follow the same order of surahs
• Maintain the same verse structure
• Convey identical doctrinal content

If you argue otherwise, please provide a difference in rasm among Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, or ad-Duri. Remove the dots and vowels and demonstrate a different consonantal foundation. You cannot - because it doesn’t exist.

I will if you can only show me ancient Qur'an backed up with their Isnad to confirm that they are Warsh, Hafs, Qalun, Al-Duri etc.

Do you accept my challenge?

LOL! Muslims that cannot find a single full copy of the Uthmanic Qur'an is throwing a challenge!
SMH!!

honesttalk21:
Regarding Maliki vs. Maliki or similar variations; yes, there are minor lexical differences within the same rasm. These have always been known, documented, and transmitted through tawatur. They do not create new doctrines or missing verses nor do they present competing texts. Variation within authorized readings iis not corruption it reflects controlled divinely allowed diversity.

The reference to Umm al-Kitab/Lawh Mahfuz is another category error. It signifies God’s eternal knowledge rather than a physical manuscript with dots in heaven. Revelation came as recitation. What is preserved is the revealed text, and every canonical qiraʾa transmits that same revelation.

There aren’t multiple Qur’ans. There is one Qur’an conveyed through multiple authorized readings within the same rasm.

You are challenging a model of preservation that Islam has never asserted. Eliminate that incorrect assumption, and your objection falls apart.

What I have showed you is that Memorisation as a means of preservation of the Qur'an is grossly flawed.

1. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with the Qur'an of Uthman?

2. Was it true than Muslims used to RECITE the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding of adult men?
Can you please remind me of what the perfect memory of Muslims memorized in the verses

If you cannot RECITE these recited verses, your recitations are at best flawed as a means of preservation of the Qur'an

TenQ:
Muslims with spontaneous fabrications
1. So, were the other six dialects written down or only the Quarysh dialect was written down?
2. Where are the other six Ahruf of your Qur'an


Is it untrue that many scholars Ibn Ḥajar and others interpreted “seven aḥruf” to mean seven dialects/modes of Arabic speech current among the Arab tribes at that time, so that the Qur’an could be firm yet flexible for different groups.
Some of the dialects commonly mentioned in commentary literature include those of Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqīf, and others

Why pretend that you are not aware of this to project false narratives



All Semitic languages had only consonant letters not by design but because their script was less advanced. It was about the 8th century that they all began to have vowels and diacritical marks which included pronunciations into the text.

Your literatures have repeatedly concluded that memorisation of the Qur'an was a flawed system with verses forgotten, dispute over recitations. Even Mohammed forgot the Qur'an


Sahih al-Bukhari 5037-5038;
Narrated Aishah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such verses of such Surah."

Sahih Muslim 788
A variant wording in Muslim emphasizes: "May Allah have mercy upon him; he reminded me of the verse which I had been made to forget."

But according you, Muslims have better memories than their prophet.
SMH!


I will if you can only show me ancient Qur'an backed up with their Isnad to confirm that they are Warsh, Hafs, Qalun, Al-Duri etc.

Do you accept my challenge?

LOL! Muslims that cannot find a single full copy of the Uthmanic Qur'an is throwing a challenge!
SMH!!


What I have showed you is that Memorisation as a means of preservation of the Qur'an is grossly flawed.

1. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with the Qur'an of Uthman?

2. Was it true than Muslims used to RECITE the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding of adult men?
Can you please remind me of what the perfect memory of Muslims memorized in the verses

If you cannot RECITE these recited verses, your recitations are at best flawed as a means of preservation of the Qur'an

You are equating early standardization with textual corruption, but these are not the same thing, and conflating them is a misunderstanding.

Historical records indicate early written variation, followed by consolidation under Uthman and a lasting textual stability. The documented variations are orthographic and dialectal within an oral culture, rather than competing bodies of revelation. This reflects the formation of the canon, not a collapse of the text.

All canonical readings share the same structure of surahs and verse counts. No canonical reading includes extra surahs, omits surahs, or contains doctrinal contradictions. If corruption occurred as you suggest, we would expect to see:

Competing textual frameworks with differing verse counts

Canonical readings with added or missing surahs

Doctrinal contradictions among recognized readings

However, we find none of these.

Reports about rajm or similar narrations exist in the most authoritative sources (Bukhari and Muslim). A tradition that aimed to hide corruption would not retain reports that critics later use as evidence. This is documentation, not suppression. You may disagree with the theological explanation of abrogation, but rejecting a doctrine does not equate to proving textual loss.

If your assertion is that preservation has failed, then provide empirical evidence:

Show a different surviving rasm between Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, or ad-Duri (remove dots and vowels and compare the consonantal framework)

Identify a canonical verse found in one reading but missing in another. Produce a doctrinal contradiction arising from canonical readings

None of this has been shown.

In the absence of such evidence, the argument remains interpretive rather than textual. When asserting corruption, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

honesttalk21:
You are equating early standardization with textual corruption, but these are not the same thing, and conflating them is a misunderstanding.

Historical records indicate early written variation, followed by consolidation under Uthman and a lasting textual stability. The documented variations are orthographic and dialectal within an oral culture, rather than competing bodies of revelation. This reflects the formation of the canon, not a collapse of the text.

All canonical readings share the same structure of surahs and verse counts. No canonical reading includes extra surahs, omits surahs, or contains doctrinal contradictions. If corruption occurred as you suggest, we would expect to see:

Competing textual frameworks with differing verse counts

Canonical readings with added or missing surahs

Doctrinal contradictions among recognized readings

However, we find none of these.

Reports about rajm or similar narrations exist in the most authoritative sources (Bukhari and Muslim). A tradition that aimed to hide corruption would not retain reports that critics later use as evidence. This is documentation, not suppression. You may disagree with the theological explanation of abrogation, but rejecting a doctrine does not equate to proving textual loss.

If your assertion is that preservation has failed, then provide empirical evidence:

Show a different surviving rasm between Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, or ad-Duri (remove dots and vowels and compare the consonantal framework)

Identify a canonical verse found in one reading but missing in another. Produce a doctrinal contradiction arising from canonical readings

None of this has been shown.

In the absence of such evidence, the argument remains interpretive rather than textual. When asserting corruption, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

I an not conflicting anything. Your argument was that the primary mode of transmission of the Qur'an was oral and that it is perfect. My argument was that your Qur'an was already corrupted well before the standardisation. This means that your standardized Qur'an is a form of adopting ONE SEY of errors (Freezing the errors and adopting a unified text for everyone.

To prove this I asked
1. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with the Qur'an of Uthman?

2. Was it true than Muslims used to RECITE the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding of adult men?
Can you please remind me of what the perfect memory of Muslims memorized in the verses

Muslims are like a person given a book to keep. The pages scattered because someone loosed the bound. The wind carried off some of the verses in the book. Someone comes and puts the remaining book together in no particular order and called it the STANDARDIZED text, perfect and exactly the same as the original copy. SMH!
This is the Qur'an!

A question you should ask yourself is
Where is the copy of copies of the Uthmanic Qur'an?
Where is even the copy of copies of the Hafs Qur'an?

Don't forget that you didn't answer the questions based on your spontaneous fabrications
1. So, were the other six dialects written down or only the Quarysh dialect was written down?
2. Where are the other six Ahruf of your Qur'an

TenQ:
I an not conflicting anything. Your argument was that the primary mode of transmission of the Qur'an was oral and that it is perfect. My argument was that your Qur'an was already corrupted well before the standardisation. This means that your standardized Qur'an is a form of adopting ONE SEY of errors (Freezing the errors and adopting a unified text for everyone.

To prove this I asked
1. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with the Qur'an of Uthman?

2. Was it true than Muslims used to RECITE the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding of adult men?
Can you please remind me of what the perfect memory of Muslims memorized in the verses

Muslims are like a person given a book to keep. The pages scattered because someone loosed the bound. The wind carried off some of the verses in the book. Someone comes and puts the remaining book together in no particular order and called it the STANDARDIZED text, perfect and exactly the same as the original copy. SMH!
This is the Qur'an!

A question you should ask yourself is
Where is the copy of copies of the Uthmanic Qur'an?
Where is even the copy of copies of the Hafs Qur'an?

Don't forget that you didn't answer the questions based on your spontaneous fabrications
1. So, were the other six dialects written down or only the Quarysh dialect was written down?
2. Where are the other six Ahruf of your Qur'an

When discussing the preservation of the Qur'an's text, the focus often shifts from the existence of early variations, which are well-documented, to how these variations are understood. During Caliph ʿUthman ibn ʿAffan's rule, around 650-653 CE, a standardized version of the Qur'an was created and distributed to major centers within the expanding Muslim world. Reports suggest that ʿUthman ordered the destruction of alternative texts, leading to a consistent Qur'anic text across regions. Controlled recitational differences were maintained through the canonical qira'at.

A frequent topic of interest is the seven ahruf mentioned in early Islamic sources. Only one form, based on the Quraysh dialect, became the standard written text. The other six ahruf did not continue as separate written forms. Some view this as suppression, while others believe the standardized text was versatile enough to accommodate various recitational styles. Scholars debate the nature of the seven ahruf, with some considering them dialectal differences and others seeing them as linguistic classifications. Importantly, no separate Qur'anic canons arose from these variations.

The lack of diverse textual families is noteworthy. In other religious traditions, multiple scriptural versions often leave behind evidence such as regional manuscripts or alternative canons. However, the Qur'an does not show such competing versions. Although ʿUthman ordered the destruction of non-standard texts, the complete disappearance of six independent traditions without any surviving evidence is rare. Early manuscripts display a shared consonantal structure.

The codex of ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud is frequently cited as evidence of early textual diversity. He maintained a personal codex and initially resisted relinquishing it. Some reports describe differences in surah order and missing short surahs. However, early companion codices were more like personal notes than formal copies, often featuring annotations, variant readings, and personal arrangements. No distinct Ibn Masʿud manuscript tradition with a unique structure emerged. His readings were absorbed into the broader tradition, and no rival canon developed from his work. The evidence points to localized variations rather than entirely separate texts.

Stories of verses once recited but absent from the current Qur'an, such as the stoning verse, also spark debate. These accounts appear in major hadith collections and are explained in Islamic theology by the doctrine of abrogation, which allows for the withdrawal of certain revelations. Critics might view this as a retrospective explanation, but the early Muslim community did not try to include these reports in the standardized text, indicating an agreed boundary for the Qur'anic corpus.

Accounts of the Prophet being reminded of verses underscore the human aspect of oral transmission, highlighting distributed memorization and communal correction. The system relied on collective recitation, not just individual memory. The inclusion of such reports in authoritative collections suggests transparency. Oral cultures often preserve complex material accurately, and in the Qur'an's case, oral transmission complemented early written records.

The early Arabic script, which initially lacked vowel marks and diacritical dots, is significant. These were added later to formalize existing recitational traditions, not to create new texts. Early manuscripts show a consistent consonantal text across regions, with only minor differences. Compared to other ancient scriptures with multiple manuscript families and unstable canons, the Qur'an achieved early consolidation.

Interpretations often hinge on initial assumptions. Viewing the Qur'an as an ancient text reflects early canon formation. From the Qur'an's claim of divine protection, historical processes can be seen as fulfilling this promise. Human efforts in compiling, standardizing, memorizing, and reciting do not contradict preservation; they may be its means.

Historically, there were early variations; ʿUthman standardized the text soon after the Prophet's death, removed alternative materials, allowed controlled recitational diversity, and the text achieved widespread consistency early on. Whether this reflects political consolidation or the successful preservation of a recognized text is open to interpretation. The absence of competing canons, early standardization, integration of companion readings, manuscript consistency, and open discussions of early variations support the idea that the Qur'an was effectively preserved in its canonical form. From an Islamic viewpoint, these historical processes represent the means through which divine preservation was realized.

honesttalk21:
When discussing the preservation of the Qur'an's text, the focus often shifts from the existence of early variations, which are well-documented, to how these variations are understood. During Caliph ʿUthman ibn ʿAffan's rule, around 650-653 CE, a standardized version of the Qur'an was created and distributed to major centers within the expanding Muslim world. Reports suggest that ʿUthman ordered the destruction of alternative texts, leading to a consistent Qur'anic text across regions. Controlled recitational differences were maintained through the canonical qira'at.

Uthman making your Quran consistent was mere Freezing the errors and adopting a unified text for everyone.
To prove this I asked
1. Where is the verse of Rajam in your Qur'an
2. Where is the verse of breastfeeding adult men in your Qur'an

So, all Uthman did was to adopt ONE out of several multiple Qur'an being recited.

honesttalk21:
A frequent topic of interest is the seven ahruf mentioned in early Islamic sources. Only one form, based on the Quraysh dialect, became the standard written text. The other six ahruf did not continue as separate written forms. Some view this as suppression, while others believe the standardized text was versatile enough to accommodate various recitational styles. Scholars debate the nature of the seven ahruf, with some considering them dialectal differences and others seeing them as linguistic classifications. Importantly, no separate Qur'anic canons arose from these variations.

So, who are those reciting the other six Ahruf of the Qur'an?

But you have other problems if you use the argument of suppression of the other Ahruf of the Qur'an
Was Mohammed wrong by asking Allah to give him other Ahruf of the Qur'an?
If Mohammed was wrong, how come Allah didn't seem to know better to correct Mohammed that multiple Ahruf will cause corruption of the Qur'an?

honesttalk21:
The lack of diverse textual families is noteworthy. In other religious traditions, multiple scriptural versions often leave behind evidence such as regional manuscripts or alternative canons. However, the Qur'an does not show such competing versions. Although ʿUthman ordered the destruction of non-standard texts, the complete disappearance of six independent traditions without any surviving evidence is rare. Early manuscripts display a shared consonantal structure.

If the other 6 Ahruf of the Qur'an are nonexistent, it is a proof that 6/7 parts of the Qur'an is lost.

Your problem is worse because there exist NO TRACE of the Standardized and Written Uthmanic Qur'an anywhere. This was why Muslims had to use the RECITATION according to Hafs (not even his Quran).

honesttalk21:
The codex of ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud is frequently cited as evidence of early textual diversity. He maintained a personal codex and initially resisted relinquishing it. Some reports describe differences in surah order and missing short surahs. However, early companion codices were more like personal notes than formal copies, often featuring annotations, variant readings, and personal arrangements. No distinct Ibn Masʿud manuscript tradition with a unique structure emerged. His readings were absorbed into the broader tradition, and no rival canon developed from his work. The evidence points to localized variations rather than entirely separate texts.

Stories of verses once recited but absent from the current Qur'an, such as the stoning verse, also spark debate. These accounts appear in major hadith collections and are explained in Islamic theology by the doctrine of abrogation, which allows for the withdrawal of certain revelations. Critics might view this as a retrospective explanation, but the early Muslim community did not try to include these reports in the standardized text, indicating an agreed boundary for the Qur'anic corpus.

The doctrine of abrogation holds no water for disappearance of verses. Why?

Are every verse in the Qur'an extant or some have been abrogated?

Does the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding adults in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not? If not, explain why Jibril recited what he did not receive from Allah to Mohammed?

Finally on this,
The verse of Rajam was in the Qur'an till Mohammed died. So, who removed it

Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of
breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and
ate it.”

As of Mohammed's death, the Rajam was part of the Qur'an. Who removed it?

honesttalk21:
Accounts of the Prophet being reminded of verses underscore the human aspect of oral transmission, highlighting distributed memorization and communal correction. The system relied on collective recitation, not just individual memory. The inclusion of such reports in authoritative collections suggests transparency. Oral cultures often preserve complex material accurately, and in the Qur'an's case, oral transmission complemented early written records.

If Mohammed can forget the Qur'an

honesttalk21:
The early Arabic script, which initially lacked vowel marks and diacritical dots, is significant. These were added later to formalize existing recitational traditions, not to create new texts. Early manuscripts show a consistent consonantal text across regions, with only minor differences. Compared to other ancient scriptures with multiple manuscript families and unstable canons, the Qur'an achieved early consolidation.

Interpretations often hinge on initial assumptions. Viewing the Qur'an as an ancient text reflects early canon formation. From the Qur'an's claim of divine protection, historical processes can be seen as fulfilling this promise. Human efforts in compiling, standardizing, memorizing, and reciting do not contradict preservation; they may be its means.

Historically, there were early variations; ʿUthman standardized the text soon after the Prophet's death, removed alternative materials, allowed controlled recitational diversity, and the text achieved widespread consistency early on. Whether this reflects political consolidation or the successful preservation of a recognized text is open to interpretation. The absence of competing canons, early standardization, integration of companion readings, manuscript consistency, and open discussions of early variations support the idea that the Qur'an was effectively preserved in its canonical form. From an Islamic viewpoint, these historical processes represent the means through which divine preservation was realized.

Falsehoods in islam are easily revealed with simple questions

1. Was the Qur'an of Uthman identical to the Qur'an of Abubakar?
2. Muslims seem to forget that the Quran was collected an written in the lifetime of Mohammed.

Muslim scholars edited and re-edited the Qur'an and then backtracked it to the time of Mohammad with their own fabricated Isnad. The lack of paper trails is an evidence that they intentionally removed whatever earlier Quran from History.

TenQ:
Uthman making your Quran consistent was mere Freezing the errors and adopting a unified text for everyone.
To prove this I asked
1. Where is the verse of Rajam in your Qur'an
2. Where is the verse of breastfeeding adult men in your Qur'an

So, all Uthman did was to adopt ONE out of several multiple Qur'an being recited.

The claim you make presupposes its own conclusion: that multiple distinct versions of the Qur'an existed and that Uthman chose a flawed one while destroying superior alternatives. There is no historical evidence supporting the idea of competing Qur'anic canons acting as rival scriptures. While early variations in recitation are recognized, there are no indications of competing theological texts.

TenQ:
So, who are those reciting the other six Ahruf of the Qur'an?

But you have other problems if you use the argument of suppression of the other Ahruf of the Qur'an
Was Mohammed wrong by asking Allah to give him other Ahruf of the Qur'an?
If Mohammed was wrong, how come Allah didn't seem to know better to correct Mohammed that multiple Ahruf will cause corruption of the Qur'an?

If the other 6 Ahruf of the Qur'an are nonexistent, it is a proof that 6/7 parts of the Qur'an is lost.

Your problem is worse because there exist NO TRACE of the Standardized and Written Uthmanic Qur'an anywhere. This was why Muslims had to use the RECITATION according to Hafs (not even his Quran).



The doctrine of abrogation holds no water for disappearance of verses. Why?

Are every verse in the Qur'an extant or some have been abrogated?

Does the verse of Rajam and breastfeeding adults in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not? If not, explain why Jibril recited what he did not receive from Allah to Mohammed?

The seven aḥruf were not separate books; they represented permissible modes within a single revelation and losing these modes does not equate to losing content. Your question shows misinterpretation and understanding the nature of the seven aḥruf. No classical authority has outlined Seven distinct books,
Seven unique sets of surahs, Seven theologically separate revelations.

The aḥruf refer to permissible modes of recitation within a given revelation. Losing modes does not equate to losing content. If there were six complete Qur’ans, where are their manuscripts? Where are their lists of surahs? Where are their theological distinctions? Where are the communities that support them? They simply do not exist.

The narrations about stoning and breastfeeding are openly preserved in ḥadīth literature and addressed through the doctrine of abrogation; rejecting this theology does not prove textual collapse. The report about the sheep consuming it is weak, and even if accepted, Qur'anic preservation was widespread through mass memorization alongside written fragments not reliant on a single document.

TenQ:
Finally on this,
The verse of Rajam was in the Qur'an till Mohammed died. So, who removed it

Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of
breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and
ate it.”

As of Mohammed's death, the Rajam was part of the Qur'an. Who removed it?


If Mohammed can forget the Qur'an



Falsehoods in islam are easily revealed with simple questions

1. Was the Qur'an of Uthman identical to the Qur'an of Abubakar?
2. Muslims seem to forget that the Quran was collected an written in the lifetime of Mohammed.

Muslim scholars edited and re-edited the Qur'an and then backtracked it to the time of Mohammad with their own fabricated Isnad. The lack of paper trails is an evidence that they intentionally removed whatever earlier Quran from History.

No Uthmanic original survives, but neither do any originals from other ancient scriptures. What we have are early manuscripts that show a common consonantal framework across different regions, without alternate surahs, missing chapters, or rival doctrinal Qur'ans. Standardization happened early, gained rapid acceptance, and left no competing textual families behind. That is the historical record. Whether one sees it as divine preservation or political consolidation is a matter of theological interpretation rather than a verifiable historical conclusion.

If Uthman froze errors, provide the rival Qur'an with or without errors he supposedly erased. If six ahruf were lost, pinpoint the missing revelation not just lost pronunciations. If standardization equals corruption, then no ancient scripture exists under your criteria.

honesttalk21:
The claim you make presupposes its own conclusion: that multiple distinct versions of the Qur'an existed and that Uthman chose a flawed one while destroying superior alternatives. There is no historical evidence supporting the idea of competing Qur'anic canons acting as rival scriptures. While early variations in recitation are recognized, there are no indications of competing theological texts.

So,
1. Where is the verse of Rajam in your Qur'an
2. Where is the verse of breastfeeding adult men in your Qur'an

why, the verses existed till Mohammed died!

honesttalk21:
The seven aḥruf were not separate books; they represented permissible modes within a single revelation and losing these modes does not equate to losing content. Your question shows misinterpretation and understanding the nature of the seven aḥruf. No classical authority has outlined Seven distinct books,
Seven unique sets of surahs, Seven theologically separate revelations.

The aḥruf refer to permissible modes of recitation within a given revelation. Losing modes does not equate to losing content. If there were six complete Qur’ans, where are their manuscripts? Where are their lists of surahs? Where are their theological distinctions? Where are the communities that support them? They simply do not exist.

The narrations about stoning and breastfeeding are openly preserved in ḥadīth literature and addressed through the doctrine of abrogation; rejecting this theology does not prove textual collapse. The report about the sheep consuming it is weak, and even if accepted, Qur'anic preservation was widespread through mass memorization alongside written fragments not reliant on a single document.

The fact that the verse of stoning and breastfeeding were in the Qur'an till the death of Mohammed is Open for all to see.

Who removed it?

honesttalk21:
No Uthmanic original survives, but neither do any originals from other ancient scriptures. What we have are early manuscripts that show a common consonantal framework across different regions, without alternate surahs, missing chapters, or rival doctrinal Qur'ans. Standardization happened early, gained rapid acceptance, and left no competing textual families behind. That is the historical record. Whether one sees it as divine preservation or political consolidation is a matter of theological interpretation rather than a verifiable historical conclusion.

Read my lips as I didn't ask you for the copy of the Qur'an of Uthman. What I asked for was copies of copies!

Please provide one if it exist!

honesttalk21:
If Uthman froze errors, provide the rival Qur'an with or without errors he supposedly erased. If six ahruf were lost, pinpoint the missing revelation not just lost pronunciations. If standardization equals corruption, then no ancient scripture exists under your criteria.

All you needed to do was to tell me the isnad of chains of writing the Qur'an
From Mohammed, to Abubakar, to Uthman, to.....

And I've asked tou a thousand times.

Is the Qur'an of Abubakar identical to the Qur'an of Uthman?

TenQ:
So,
1. Where is the verse of Rajam in your Qur'an
2. Where is the verse of breastfeeding adult men in your Qur'an

why, the verses existed till Mohammed died!


The fact that the verse of stoning and breastfeeding were in the Qur'an till the death of Mohammed is Open for all to see.

Who removed it?



Read my lips as I didn't ask you for the copy of the Qur'an of Uthman. What I asked for was copies of copies!

Please provide one if it exist!


All you needed to do was to tell me the isnad of chains of writing the Qur'an
From Mohammed, to Abubakar, to Uthman, to.....

And I've asked tou a thousand times.

Is the Qur'an of Abubakar identical to the Qur'an of Uthman?

👂 ✍️

honesttalk21:
👂 ✍️

Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of
breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and
ate it.”


The verses were part of your Qur'an till your prophet died. Was Aisha keeping the abrogated verses?

TenQ:
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of
breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and
ate it.”


The verses were part of your Qur'an till your prophet died. Was Aisha keeping the abrogated verses?

Ok. What other similar reports exist? How does it stand compared to how other verses of the Quran are transmitted and recorded? What was the situation of its revelation?

honesttalk21:
Ok. What other similar reports exist? How does it stand compared to how other verses of the Quran are transmitted and recorded? What was the situation of its revelation?

Is it a Maudu hadith?

But you don't like it anyways!


Why do you think Allah revealed the verse of breastfeeding adults ten times?

TenQ:
Is it a Maudu hadith?

But you don't like it anyways!


Why do you think Allah revealed the verse of breastfeeding adults ten times?

I an listening/reading to/from you and asked of other reports like it remember a related discussion?

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?

honesttalk21:
I an listening/reading to/from you and asked of other reports like it remember a related discussion?

You dont want me to trust the mother of Muslims!?

Aisha's testimony is enough for me. I once heard a Muslim scholar once said that Allah set up the little Aisha for Mohammed to marry her for her sharp memory?

Is it untrue that Aisha's exceptional memory made her the foremost narrator of Hadith, earning her the title "Mother of the Believers" for preserving Sunnah.

TenQ:
You dont want me to trust the mother of Muslims!?

Aisha's testimony is enough for me. I once heard a Muslim scholar once said that Allah set up the little Aisha for Mohammed to marry her for her sharp memory?

Is it untrue that Aisha's exceptional memory made her the foremost narrator of Hadith, earning her the title "Mother of the Believers" for preserving Sunnah.

We will come to that. What replications or similar narrations of Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100 exist?

honesttalk21:
We will come to that. What replications or similar narrations of Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100 exist?

You think I care about how many hadiths coping themselves?

How many people could enter Aisha's room to see that a tame sheep ate the Qur'an?

Sorry, its a lame excuse!

TenQ:
You think I care about how many hadiths coping themselves?

How many people could enter Aisha's room to see that a tame sheep ate the Qur'an?

Sorry, its a lame excuse!

I'm not here to repeat what lacks valuable evidence. If you can't offer something substantial to discuss, then there's no reason for us to engage. Please return when you're better informed. Thank you.

honesttalk21:
I'm not here to repeat what lacks valuable evidence. If you can't offer something substantial to discuss, then there's no reason for us to engage. Please return when you're better informed. Thank you.

Sorry!
I have given you at least ONE EVIDENCE from your own authentic religious source and it is you who desire ANOTHER kind of evidence without presenting yours.

So, you are permitted to run off if you need another RECEIPT other than that presented to you. How many RECEIPTS is required to prove any transactions? Is it Three?

TenQ:
Sorry!
I have given you at least ONE EVIDENCE from your own authentic religious source and it is you who desire ANOTHER kind of evidence without presenting yours.

So, you are permitted to run off if you need another RECEIPT other than that presented to you. How many RECEIPTS is required to prove any transactions? Is it Three?

You reference Ibn Majah 1944 to argue for Qur’anic corruption, but if this demonstrates anything, it's that they do not meet the Qur’anic verification standards such as mass transmission, memorization, liturgical use, revelation context, surah placement, and community acceptance. They fail on all counts. According to Islamic criteria, their absence aligns perfectly with theological predictions, which means your argument about “lost verses” collapses on itself.

EVIDENCE THAT THE VERSES LIKE RAJAM WAS REVEALED BUT DISAPPEARED FROM THE WRITTEN QUR'AN

Muslims pride themselves that the ORIGINAL Qur'an was meant to be RECITED and not written

honesttalk21:
Ok. What other similar reports exist? How does it stand compared to how other verses of the Quran are transmitted and recorded? What was the situation of its revelation?

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?

honesttalk21:
We will come to that. What replications or similar narrations of Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100 exist?

honesttalk21:
I'm not here to repeat what lacks valuable evidence. If you can't offer something substantial to discuss, then there's no reason for us to engage. Please return when you're better informed. Thank you.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1944
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1 , and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed

https://sunnah.com/bulugh/10/5
لحدود10 Hudud
'Umar bin al-Khattab (RAA) narrated that he addressed the people and said, 'Verily Allah has sent Muhammad with the Truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what Allah sent down. We recited, memorized and comprehended it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) accordingly (to what was in the verse) stoned to death (whoever committed adultery while being married), and we stoned after his death. But I am afraid that after a long time passes, someone may say, 'We do not find the Verses of stoning in Allah's Book , and thus they may go astray by abandoning an obligation that Allah has sent down. Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery, when their crime is proven, evident by pregnancy, or through the confession (of the adulterer).' Agreed upon.


The verse of stoning was revealed and included in the Qur'an but somehow disappeared



Musnad Ahmad 276
It was narrated that Ibn `Abbas said:
`Umar said: Allah, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad (ﷺ) and sent down the Book to him. Among that which was revealed to him was the verse of stoning. We recited it and understood it. But I fear that with the passage of time, some people will say: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allah, and as a result an obligation that Allah revealed will be forsaken. Stoning is the due punishment in the Book of Allah for those who commit zina, both men and women, if they have been married and if proof is established, or there is a pregnancy or a confession


In agreement with Aisha, the verse of stoning was revealed, recited but somehow deleted from the Qur'an of Uthman



Musnad Ahmad 1210
It was narrated that ‘Amir said:
Shurahah became pregnant and her husband was absent. Her former master took her to ‘Ali, and ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه) said to her: Perhaps your husband came to you or perhaps someone forced you against your will? She said: No. And she admitted zina. So `Ali (رضي الله عنه) flogged her on Thursday and I was present, and he stoned her on Friday and I was present. He ordered that a hole be dug for her up to her navel, then he said: Stoning is the way of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The verse of stoning was revealed but those who used to read it and other verses of the Qur`an died in al-Yamamah.

Evidence that the verses were not perfectly memorized as revealed verses died out with the Muslims who died at the battle of al-Yamamah.

A big prophetic failure on the part of Allah who promised to protect the Qur'an.

Quran 75:16-19
"Move not your tongue concerning it to make haste therewith. Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then indeed, upon Us is its clarification."

Evidence that Allah failed to collect the Qur'an



Sunan Abi Dawud 4418
‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).

Umar too was bewildered about how the verse of stoning disappeared grom the Qur'an and the perfect Muslim power of perfect recitation failed all of them.

Umar is still scratching his head on the disappearance of the verse



Mishkat al-Masabih 3557
‘Umar said:
God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God's Messenger had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.


The verse of stoning was definitely in the book of Allah and it is a DUTY but either Abubakar or Uthman deleted it. Meaning that the extant Qur'an is an abridged version.
SMH!


Sahih Muslim 1691 a
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said:
Verily Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

So, the book of Allah contains Rajam but the book of Muslims do not BUT Muslims think that the Qur'an is perfectly preserved!?



Musnad Ahmad 331
It was narrated from ‘Umar that he said:
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with the truth, and He sent down with him the Book. One of the things that were revealed to him was the verse of stoning. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned [adulterers] and we stoned [them] after him. Then he said: We used to recite , `Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr, if you do that, or it is an act of kufr to forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else).` And the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: `Do not praise me as the son of Maryam was praised; rather I am a slave, so say: His slave and His Messenger.` Perhaps Ma`mar said: `As the Christians praised the son of Maryam.”


Other verses that somehow disappeared from the perfect memory of Muslims is

`Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr...,



Too bad that on LIES this Religion is Built with people like you doing everything to defend the indefensible




Question:
1. Do you agree that verses revealed and RECITED after the death of Mohammed like the Rajam got Expunged from the Qur'an?
2. Are you aware that argument of abrogation fails woefully here as ONLY Mohammed could abrogate a verse. If any verse was recited after Mohammed, such verse could not be said to be abrogated.

EVIDENCE THAT THE VERSES LIKE SUCKLING WAS REVEALED BUT DISAPPEARED FROM THE WRITTEN QUR'AN

Muslims pride themselves that the ORIGINAL Qur'an was meant to be RECITED and not written

honesttalk21:
Ok. What other similar reports exist? How does it stand compared to how other verses of the Quran are transmitted and recorded? What was the situation of its revelation?

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?

honesttalk21:
We will come to that. What replications or similar narrations of Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Book 9, Hadith 100 exist?

honesttalk21:
I'm not here to repeat what lacks valuable evidence. If you can't offer something substantial to discuss, then there's no reason for us to engage. Please return when you're better informed. Thank you.

Sahih Muslim 1452 b
'Amra reported that she heard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said:
There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).

Why do you think your God gave verses on sucking in the HOLY Qur'an?


https://sunnah.com/malik/30/18
الرضاع30 Suckling
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an."
Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this."

Is it true that the verse of suckling adult men was recited in the Qur'an after the death of Mohammed?

So, who abrogated it by deleting it from the Qur'an?
Was it found too shameful?


https://sunnah.com/malik/30/1
الرضاع30 Suckling
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, umm al-muminin informed her that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was with her and she heard the voice of a man asking permission to enter the room of Hafsa. A'isha said that she had said, "Messenger of Allah! There is a man asking permission to enter your house!" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I think it is so-and-so" (referring to a paternal uncle of Hafsa by suckling). A'isha said, "Messenger of Allah! If so-and-so were alive (referring to her paternal uncle by suckling) could he enter where I am?" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Yes. Suckling makes haram as birth makes haram."

Did your prophet practiced Suckling?


Sahih Muslim 1452 a
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Unfortunately, Muslims will not open their eyes to the truth. Do you not think that Just One Suckle of an Adult man is sick by itself not to speak of 10 or 5?

Sunan Ibn Majah 1944
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Aisha explained in detail what happened to her own copy of the Qur'an




Question:
Why do you think Allah REVEALED the command of sucking in his beautiful book?

honesttalk21:
You reference Ibn Majah 1944 to argue for Qur’anic corruption, but if this demonstrates anything, it's that they do not meet the Qur’anic verification standards such as mass transmission, memorization, liturgical use, revelation context, surah placement, and community acceptance. They fail on all counts. According to Islamic criteria, their absence aligns perfectly with theological predictions, which means your argument about “lost verses” collapses on itself.

No amount of EVIDENCE is sufficient for a Muslim!

The dog destined to be lost does not listen to the hunters whistle

TenQ:
No amount of EVIDENCE is sufficient for a Muslim!

The dog destined to be lost does not listen to the hunters whistle

Glad you are saying this. Look through our chats and see if this evidence you put with great accomplishment hasn't been already addressed then tell me if any evidence has been enough for you.

honesttalk21:
Glad you are saying this. Look through our chats and see if this evidence you put with great accomplishment hasn't been already addressed then tell me if any evidence has been enough for you.

You asked for corroborating EVIDENCE apart from Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 showing that the extant Qur'an is DIFFERENT from the Qur'an of Allah.

So, I showed you EVIDENCES from your religious books about
1. Removal of the Verse of Stoning from the Qur'an
2. Removal of the Verse of Breastfeeding from the Qur'an
3. I even showed you a previously RECITED verse that you Muslims have removed from the Qur'an



If you had responded to these before, why ask for proofs that has overwhelmed you?


The problem of Islam is that it was founded entirely on the foundation of FALSEHOOD. Thus, it is too easy to burst your claims!



The TRUTH always set a person FREE when it is Adopted Jesus Love's You!

Abrogation is not the same as corruption. The reports concerning rajm and the suckling narrations illustrate abrogation that occurred during the period of revelation, a concept well-established in Islamic scholarship. They do not indicate that verses were inserted into a completed Quran and later removed.

To establish corruption, evidence of an existing canon that was subsequently altered would be necessary. This would require manuscripts containing the supposed deleted verses, documented objections from Companions regarding their removal, competing regional codices, or alternative textual traditions. None of this evidence exists.

Classical scholars interpreted the narrations in Sahih Muslim about reducing ten sucklings to five as abrogation of recitation prior to canonization. No manuscript, whether early or late, includes these verses as part of the compiled Quran. They are missing from every known codex tradition across all regions. This universal absence is historically significant.

The report in Sunan Ibn Majah about a sheet being eaten is considered weak by numerous hadith scholars and has a solitary transmission. Similar narration don't have key words mentioned the same. More importantly, the Quran was preserved through extensive memorization by the Companions. Its preservation did not rely on a single written page tucked under a pillow. If those verses had been part of the canonical Quran, many would have memorized them, they would have been included in Abu Bakr's compilation, and multiple Companions would have defended their inclusion. There are no records of such inclusion or protest.

If those verses had remained part of the Quran after the Prophet’s death and were later removed, we should expect to find manuscript traces, recorded disputes, sectarian preservation efforts, or regional variations. None exist. Early manuscripts from various regions consistently preserve the same 114 surahs: no preserved rajm verse, no preserved suckling verse, and no alternative Quranic canon.

The main confusion lies between abrogation during revelation and deletion after canonization. The former is integral to Islamic doctrine; the latter would require textual evidence that simply does not exist.

What the historical record reveals is progressive revelation with some rulings abrogated prior to final compilation and a universal acceptance of the canonical text. This aligns with Islamic theology regarding canon formation rather than suggesting textual corruption.

You have shown evidence for abrogation reports but have not established any post-canon alterations. The burden of proof for corruption remains unfulfilled.

honesttalk21:
Abrogation is not the same as corruption. The reports concerning rajm and the suckling narrations illustrate abrogation that occurred during the period of revelation, a concept well-established in Islamic scholarship. They do not indicate that verses were inserted into a completed Quran and later removed.

To establish corruption, evidence of an existing canon that was subsequently altered would be necessary. This would require manuscripts containing the supposed deleted verses, documented objections from Companions regarding their removal, competing regional codices, or alternative textual traditions. None of this evidence exists.

Abrogation is corruption especially in Islam for these reasons
1. Were the abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in heaven or not: if they are there, then we expect that the abrogated verses will be retained in the Qur'an.
2. Evidence of your so-called abrogated verses exist. This is why we could point to them in your hadiths. The evidences abound sir.
3. Some of your Abrogation are evidences of an afterthought based on shame as example: Why will Allah order Muslim men to do Suckling?

honesttalk21:
Classical scholars interpreted the narrations in Sahih Muslim about reducing ten sucklings to five as abrogation of recitation prior to canonization. No manuscript, whether early or late, includes these verses as part of the compiled Quran. They are missing from every known codex tradition across all regions. This universal absence is historically significant.

Unfortunately, your trusted sahih hadiths are EVIDENCES to how the Qur'an of Allah had been tampered with.

honesttalk21:
The report in Sunan Ibn Majah about a sheet being eaten is considered weak by numerous hadith scholars and has a solitary transmission. Similar narration don't have key words mentioned the same. More importantly, the Quran was preserved through extensive memorization by the Companions. Its preservation did not rely on a single written page tucked under a pillow. If those verses had been part of the canonical Quran, many would have memorized them, they would have been included in Abu Bakr's compilation, and multiple Companions would have defended their inclusion. There are no records of such inclusion or protest.

Aisha was afraid of being stoned to death for adultery, so she tore off the sheet that could implicate her. But this wasn't my argument

My argument was to show you DELETED verses from the Qur'an of Allah
1. the verse of stoning
2. the verse of Suckling
3. verses like "`Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr,"

Your hadiths are good evidences that exposed these inherent problems in your Qur'an

honesttalk21:
If those verses had remained part of the Quran after the Prophet’s death and were later removed, we should expect to find manuscript traces, recorded disputes, sectarian preservation efforts, or regional variations. None exist. Early manuscripts from various regions consistently preserve the same 114 surahs: no preserved rajm verse, no preserved suckling verse, and no alternative Quranic canon.

The main confusion lies between abrogation during revelation and deletion after canonization. The former is integral to Islamic doctrine; the latter would require textual evidence that simply does not exist.

What the historical record reveals is progressive revelation with some rulings abrogated prior to final compilation and a universal acceptance of the canonical text. This aligns with Islamic theology regarding canon formation rather than suggesting textual corruption.

You have shown evidence for abrogation reports but have not established any post-canon alterations. The burden of proof for corruption remains unfulfilled.

I very well highlighted it to show you that these so-called abrogated verses were RECITED after the death of your prophet.

Several hadiths shown that Rajam was RECITED well after your prophet's death
Several hadiths shown that Suckling was RECITED well after your prophet's death

TenQ:
Abrogation is corruption especially in Islam for these reasons
1. Were the abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in heaven or not: if they are there, then we expect that the abrogated verses will be retained in the Qur'an.
2. Evidence of your so-called abrogated verses exist. This is why we could point to them in your hadiths. The evidences abound sir.
3. Some of your Abrogation are evidences of an afterthought based on shame as example: Why will Allah order Muslim men to do Suckling?

I had stated before

honesttalk21:
Glad you are saying this. Look through our chats and see if this evidence you put with great accomplishment hasn't been already addressed then tell me if any evidence has been enough for you.

honesttalk21:
You reference Ibn Majah 1944 to argue for Qur’anic corruption, but if this demonstrates anything, it's that they do not meet the Qur’anic verification standards such as mass transmission, memorization, liturgical use, revelation context, surah placement, and community acceptance. They fail on all counts. According to Islamic criteria, their absence aligns perfectly with theological predictions, which means your argument about “lost verses” collapses on itself.

Abrogation should not be confused with corruption; rather, it represents a progressive revelation over the 23 years of the Quran's descent, as indicated in Quran 2:106. The Preserved Tablet holds all divine knowledge, while the earthly Quran consists solely of what Allah chose to maintain for recitation. Divine omniscience does not equate to the finalized revealed text, similar to how John 21:25 acknowledges that not everything was recorded. Reports about abrogated recitations found in hadith literature demonstrate transparency rather than a loss of text, as these accounts were preserved openly instead of being hidden. Additionally, the refinement of legislation does not imply shame or afterthought; development within revelation serves an educational purpose, much like how Christians accept the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The Quranic verse on breastfeeding pertains specifically to infant nursing, whereas contested adult suckling reports were never included in the canonical Quran.

The report you mention from Sunan Ibn Majah (no. 1944) does not support claims of Quranic corruption. According to Islamic criteria, it is considered weak (daif) and solitary (ahad), and it is not found in a similar form in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. This report simply states that a sheep consumed a sheet kept under Aishah's pillow during the upheaval following the Prophet's death. Even if we accept this account at face value, it pertains to a private written document and not to the Quran itself, which has been preserved through mass memorization, communal recitation, and widespread transmission. If a single sheet could jeopardize revelation, then the entire preservation system would have collapsed; its continued existence illustrates that such material was never part of the finalized text that has been widely transmitted.

More importantly, accusations of corruption do not meet the burden of proof. To substantiate claims of textual alteration, one would need manuscript evidence showing supposed missing verses, documented objections from Companions regarding their removal, alternative codex traditions preserving different versions, or regional textual variations after canonization—none of which exist. Instead, we find reports discussing abrogation that have been openly preserved within Islamic scholarship. Reports concerning rajam illustrate both recitation and legal practice without implying canonical inclusion; during Abu Bakr's compilation and Uthman's standardization processes, verses that had already been abrogated in recitation were excluded while preserved verses like 2:233 and 4:23-33 remained intact. This shows a controlled preservation process rather than loss.

Abrogation refines revelation; corruption alters scripture. The former takes place during revelation and is documented transparently. In contrast, corruption would necessitate disruption of texts after canonization for which no evidence has been provided.

TenQ:
Aisha was afraid of being stoned to death for adultery, so she tore off the sheet that could implicate her. But this wasn't my argument

My argument was to show you DELETED verses from the Qur'an of Allah
1. the verse of stoning
2. the verse of Suckling
3. verses like "`Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr,"

Your hadiths are good evidences that exposed these inherent problems in your Qur'an

The claim that Aisha tore a page out of fear of being stoned is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the very report it references.

To begin with, the narration from Ibn Majah does not indicate any secrecy, destruction, or concealment on Aisha's part. It merely states that a written sheet was found under her pillow and that a domestic animal consumed it while the household was preoccupied with the Prophet’s death. This behavior does not suggest someone hiding evidence; rather, it describes a personal note in a home where revelation had been documented in various ways.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Aisha herself publicly transmitted the report. If she were trying to conceal something that could incriminate her, she would not have shared it openly with her students or allowed it to be included in major hadith collections circulated throughout the Muslim world. The presence of this report in the tradition indicates transparency rather than fear.

Additionally, the legal framework renders this accusation nonsensical. In Islamic law, rajm requires strict evidentiary standards: either four reliable eyewitnesses to the act or multiple voluntary confessions. There are no historical records indicating any accusations against Aisha met this requirement. In fact, during the false accusation incident (al-ifk), divine revelation vindicated her in Qur’an 24:11–20. This episode illustrates not vulnerability but formal exoneration enshrined in the Qur'an itself. The notion that she secretly feared execution is at odds with both legal and historical records.

Finally, even if one were to speculate about a motive, it would still be irrelevant to the matter at hand. The Qur'an was not preserved on a single personal sheet; it was memorized by many companions and transcribed into multiple copies. If a verse was part of the finalized Qur'an recited by many, its preservation would not depend on one sheet from a single household. Destroying a private document could not erase a text transmitted through tawātur.

Thus, the accusation against Aisha is not only dishonorable but also fundamentally illogical. It fabricates motives without evidence, overlooks her public narration, disregards legal standards for rajm, and misinterprets how the Qur'an was transmitted. Even if such a sheet existed as described, it would not and could not serve as proof of post-canon deletion.

The historical question remains unchanged where is the manuscript tradition, rival codex, or mass recitation chain that demonstrates removal from the canon? None exists. Attacking Aisha's character does nothing to address this evidentiary gap.

Should you choose to continue this discussion do well to have the supposedly changed manuscript or rival cannon.

honesttalk21:
The claim that Aisha tore a page out of fear of being stoned is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the very report it references.

It is your opinion and you have a right to explain exactly why Aisha made the statement that a sheep ate only the said sheet AND how she knew what was written on the sheet.

honesttalk21:
To begin with, the narration from Ibn Majah does not indicate any secrecy, destruction, or concealment on Aisha's part. It merely states that a written sheet was found under her pillow and that a domestic animal consumed it while the household was preoccupied with the Prophet’s death. This behavior does not suggest someone hiding evidence; rather, it describes a personal note in a home where revelation had been documented in various ways.

No problem!
My argument wasn't about thr sheep, nor Aisha BUT of the report that verses were missing from the Qur'an. And several other hadiths agreeed with me.

honesttalk21:
Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Aisha herself publicly transmitted the report. If she were trying to conceal something that could incriminate her, she would not have shared it openly with her students or allowed it to be included in major hadith collections circulated throughout the Muslim world. The presence of this report in the tradition indicates transparency rather than fear.

This case if Aisha us inconsequential to me here as My interest was the missing verses in the Qur'an.

honesttalk21:
Additionally, the legal framework renders this accusation nonsensical. In Islamic law, rajm requires strict evidentiary standards: either four reliable eyewitnesses to the act or multiple voluntary confessions. There are no historical records indicating any accusations against Aisha met this requirement. In fact, during the false accusation incident (al-ifk), divine revelation vindicated her in Qur’an 24:11–20. This episode illustrates not vulnerability but formal exoneration enshrined in the Qur'an itself. The notion that she secretly feared execution is at odds with both legal and historical records.

My emphasis was the 10 tines SUCKLING of adult men which according to multiple hadiths was abrogated to 5. The Muslims have removed both the 10 and 5 because it is shameful. Otherwise, explain why the almighty Allah will temporarily reveal such verse in the eternal Qur'an

honesttalk21:
Finally, even if one were to speculate about a motive, it would still be irrelevant to the matter at hand. The Qur'an was not preserved on a single personal sheet; it was memorized by many companions and transcribed into multiple copies. If a verse was part of the finalized Qur'an recited by many, its preservation would not depend on one sheet from a single household. Destroying a private document could not erase a text transmitted through tawātur.

Those wonderful memories that stored the Qur'an perfectly akso stored the Hadiths, thus, you have no excuses.

Also, the EVIDENCES are stacked against you from your own sources. I am sure no never expected me to bring out several Sahih hadiths that prove that the Qur'an with you now is different from the Qur'an of Allah

honesttalk21:
Thus, the accusation against Aisha is not only dishonorable but also fundamentally illogical. It fabricates motives without evidence, overlooks her public narration, disregards legal standards for rajm, and misinterprets how the Qur'an was transmitted. Even if such a sheet existed as described, it would not and could not serve as proof of post-canon deletion.

The historical question remains unchanged where is the manuscript tradition, rival codex, or mass recitation chain that demonstrates removal from the canon? None exists. Attacking Aisha's character does nothing to address this evidentiary gap.

Should you choose to continue this discussion do well to have the supposedly changed manuscript or rival cannon.

Being Obstinate about what you repeat to yourself from the standard islamic narrative is inconsequential. The important thing is that EVIDENCES abound in Islamic sources that your extant Qur'an is what survived after generations of doctoring by Islamic scholars.

When lies are too much, the liar forgets his previously told lies. Muslims forget that they also had told us that their Qur'an was initially collected in the lifetime of Mohammed. Somehow, Mohammed's Qur'an as usual DISAPPEARED and was replaced by that of Abubakar.

Sorry!

honesttalk21:
I had stated before

Abrogation should not be confused with corruption; rather, it represents a progressive revelation over the 23 years of the Quran's descent, as indicated in Quran 2:106. The Preserved Tablet holds all divine knowledge, while the earthly Quran consists solely of what Allah chose to maintain for recitation. Divine omniscience does not equate to the finalized revealed text, similar to how John 21:25 acknowledges that not everything was recorded. Reports about abrogated recitations found in hadith literature demonstrate transparency rather than a loss of text, as these accounts were preserved openly instead of being hidden. Additionally, the refinement of legislation does not imply shame or afterthought; development within revelation serves an educational purpose, much like how Christians accept the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The Quranic verse on breastfeeding pertains specifically to infant nursing, whereas contested adult suckling reports were never included in the canonical Quran.

The report you mention from Sunan Ibn Majah (no. 1944) does not support claims of Quranic corruption. According to Islamic criteria, it is considered weak (daif) and solitary (ahad), and it is not found in a similar form in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. This report simply states that a sheep consumed a sheet kept under Aishah's pillow during the upheaval following the Prophet's death. Even if we accept this account at face value, it pertains to a private written document and not to the Quran itself, which has been preserved through mass memorization, communal recitation, and widespread transmission. If a single sheet could jeopardize revelation, then the entire preservation system would have collapsed; its continued existence illustrates that such material was never part of the finalized text that has been widely transmitted.

More importantly, accusations of corruption do not meet the burden of proof. To substantiate claims of textual alteration, one would need manuscript evidence showing supposed missing verses, documented objections from Companions regarding their removal, alternative codex traditions preserving different versions, or regional textual variations after canonization—none of which exist. Instead, we find reports discussing abrogation that have been openly preserved within Islamic scholarship. Reports concerning rajam illustrate both recitation and legal practice without implying canonical inclusion; during Abu Bakr's compilation and Uthman's standardization processes, verses that had already been abrogated in recitation were excluded while preserved verses like 2:233 and 4:23-33 remained intact. This shows a controlled preservation process rather than loss.

Abrogation refines revelation; corruption alters scripture. The former takes place during revelation and is documented transparently. In contrast, corruption would necessitate disruption of texts after canonization for which no evidence has been provided.

You are still repeating your preferred lies.
If you are speaking the truth, please explain
1. Were abrogated verses part of the Qur'an dictated by Jibril to Mohammed ? YES or NO!
2. Were these abrogated verses part of the original Qur'an and mother of the book in paradise? YES or NO!
3. Were some of the abrogated verses ALSO deleted from the book of Allah in paradise? YES or NO!
4. Explain why abrogated verses still exist in written form in your Extant Qur'an?

The standard Islamic narrative is not adding up sir no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself simply because it is a fabrication!


Above all,
Explain why the almighty Allah allowed even as small as a 1 time SUCKLING of adult men in his eternal Qur'an?

I don't understand!
Why was the verse of adult SUCKLING even abrogated from the Qur'an?

TenQ:
It is your opinion and you have a right to explain exactly why Aisha made the statement that a sheep ate only the said sheet AND how she knew what was written on the sheet.


No problem!
My argument wasn't about thr sheep, nor Aisha BUT of the report that verses were missing from the Qur'an. And several other hadiths agreeed with me.



This case if Aisha us inconsequential to me here as My interest was the missing verses in the Qur'an.



My emphasis was the 10 tines SUCKLING of adult men which according to multiple hadiths was abrogated to 5. The Muslims have removed both the 10 and 5 because it is shameful. Otherwise, explain why the almighty Allah will temporarily reveal such verse in the eternal Qur'an



Those wonderful memories that stored the Qur'an perfectly akso stored the Hadiths, thus, you have no excuses.

Also, the EVIDENCES are stacked against you from your own sources. I am sure no never expected me to bring out several Sahih hadiths that prove that the Qur'an with you now is different from the Qur'an of Allah



Being Obstinate about what you repeat to yourself from the standard islamic narrative is inconsequential. The important thing is that EVIDENCES abound in Islamic sources that your extant Qur'an is what survived after generations of doctoring by Islamic scholars.

When lies are too much, the liar forgets his previously told lies. Muslims forget that they also had told us that their Qur'an was initially collected in the lifetime of Mohammed. Somehow, Mohammed's Qur'an as usual DISAPPEARED and was replaced by that of Abubakar.

Sorry!

TenQ:
Aisha was afraid of being stoned to death for adultery, so she tore off the sheet that could implicate her. But this wasn't my argument

Notice what just happened here. You started off by accusing Aisha of destroying evidence out of fear. But when that argument fell apart under scrutiny, you suddenly shifted your stance, claiming that wasn’t your point after all. That change is significant. When one argument crumbles, it seems you just switch to another. That’s not presenting evidence; it’s dodging the issue.

Now, let’s get to the main claim: that the ten and five adult sucklings were supposedly verses from the Quran that were removed because they were deemed shameful.

If that were really the case, where’s the Mushaf?

Show me a single canonical Mushaf that contains those verses.
Show me one non-canonical companion codex that includes them.
Show me an early manuscript that preserves them.
Show me a regional textual family that references them.
Show me a qiraah that transmits them as part of the Quran.

There’s nothing.

Not in Ibn Masud’s codex.
Not in Ubayy’s codex.
Not in any reported Mushaf from companions.
Not in any Sana manuscript.
Not in any manuscript from any region or century.

There’s a complete lack of textual evidence.

That single fact alone discredits the corruption claim.

You’re trying to use one solitary hadith report to overshadow a body of scripture that’s been widely transmitted. The Quran is established through tawatur which means it’s been recited widely, memorized across regions, kept stable in manuscripts, and passed down unanimously within the community. A single narration from Ibn Majah simply can't measure up to that standard.

Authenticating a hadith and transmitting the Quran aren't the same thing. Mixing them up is a serious methodological mistake. The Quran requires mass transmission. That report doesn’t meet that criterion, which means it was never part of the canonical Quran.

You argue that Muslims removed it because it was shameful.

But that same tradition has preserved the narration in hadith collections. A community trying to cover up an embarrassment wouldn’t keep a record of it in its most respected texts. Transparency counters your conspiracy theory.

You claim there’s an abundance of evidence. So, let’s see it. Not just words, not emotional appeals. Show us the manuscript. Show us the rival canon. Show us any protests from companions. Show us any regional variations.

You can’t, because none of that exists.

The compilation of texts after the Prophet’s death wasn’t about replacing anything. Revelation during his lifetime was recorded and memorized in various forms. After he passed away, those materials were compiled into a single codex. Collecting isn’t the same as disappearing. Standardization doesn’t equate to corruption.

Claims about abrogation during revelation shouldn’t be confused with deletion after the canon has been established. Those are different historical claims needing different types of proof. You’ve only illustrated narrations dealing with legal changes during the period of revelation. You haven’t shown any alterations made after the canon was set.

If corruption had really taken place, we’d have some traces. Manuscripts would show variations if texts were changed. Competing traditions would persist if there were efforts to suppress them. That’s what we find with other scriptures; it’s not what we see with the Quran.

The challenge is clear and straightforward:

Show me a Mushaf that includes these so-called missing verses as part of the Quran.

Until you can do that, the claim of non-preservation isn’t established. It’s simply an assertion.

Abrogation reports are preserved. Manuscript consistency is maintained. The 114 surah canon is intact.

The burden of proof remains unmet.