₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
Muslims will rather revel in FALSEHOOD than adopt the TRUTH until its too late



https://www.nairaland.com/8163435/see-evidences-differences-warsh-quran


Even after reading this, they will insist on FALSEHOOD as if repeating it will suddenly make it correct.

honesttalk21:
Topkapi is 99.63% complete, Altıkulaç confirms ~2,270 variants reflect scribal evolution, not corruption, and Hafs/Warsh differences are minor vocalization or orthographic variants within the same rasm not missing verses. No manuscript, qiraʾah, or recitation chain preserves your alleged stoning or suckling verses. Repeating forum posts and AI summaries is Gish Gallop: volume cannot replace evidence.

TenQ:
Scribal evolution are errors abd corruption different from both Hafs and Warsh in. several places.

You obviously didn't read about the evidences presented here Sa'ana, Hafs and Warsh : three fukl pages of EVIDENCES


https://www.nairaland.com/8163435/see-evidences-differences-warsh-quran

honesttalk21:
You’re still blending two separate issues: variation in transmission versus corruption of content. Those are not the same thing and once we separate them, the argument changes completely.

I carefully reviewed the verses you shared 2:9, 2:259, 2:132, 2:140, 2:184, 3:133, 5:6, 6:61, 7:141, 9:100, 33:68, 43:19, 57:24, 76:4, 101:5, and others. When examined honestly, the differences fall into consistent, explainable categories.

1. Different Verb Forms (Same Root, Same Core Meaning)

Surah 2:9

يَخْدَعُونَ
Yakhdaʿun — They deceive.

يُخَادِعُونَ
Yukhadiʿun — They attempt to deceive / They try to deceive.


Both come from the root خ د ع (kh-d-ʿ) relating to deception. One is a simple verb form; the other is reciprocal/intensive. The meaning overlaps. No doctrine changes. No theology shifts.

This same morphological variation pattern appears in several of your examples.


2. Lexical Nuance Within the Same Semantic Field

Surah 2:259

نُنْشِزُهَا
Nunshizu-ha — We raise them up.

نُنْشِرُهَا
Nunshiru-ha — We spread them out/ We restore them.

Both refer to the reconstruction of bones during resurrection. The theological claim bodily resurrection remains identical. The nuance differs; the doctrine does not.


3. Singular / Plural or Pronoun Shifts

In other verses you listed, some readings alternate between singular and plural forms. Arabic rhetoric frequently shifts for emphasis, rhythm, or stylistic elevation. These shifts do not create new theology or erase law. They operate within the same meaning framework.


4. Orthographic Differences

Early Arabic manuscripts lacked standardized vowel markings and full diacritical dots. Variations sometimes reflect writing conventions, not competing revelations.

For example, differences in spelling such as omission or inclusion of an alif or slight orthographic adjustments do not equal content alteration.


5. Minor Recitational Additions

Some canonical readings include a conjunction like وَ (wa — and) where another reading does not. These are traceable through transmission chains. They do not introduce new content or delete existing revelation.



Now step back and look at the bigger picture.

Across all your screenshots, what do we not find?

No additional surahs

No missing surahs

No different Qur’anic structure

No alternative canon

No stoning verse

No adult suckling verse


If corruption occurred, we would expect:

Competing codices with different chapter lists

Communities preserving longer or shorter Qur’ans

Historical records of disputes over removed verses

Manuscripts containing the allegedly deleted material


None of that exists.

Not in Sanʿaʾ.
Not in Topkapi.
Not in Birmingham.
Not in Hafs.
Not in Warsh.

Calling these controlled, transmitted recitational variants 30–32 different Qur’ans is like claiming British and American spelling create two different English Bibles.

And the central question still stands untouched:

Where is the manuscript that contains the stoning verse as Qur’an after the Prophet’s death?

Not a legal discussion in hadith.
Not a theological objection.
Not a forum post.

We’re looking for:

A manuscript

A recitation chain

A preserved codex


If the canon was shortened, evidence of the longer canon must exist somewhere.

So far it does not.

That’s not rhetoric. That’s the historical record.

TenQ:
All you have been saying is that the extant Qur'an is different but not so much from the Qur'an of Mohammed.

Unfortunately for you, as long as the "minor" differences change the meaning of the Qur'an, you do NOT have identical Quran with that of Mohammed.

Which of your QUR'ANS is IDENTICAL tonthe Quran of Allah in Paradise?

honesttalk21:
Okay, let’s slow this down and clear the fog.

You keep repeating: If even minor differences change meaning, then you don’t have the identical Qur’an of Muhammad.

That only works if you can demonstrate that the differences actually change the message, doctrine, or law.

So far, you haven’t.

A shift like:

يَخْدَعُونَ (yakhdaʿun) — they deceive

يُخَادِعُونَ (yukhadiʿun) — they attempt to deceive

does not produce a new theology.

A variation like:

نُنْشِزُهَا (nunshizu-ha) — We raise them

نُنْشِرُهَا (nunshiru-ha) — We restore/spread them

does not alter the doctrine of resurrection.

You’re equating linguistic nuance with textual corruption. Those are not the same category.

Now to your dramatic question:

Which of your Qur’ans is identical to the Qur’an of Allah in Paradise?

There aren’t multiple competing Qur’ans. There is one canonical text of 114 surahs, one stable consonantal framework preserved across manuscripts and recitations.

The qiraʾat are not different books. They are transmitted readings within that same textual body. Islamic scholarship has never claimed preservation meant one frozen vocalization only. It has always included the accepted recitations as part of the preservation.

You’re demanding a metaphysical comparison of a heavenly tablet versus earthly manuscripts and pretending that historical transmission can be measured against an unseen realm. That’s not a historical argument; that’s rhetorical theater.

Historically speaking, what do we see?

No competing canon.

No manuscripts with extra chapters.

No manuscripts with missing chapters.

No preserved longer version.

No recitation tradition containing your alleged deleted verses.

If even one existed, you would present it.

You haven’t.

Because it doesn’t exist.

So the real issue is this:

You began by claiming verses were removed.
When that failed, you shifted to any variation equals failure.

That’s moving the goalposts.

If you want to prove corruption, show corruption not morphological nuance, not vocalization differences, not rhetorical variation.

Show a different Qur’an.

Until then, the claim that you don’t have the identical Qur’an is just an assertion without textual evidence behind it.

TenQ:
Just listen to yourself. Your Qur'an has variants in the original language ARABIC and they yave different meanings meaning that it isnt a DIALECTICAL issue.

Which of your extant Qur'an is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah in Paradise?


Of a truth, it is impossible do debate a person that is sworn to DISHONESTY !


I know you are trying hard to do the dawah of Allah but the TRUTH will always win over a million falsehood.

honesttalk21:
You continue to assert that these variants change the meaning. That's fine but could you specify which exact meaning you are referring to and how it relates to doctrine, law, or guidance?

Every early manuscript, including Hafs, Warsh, Ṣanʿaaʾ, Topkapi, and Birmingham, conveys the same theological message, the same surahs, and the same guidance. If there were a genuine change in meaning, we would expect to see doctrinal contradictions or missing verses but we do not. So please clarify what meaning has been altered and why is it significant?

TenQ:
As long as Hafs Quran is NOT identical from Warsh Qur'an.
As long as rhe Sa'ana Quran is NOT identical to either Hafs or Warsh Qur'an
As long as meaning change from one Arabic Qur'an to the other


The Question still remains:
Which of your extant Qur'an is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah in Paradise?


Muslims should be able to tell us categorically which Quran is the one dictated by Jibril.

TenQ:
Mr honesttalk21
I will give you one more evidence but please
1. Give me the Asbab al-Nuzul for this verse
2. What is the number of surah 17 according to Revelation

Qur'an 17:110
Say to them (O Prophet!): "Call upon Him as Allah or call upon Him as al-Rahman; call Him by whichever name you will, all His names are beautiful. Neither offer your Prayer in too loud a voice, nor in a voice too low; but follow a middle course."

honesttalk21:
You keep circling back to the same slogan that they’re not identical, therefore corruption but you still haven’t demonstrated an actual corruption.

Hafs and Warsh are not rival books. They share the same consonantal skeleton, the same 114 surahs, the same theology, the same legal framework. Sanʿaaʾ, Topkapi, Birmingham all reflect that same canon. No alternative chapter list. No competing structure. No lost surah preserved anywhere.

You claim the meaning changes. I asked you to name one doctrine, one law, one core belief that changes. Instead of answering, you pivoted to Asbab al-Nuzul for 17:110 and asked what number Surah 17 is. That’s diversion, not engagement. Surah 17 is 17 in every mushaf. And 17:110 reads the same in all canonical recitations in meaning: call upon Allah or al-Rahman; all His names are beautiful. No theological split. No altered creed.

Then you escalate to which one matches the Qur’an in Paradise? That’s a metaphysical question dressed up as a historical argument. We assess preservation through manuscripts and transmission and those show one stable canon across centuries.

Notice the pattern:
First claim — verses were deleted.

When no manuscript supported that, the claim shifted to any variation equals failure.

When that collapsed, the debate moved to heaven.

If meaning truly changes, demonstrate the changed doctrine. If the canon was shortened, produce the longer one.

Until then, repeating the accusation and changing the subject isn’t proof it’s avoidance.

TenQ:
Notice how you have not been able to answer the question:

Which of your extant Qur'an is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah in Paradise?


It is impossible debating one who is not objective with facts and evidences

I will give you one more evidence but please
1. Give me the Asbab al-Nuzul for this verse
2. What is the number of surah 17 according to Revelation

Qur'an 17:110
Say to them (O Prophet!): "Call upon Him as Allah or call upon Him as al-Rahman; call Him by whichever name you will, all His names are beautiful. Neither offer your Prayer in too loud a voice, nor in a voice too low; but follow a middle course."



Will you evade this simple questions again?

honesttalk21:
Review your post particularly your questions for needed correction then repost. Question 1 may be incomplete and 2 stated with clarity. Glad you found the courage to write again.

TenQ:
Are you scared on top of the fact that you don't respect facts and evidences

Are you truly scared: as yiu don't even know where I am going
1. Give me the Asbab al-Nuzul for this verse
2. What is the number of surah 17 according to Revelation

Qur'an 17:110
Say to them (O Prophet!): "Call upon Him as Allah or call upon Him as al-Rahman; call Him by whichever name you will, all His names are beautiful. Neither offer your Prayer in too loud a voice, nor in a voice too low; but follow a middle course."



Will you evade this simple questions again?

honesttalk21:
So you interpret seeking clarification about what as fear? Wow! Is it that you don't understand what your asking to properly review and retype your questions in a clear manner so I can answer what you deem unreplied in my previous post?

TenQ:
Stop dodging and answer my questions: why are you evasive. There are hundred ways to skin a cat
.

TenQ:
Stop dodging and answer my questions: why are you evasive. There are hundred ways to skin a cat
.

honesttalk21:
Instead of answering, you pivoted to Asbab al-Nuzul for 17:110 and asked what number Surah 17 is. That’s diversion, not engagement. Surah 17 is 17 in every mushaf. And 17:110 reads the same in all canonical recitations in meaning: call upon Allah or al-Rahman; all His names are beautiful. No theological split. No altered creed.

honesttalk21:
There's no dodging. Say your question in total English

honesttalk21:
.
.

TenQ:
WHY are you So jittery! Let me help you out


Question 1. Give me the Asbab al-Nuzul for this verse Quran 17:110?
My Answer:
1. One day, Mohammed stood up for the night vigil prayer.
2. He kept saying in his prostration: ‘O Beneficent, O Merciful!’ Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
3. And so the idolaters said: ‘Muhammad used to call unto one Allah; now he is calling unto two gods: Allah and the Beneficent.
4. The idolaters said "we do not know of anyone by the name of the Beneficent except the beneficent of al-Yamamah (meaning Musaylimah the liar)’,
5. Therefore Allah, revealed this verse.
6. “At the beginning of revelation, the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give peace, used to write ‘In Thy name, O Allah’ until this verse was revealed , after which he always wrote ‘In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful’



Question 2. What is the number of surah 17 according to Revelation
My Answer:
Quran 17, Surah Al-Isra is the 50th chapter revealed to your Prophet Muhammad.

Are these above TRUE or FALSE or you want to correct my account?
And so that you would calm down, I promise not to rake you up on Musaylimah the liar as it would be a distraction.

honesttalk21:
I asked you to state your questions in total English and of course you don't know how to.

What is Asbab al Nuzul in pure English? Sure you will act like you don't know. Initial deficiency.

So you ask questions you already have answers to? This then makes you a confirmed trouble maker and hypocrite.

1. Before the revelation of the verse Surah 17:110, do you say Bismillahi Rahamani Rahim; in the name of Allah the entirely merciful the kind was not known? Stating Allah was Ar Rahman? Ok step back for a moment; when was Surah Fatiha in its entirety revealed?

2. In order of revelation Surah Banu Israel; Surah 17, is the fiftieth Surah to be revealed. The order of revelation is not the order in which the Quran is recited as divinely guided and ordered by the prophet otherwise why is Surah Fatiha the first chapter. You can please tell me and all your followers this.

Thank you but no thanks. So back to the OP's subject Mens braids in Islam and please desist from gish galloping and study hard, think, rationalize before asking questions. Where you cannot defend your position on grading of Hadith changing the subject of discussion does not rescue it.

TenQ:
Still scared and getting ready to run!?
At least you have confirmed my questions and answers and its time for your questions.

My Questions
Tell me, if Quran 17 was the 50th chapter according to Revelation,
1. How come every chapter of the Qur'an (including chapters 1-49 according to Revelation) except chapter 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem ?
2. Was it Jibril that came back to re-reveal it for the earlier 1-49th chapters (in the order of revelation) as he forgot to dictate it the first time?
3. Who's words then is Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem in chapters 1-49: Is it Allah's words or Mohammed's words?


I am sure that You wouldn't answer because this is another evidence that the Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed .

Indeed, the Qur'an is the words of a "Noble Messenger" and not Allah!


See! I promised not to rake you up on Musaylimah the liar as it would be a distraction and I kept my promise!
LOL!!

honesttalk21:
I would just list the problems you have so you can fill in the answers yourself.

1. Why do you confuse the order of revelation with order of compilation of the Mushaf?

honesttalk21:
2. When was Quran 27:30 revealed chronologically? Where is the rule that basmallah must precede each revelation chronologically for each Surah?

honesttalk21:
3. What does Quran 69:40 and 43 say or you choose what to support and negate by illogical whims? What does Quran 53:3-4 say?

honesttalk21:
4. Which argument do you consistently stand with? Manuscript difference is corruption or non chronological order in compilation of the Quran is corruption? Neither position logically establishes corruption.

honesttalk21:
5. You have already contradicted yourself by mocking that you are sure I won't answer then depending on that to claim victory or haven't you? That is pure internally inconsistent reasoning.

6. You have consistently refused to answer and provide evidence for:

Stoning verse manuscript evidence
Adult suckling manuscript evidence
Any recitational chain preserving them

You still cannot find them?

honesttalk21:
If the presence of Bismillahi before every surah proves corruption then explain why Surah 9 lacks it while Surah 27 contains it within it's text?

TenQ:
You very well know that I know then difference!




Did I mention that Qur'an 27:30 was or was not revealed chronologically? No!
The statement that Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem precedes all chapters except Quran 9 is an observation of what exists in your Qur'an


It says that Mohammed doesn't speak his own desire but by Revelation!

But do you disagree that revelations can come from several OTHER sources other than God from the Jinn, other demonic spirits and Satan himself?

Do you remember that Mohammed received inspiration from Iblis himself in the Qur'an and Allah promised to remove whatever satan cast into his tongue?


That your extant Qur'an is NOT the same as the Qur'an of Allah i. paradise.

This is why you have not been able to tell me which of your Arabic Qur'an versions is the exact copy of the Qur'an of Allah in Paradise.



I did give you every evidence BUT you wanted me to resurrect the Manuscripts Uthman Burned which when I flipped the question back to you, you've not been able to answer.



Surah 9 does NOT have Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem because the purported Jibril did not reveal it or forgot to recite it to Mohammed! Concerning Quran 27 : you should ask yourself why the 48th Surah also contained Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem as no one heard Mohammed call Allah Rahmanir Raheem. It was AFTER the 49th Surah that for the first time Mohammed was Heard calling Allah Rahmanir Raheem.


So, will you now answer my Questions instead of trying to escape by distractions and evasion!?

My Questions AGAIN:
Tell me, if Quran 17 was the 50th chapter according to Revelation,
1. How come every chapter of the Qur'an (including chapters 1-49 according to Revelation) except chapter 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem ?
2. Was it Jibril that came back to re-reveal it for the earlier 1-49th chapters (in the order of revelation) as he forgot to dictate it the first time?
3. Who's words then is Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem in chapters 1-49: Is it Allah's words or Mohammed's words?


I am sure that You wouldn't answer AGAIN because this is another evidence that the Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed .

TenQ:
Still scared and getting ready to run!?
At least you have confirmed my questions and answers and its time for your questions.

My Questions
Tell me, if Quran 17 was the 50th chapter according to Revelation,
[i]1. How come every chapter of the Qur'an (including chapters 1-49 according to Revelation) except chapter 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem ?
.........be a distraction and I kept my promise!
LOL!!

honesttalk21:
Despite numerous attempts you haven't done better and it appears you are slipping into accelerated depression even with further failed gish gallops.

You repeatedly fail to prove your allegations of canon removal. Repeated suspicion claims and hypothesis are no substitute for proof.

You cannot provide proof of communal muslim public recognition of these verses after the prophet's death outside the solitary report. in legal narration.

What proof have you that these verses were recited in communal recitation in Mecca or other regions? None!

Where are manuscript evidence in support of your claims? Which codex do you refer to that have these supposedly removed verses? Any of the companion personal codex, regional manuscript or parchment evidence will do. However you still cannot as these are non existent.

Not even remotely traced to the Sanaa palimpset, Topkapi or Birmingham fragment.

Erasure no longer leaves fingerprints?

Still waiting for you present a competing canon to show that indeed a verse was removed or any community that preserved a longer recension. You cannot find a rival cannon?

No Islamic historical record of disputes about these missing verses despite the rich collation of political wars and legal disagreements.

Don't you wonder about this very loud silence?

When is this deletion supposed to have taken? No record of this fabulous removal process. Not asking for theological tales or speculation about Uthman. What information exists about this between the times of Abu Bakr and Umar? How come the Muslim community were and still continue to be silent?

You quibble about Quran 1-49 see yours

and pretend that Quran 27:30 is separate and changes something but it doesn't. The Basmallah appears at the start of every surah except the ninth one, as the Prophet (pbuh) directed its placement in the final compilation. This is universally accepted and preserved, with no discrepancies among manuscripts. Jibril didn’t forget, and nothing was re-revealed; the order of revelation differs from the order of compilation.

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is part of the Qur’an;words from Allah, clearly stated in 27:30 and consistently transmitted through every recitation. There are no alternative versions, no missing texts, and no competing scriptures. Your objection is unfounded.

TenQ:
Why is it that Muslims never answer direct questions?
What has all these got with my questions ?



So, will you now answer my Questions instead of trying to escape by distractions and evasion!?

My Questions AGAIN:
Tell me, if Quran 17 was the 50th chapter according to Revelation,
1. How come every chapter of the Qur'an (including chapters 1-49 according to Revelation) except chapter 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem ?

2. Was it Jibril that came back to re-reveal it for the earlier 1-49th chapters (in the order of revelation) as he forgot to dictate it the first time?

3. Who's words then is Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem in chapters 1-49: Is it Allah's words or Mohammed's words?


I am sure that You wouldn't answer AGAIN because this is another evidence that the Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed .

honesttalk21:
Despite numerous attempts you haven't done better and it appears you are slipping into accelerated depression even with further failed gish gallops.

You repeatedly fail to prove your allegations of canon removal. Repeated suspicion claims and hypothesis are no substitute for proof.

You cannot provide proof of communal muslim public recognition of these verses after the prophet's death outside the solitary report. in legal narration.

What proof have you that these verses were recited in communal recitation in Mecca or other regions? None!

Where are manuscript evidence in support of your claims? Which codex do you refer to that have these supposedly removed verses? Any of the companion personal codex, regional manuscript or parchment evidence will do. However you still cannot as these are non existent.

Not even remotely traced to the Sanaa palimpset, Topkapi or Birmingham fragment.

Erasure no longer leaves fingerprints?

Still waiting for you present a competing canon to show that indeed a verse was removed or any community that preserved a longer recension. You cannot find a rival cannon?

No Islamic historical record of disputes about these missing verses despite the rich collation of political wars and legal disagreements.

Don't you wonder about this very loud silence?

When is this deletion supposed to have taken? No record of this fabulous removal process. Not asking for theological tales or speculation about Uthman. What information exists about this between the times of Abu Bakr and Umar? How come the Muslim community were and still continue to be silent?

You quibble about Quran 1-49 see yours

and pretend that Quran 27:30 is separate and changes something but it doesn't. 1The Basmallah appears at the start of every surah except the ninth one, as the Prophet (pbuh) directed its placement in the final compilation. . This is universally accepted and preserved, with no discrepancies among manuscripts. 2Jibril didn’t forget, and nothing was re-revealed; the order of revelation differs from the order of compilation.

3Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is part of the Qur’an;words from Allah, clearly stated in 27:30 and consistently transmitted through every recitation. There are no alternative versions, no missing texts, and no competing scriptures. Your objection is unfounded.

TenQ:
[/quote][quote author=honesttalk21 post=138557311]Despite numerous attempts you haven't done better and it appears you are slipping into accelerated depression even with further failed gish gallops.

You repeatedly fail to prove your allegations of canon removal. Repeated suspicion claims and hypothesis are no substitute for proof.

You cannot provide proof of communal muslim public recognition of these verses after the prophet's death outside the solitary report. in legal narration.

What proof have you that these verses were recited in communal recitation in Mecca or other regions? None!

Where are manuscript evidence in support of your claims? Which codex do you refer to that have these supposedly removed verses? Any of the companion personal codex, regional manuscript or parchment evidence will do. However you still cannot as these are non existent.

Not even remotely traced to the Sanaa palimpset, Topkapi or Birmingham fragment.

Erasure no longer leaves fingerprints?

Still waiting for you present a competing canon to show that indeed a verse was removed or any community that preserved a longer recension. You cannot find a rival cannon?

No Islamic historical record of disputes about these missing verses despite the rich collation of political wars and legal disagreements.

Don't you wonder about this very loud silence?

When is this deletion supposed to have taken? No record of this fabulous removal process. Not asking for theological tales or speculation about Uthman. What information exists about this between the times of Abu Bakr and Umar? How come the Muslim community were and still continue to be silent?

You quibble about Quran 1-49 see yours

and pretend that Quran 27:30 is separate and changes something but it doesn't.


1The Basmallah appears at the start of every surah except the ninth one, as the Prophet (pbuh) directed its placement in the final compilation. . This is universally accepted and preserved, with no discrepancies among manuscripts.


2Jibril didn’t forget, and nothing was re-revealed; the order of revelation differs from the order of compilation.


3Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is part of the Qur’an;words from Allah, clearly stated in 27:30 and consistently transmitted through every recitation. There are no alternative versions, no missing texts, and no competing scriptures. Your objection is unfounded.

honesttalk21:
YOUR OBJECTION IS UNFOUNDED AS YOU WERE ALREADY ANSWERED DON'T KNOW WHO YOU TRY TO DECIEVE

TenQ:
Audio Answers!

keep it up!

honesttalk21:
YOUR OBJECTION IS UNFOUNDED AS YOU WERE ALREADY ANSWERED DON'T KNOW WHO YOU TRY TO DECIEVE

TenQ:
Of course anything based on deception like Islamabad will cause regret at the end.

honesttalk21:
Where it is difficult to discern:

1. The Basmallah appears at the start of every surah except the ninth one, as the Prophet (pbuh) directed its placement in the final compilation. This is universally accepted and preserved, with no discrepancies among manuscripts.

honesttalk21:
2. Jibril didn’t forget, and nothing was re-revealed; the order of revelation differs from the order of compilation.

honesttalk21:
3. Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is part of the Qur’an;words from Allah, clearly stated in 27:30 and consistently transmitted through every recitation.

honesttalk21:
Tell me these are not in the former reply. How can you obviously paint falsehood as truth? LIEING tenq

Please tell that these aren't direct answers to your questions!