₦airaland Forum

Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may ALLĀH have mercy on him) said:

*"Then verily the reality of Tawhīd is: That we worship ALLĀH alone.*

*So ˹this means˺:*

*None is called upon except HIM.*

*None is truly revered except HIM.*

*None is truly feared except HIM.*

*None is truly relied upon except HIM.*

*And the religion (all of our acts of obedience) should be for none except HIM, not for anyone from the creation.*

*And that we should neither take the angels nor the prophets as Lords.*

*So how can Imams, shuyūkh, scholars, kings and other than them ˹be taken as Lords˺?!*

*And the messenger (ﷺ) is the conveyor from ALLĀH, ˹conveying˺ HIS commands and prohibitions.*

*So none of the creation is to be shown complete obedience except HIM."*

📚 Minhājus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah (3/490)

Copied

Thank you Leader Olumba Olumba Obu

Hussein27:
Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may ALLĀH have mercy on him) said:

*"Then verily the reality of Tawhīd is: That we worship ALLĀH alone.*

*So ˹this means˺:*

*None is called upon except HIM.*

*None is truly revered except HIM.*

*None is truly feared except HIM.*

*None is truly relied upon except HIM.*

*And the religion (all of our acts of obedience) should be for none except HIM, not for anyone from the creation.*

*And that we should neither take the angels nor the prophets as Lords.*

*So how can Imams, shuyūkh, scholars, kings and other than them ˹be taken as Lords˺?!*

*And the messenger (ﷺ) is the conveyor from ALLĀH, ˹conveying˺ HIS commands and prohibitions.*

*So none of the creation is to be shown complete obedience except HIM."*

📚 Minhājus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah (3/490)

Copied

May Allah increase our emaan and grant us Firdaus. Ameen

Very true
The same Allah in the Qur'an was known to have a spirit
That spirit was breathed into Maryam to birth Isa
So Isa is of Allah which is why he's the only one recorded in the Qur'an who is alive till this day and coming back to earth
Even the Quran ended up supporting the Trinity concept

My objection according to Quran


1. THERE IS NOTHING CALLED TAWHID IN THE QURAN, I MEAN YOU CANT FIND THAT WORD IN THE QURAN.


2. TAWHEED IS AN ARABIC WORD T-W-H whose root word means PART OF -----ONE OF.
IF ANYONE TELL YOU TAWHEED MEANS ONE ONLY IT IS A LIE ....ASK HIM FOR THE ROOT WORD.


3.IN THE QURAN WE SEE THAT QUTHAM A.K.A MUHAMMAD SHARED IN THE GLORY OF ALLAH AND MUSLIM PRAYS TO MUHAMMAD.
EXAMPLE DURING THE TASHAHHUD... MUSLIMS PRAYS TO A DEAD MAN.


4.ALLAH IN THE QURAN IS ONE OF ( WHICH BACKS UP MY CLAIM) ONE OF THE CREATOR, ONE OF THE DECEIVERS


5. IN THE QURAN YOU FIND ALLAH USING WE US----- IT IS NOT ROYAL PLURALITY ( even the royal plurality means the king is speaking on behalf of HIS NOBlLES or CABINET)

6.CALIPH UTHMAN BURN THE QURANS THAT CONTAINS THE REAL TRUTH...

LET ME STOP HERE

IF YOU WANT EVIDENCE LET ME KNOW

Kukutente23:
Very true
The same Allah in the Qur'an was known to have a spirit
That spirit was breathed into Maryam to birth Isa
So Isa is of Allah which is why he's the only one recorded in the Qur'an who is alive till this day and coming back to earth
Even the Quran ended up supporting the Trinity concept

The trinity is an will always be an indomitable divine concept.

In the old testament Moses says behold Israel the Lord our God is ECHAD( one compound unity)

The Quran is filled with Allah praising Allah
The verses are filled Allah worshipping Allah 2 vs 138


Infact Bismi is patterned towards the TRINITY ( A TOPIC I WILL POST BEFORE I LEAVE NAIRALAND)

Bismil-Aabi wal-Ibni war-Ruuhil-Qudus
In the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy spirit.

Bismi llahi (1) Rahamoni(2 JESUS TITILE USED BY THE SYRIAC ARAMAIC CHURCH) RAHIM (3 HOLY SPIRIT)

LET ME STOP HERE

I read " The reality of the weed"

Funny though

Peace and blessings to my Muslim brothers and sisters

Hussein27:
Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may ALLĀH have mercy on him) said:

*"Then verily the reality of Tawhīd is: That we worship ALLĀH alone.*

*So ˹this means˺:*

*None is called upon except HIM.*

*None is truly revered except HIM.*

*None is truly feared except HIM.*

*None is truly relied upon except HIM.*

*And the religion (all of our acts of obedience) should be for none except HIM, not for anyone from the creation.*

*And that we should neither take the angels nor the prophets as Lords.*

*So how can Imams, shuyūkh, scholars, kings and other than them ˹be taken as Lords˺?!*

*And the messenger (ﷺ) is the conveyor from ALLĀH, ˹conveying˺ HIS commands and prohibitions.*

*So none of the creation is to be shown complete obedience except HIM."*

📚 Minhājus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah (3/490)

Copied

Taoheed is a Terrible state of God's existence.

It guarantees that
1. Allah is NOT Omnipresent
2. Allah is NOT Omnipotent

Freeze007:
Thank you Leader Olumba Olumba Obu

Make I remove your name from those going to Al jannah...infact your 72 virgins have been reduced to 7 virgins ...

One more word I will reduce it again

BlackfireX:
Make I remove your name from those going to Al jannah...infact your 72 virgins have been reduced to 7 virgins ...

One more word I will reduce it again

abeg no reduce am o, that the only thing they live for honneey peeps

Overruled!

These six points fall apart for the same reason which is bad Arabic, mixed categories, and claims with no real evidence.
Tawhid as a later technical term is not in the Qur’an, though true but the doctrine is everywhere. Your God is One God (2:163), Allah is One (112:1), Do not take two gods (16:51). The label came later. The belief was already there.
The root w-h-d does not mean part of or one of. That is simply false Arabic. Across the major lexicons, it means oneness. Wahid is one. Ahad is one. Tawhid is affirming oneness. Anything else is made up.
The tashahhud is not prayer to Muhammad pbuh. Sending peace is not worship. In Islam, greeting a prophet is not the same thing as calling on a god. Mixing those two is basic category confusion.
Best of creators does not mean Allah is one creator among many. In Qur’anic Arabic it means Allah is above every lesser form of making. Same with they planned and Allah planned that is divine counter-planning, not deception as a flaw.
Allah saying We is not plurality. That is the royal plural normal Arabic usage for majesty and authority. The Qur’an still states plainly: Indeed, I am Allah (20:14). Singular, clear, direct.
Then Uthman did not burn the real Qur’an. He standardised the written copies to preserve one agreed text across dialects. That is preservation, not suppression. If another real Qur’an existed, produce it. That is manuscript, chain, text. You and no one else can.
So all six claims fail the same way being weak Arabic, weak logic, and zero hard evidence. Once the language is read properly, none of it stands.

BlackfireX:
My objection according to Quran


1. THERE IS NOTHING CALLED TAWHID IN THE QURAN, I MEAN YOU CANT FIND THAT WORD IN THE QURAN.


2. TAWHEED IS AN ARABIC WORD T-W-H whose root word means PART OF -----ONE OF.
IF ANYONE TELL YOU TAWHEED MEANS ONE ONLY IT IS A LIE ....ASK HIM FOR THE ROOT WORD.


3.IN THE QURAN WE SEE THAT QUTHAM A.K.A MUHAMMAD SHARED IN THE GLORY OF ALLAH AND MUSLIM PRAYS TO MUHAMMAD.
EXAMPLE DURING THE TASHAHHUD... MUSLIMS PRAYS TO A DEAD MAN.


4.ALLAH IN THE QURAN IS ONE OF ( WHICH BACKS UP MY CLAIM) ONE OF THE CREATOR, ONE OF THE DECEIVERS


5. IN THE QURAN YOU FIND ALLAH USING WE US----- IT IS NOT ROYAL PLURALITY ( even the royal plurality means the king is speaking on behalf of HIS NOBlLES or CABINET)

6.CALIPH UTHMAN BURN THE QURANS THAT CONTAINS THE REAL TRUTH...

LET ME STOP HERE

IF YOU WANT EVIDENCE LET ME KNOW

honesttalk21:
Overruled!

These six points fall apart for the same reason which is bad Arabic, mixed categories, and claims with no real evidence.
Tawhid as a later technical term is not in the Qur’an, though true but the doctrine is everywhere. Your God is One God (2:163), Allah is One (112:1), Do not take two gods (16:51). The label came later. The belief was already there.
The root w-h-d does not mean part of or one of. That is simply false Arabic. Across the major lexicons, it means oneness. Wahid is one. Ahad is one. Tawhid is affirming oneness. Anything else is made up.
The tashahhud is not prayer to Muhammad pbuh. Sending peace is not worship. In Islam, greeting a prophet is not the same thing as calling on a god. Mixing those two is basic category confusion.
Best of creators does not mean Allah is one creator among many. In Qur’anic Arabic it means Allah is above every lesser form of making. Same with they planned and Allah planned that is divine counter-planning, not deception as a flaw.
Allah saying We is not plurality. That is the royal plural normal Arabic usage for majesty and authority. The Qur’an still states plainly: Indeed, I am Allah (20:14). Singular, clear, direct.
Then Uthman did not burn the real Qur’an. He standardised the written copies to preserve one agreed text across dialects. That is preservation, not suppression. If another real Qur’an existed, produce it. That is manuscript, chain, text. You and no one else can.
So all six claims fail the same way being weak Arabic, weak logic, and zero hard evidence. Once the language is read properly, none of it stands.

The truth keep coming out.


1. There is nothing called tawheed ------ don't tell me about concept ---- the word tawheed is not in the whole Quran, and you agreed.

2.Allah can claim alot of things but when we look at the Quran is another thing-----or muslims are saying one thing about Allah declaration without letting us know the other part-----which is Allah praises himself and worship himself in the Quran 2 vs 138.

3.TAWHID means part of----one of-----unique among.

4.allah using we US to describe himself---muslim call it royalty----- but royalty means that the speaker is speaking on behalf of his cabinet or royalty which points back to compound unity.

5.Uthman standardised the Quran ? Why ? Because he needed to get the real Quran out infact he burnt them : you forgot to tell us that muslim was the 1st to burn the real quran --- and he died like a chicken.
STANDARDISED means there was a problem of different Qurans which shows the parroted lies uncorrected Quran

All these shows that your points are baseless and empty claims : I showed evidences

BlackfireX:
The truth keep coming out.


1. There is nothing called tawheed ------ don't tell me about concept ---- the word tawheed is not in the whole Quran, and you agreed.

2.Allah can claim alot of things but when we look at the Quran is another thing-----or muslims are saying one thing about Allah declaration without letting us know the other part-----which is Allah praises himself and worship himself in the Quran 2 vs 138.

3.TAWHID means part of----one of-----unique among.

4.allah using we US to describe himself---muslim call it royalty----- but royalty means that the speaker is speaking on behalf of his cabinet or royalty which points back to compound unity.

5.Uthman standardised the Quran ? Why ? Because he needed to get the real Quran out infact he burnt them : you forgot to tell us that muslim was the 1st to burn the real quran --- and he died like a chicken.
STANDARDISED means there was a problem of different Qurans which shows the parroted lies uncorrected Quran

All these shows that your points are baseless and empty claims : I showed evidences

The term tawhid isn’t required stated; the doctrine is. The Qur’an states God’s oneness directly. Quran 2:138 is about sibghah being divine imprint (fitrah), not self-worship; that reading ignores basic Arabic please use your claimed expertise to show differently.
On w-h-d, it means oneness, not part of. No classical lexicon supports that claim except again you show now.
The use of We is a known Semitic register; clarified by singular statements like I am Allah (20:14).
Uthman's standardising recitation isn’t erasing a different Qur’an. No alternate text has ever been produced. I asked you to provide yet you still can't

honesttalk21:
The term tawhid isn’t required stated; the doctrine is. The Qur’an states God’s oneness directly. Quran 2:138 is about sibghah being divine imprint (fitrah), not self-worship; that reading ignores basic Arabic please use your claimed expertise to show differently.
On w-h-d, it means oneness, not part of. No classical lexicon supports that claim except again you show now.
The use of We is a known Semitic register; clarified by singular statements like I am Allah (20:14).
Uthman's standardising recitation isn’t erasing a different Qur’an. No alternate text has ever been produced. I asked you to provide yet you still can't

Song: jumping Jumping you are jumping

Shame just dey catch me for you
So you no know anything----haaa

Ok let's start here since you want to lie about the standardisation of the Quereyana

1. Did Uthamn satrderdised the Quran? Because there were variants---- different Quran in reading?

2. After standardisation did he burnt the others?

3.the Quran verse about breastfeeding and others lost---- yes or No?

4.we have 30 Qurans in circulations today
Example haffs , warsh , Duri and others --- yes or No?

5.Did Allah gave Uthamn the right to standardised the Quran ?

You stop saying you don't know arabic--- that line don cast.

I pray AL RABB will reveal YASU AL MASSIH IBN ELAHA to you through Ruuhil-Qudus

Clear of any confusion, here are Five clear points:

1. Yes Uthman standardized the Qur’an.
This is in Sahih al-Bukhari. The aim was unity after dialect differences, not changing revelation. The written consonantal text was unified, not rewritten.
2. Yes personal codices were withdrawn.
They were removed to prevent disagreement in recitation, not to hide alternative Qur’ans. The companions agreed to the move for unity.
3. No this doesn’t imply a lost rival Qur’an.
Reports like breastfeeding belong to naskh discussions (abrogated material), not surviving parallel scriptures. That is internal legal theory, not evidence of a second Qur’an.
4. Yes multiple qira’at (recitation styles) exist.
Hafs, Warsh, and others are approved recitations of the same written text. Differences are pronunciation and vowels, not doctrine or content.
5. Yes consensus supported standardisation.
Major companions accepted the unified mushaf. No authentic record shows rejection of its legitimacy.
There is one preserved Qur’an text with multiple accepted readings/recital, not competing Qur’ans or conflicting doctrines.

BlackfireX:
Song: jumping Jumping you are jumping

Shame just dey catch me for you
So you no know anything----haaa

Ok let's start here since you want to lie about the standardisation of the Quereyana

1. Did Uthamn satrderdised the Quran? Because there were variants---- different Quran in reading?

2. After standardisation did he burnt the others?

3.the Quran verse about breastfeeding and others lost---- yes or No?

4.we have 30 Qurans in circulations today
Example haffs , warsh , Duri and others --- yes or No?

5.Did Allah gave Uthamn the right to standardised the Quran ?

You stop saying you don't know arabic--- that line don cast.

I pray AL RABB will reveal YASU AL MASSIH IBN ELAHA to you through Ruuhil-Qudus

Why can't Muslims do without lying? 👀
Even the ones that do attempt to speak, just speak bold-faced lies.

Anyone would have understood that the reason the Quran was standardized goes beyond dialectal differences. Let me call the attention of the reader to two different English dialectal differences: color and colour. Anyone familiar would have seen that it doesn't change the meaning.

But from the story found in the Hadith, although, I am being generous by using it here, we find a troubling assertion that goes beyond pure dialectal differences but rather theological differences.

My good friend here, Honesttalk21, made this assertion, "Differences are pronunciation and vowels, not doctrine or content." , albeit by his good friend, the AI of his choice. This is totally false, just between hafs and warsh there are over 5000 differences not just simple dialectal differences but differences that also change meaning.

At the top of my head, let me cite one. Any one in the polemic world would know this. We find in one of the Qurans, "Allah wonders" and in another, "Mohammed wonders". The reader can do so well to search online for others. I will even provide multiple differences as well after this comment. One begins to wonder, which is it? Was it Muhammad that wondered or Allah? I think I had this conversation with ohyoudidnt, about a year ago. He just parroted the same old script🥱 claiming there is no difference. How absurd!

As for Uthman, we find Uthman didn't have any authority nor sanction from Allah before he burnt his books😅. From their own stories, Ibn Masud didn't approve of this standardized Quran. By the way, Uthman wasn't the only one that standardized the Quran😂 another after him did the same thing🥱. Dare I say, it was a prevalent trend—"burn the Quran of Allah and standardize your own" 👀. Very ludicrous, If you ask me😅.

Honesttalk21 tried to tone down the consequences of a sheep, Sorry, goat😅🐐 eating the verse of stoning and adult breastfeeding😅. Any reasonable person would conclude the Quran isn't complete. To even add salt to injury, we find in their hadiths where one of the top scholars said "let no man say he has memorized the Quran but rather say he has memorized what's left of the Quran" (paraphrased).
So whatever Quran they are holding is what's left. Let me add this in parting, the Quran was memorized by men, but a number of them died in battle thus, this realization that the Quran was on the brink of being lost made them codify it😅. From their own sources we are to conclude that the Quran wasn't perfectly preserved and a great deal of it was lost.

The 5000 differences line sounds dramatic but it's mostly a counting trick. It groups pronunciation features;vowels, elongations, hamza into a large number. Early Arabic didn't write these, so they were always carried orally. The base text is the same across readings, and meanings stay within the same range. Calling recitation features contradictions is mislabelling, not analysis.
The Allah wonders vs Muhammad wonders claim needs an exact reference showing surah, ayah, and named reading. Without that, there's nothing to verify. Produce it precisely and it will be addressed precisely. These examples typically fall apart once cited properly.
Ibn Masud's disagreement is recorded openly which already demonstrates nothing was being hidden. His concern was about the written codex status of certain supplications, not a rival Qur'an with different beliefs. He never produced a competing text. Ali endorsed the standardisation. If another Qur'an with different doctrine existed, that was exactly the moment it would have surfaced. It didn't.
The goat narration, even accepted at face value, describes a physical page being lost not the text disappearing. Preservation was oral and distributed across a large community simultaneously. A single sheet being destroyed erases nothing memorised across thousands of people. The what's left of the Qur'an quote is presented without a chain or exact wording. In context, narrations of this type consistently relate to abrogation of material whose ruling was deliberately lifted not missing revelation. Produce the full report and it can be examined. The compilation after battlefield deaths shows the opposite of loss. The community identified risk early and consolidated what was already preserved before any gap could form. That is deliberate preservation, not recovery from corruption.
At the core is a point being consistently avoided: the Qur'an was transmitted through a fixed written base alongside authorised recitation variation; a system explicitly sanctioned in multiple narrations in Bukhari and Muslim. What is being presented here as evidence of corruption is actually evidence of a transmission method precise enough to carry both textual unity and recitation diversity across fourteen centuries. That isn't a weakness in the record. It's the record working exactly as designed.

Gabrielshow26:
Why can't Muslims do without lying? 👀
Even the ones that do attempt to speak, just speak bold-faced lies.

Anyone would have understood that the reason the Quran was standardized goes beyond dialectal differences. Let me call the attention of the reader to two different English dialectal differences: color and colour. Anyone familiar would have seen that it doesn't change the meaning.

But from the story found in the Hadith, although, I am being generous by using it here, we find a troubling assertion that goes beyond pure dialectal differences but rather theological differences.

My good friend here, Honesttalk21, made this assertion, "Differences are pronunciation and vowels, not doctrine or content." , albeit by his good friend, the AI of his choice. This is totally false, just between hafs and warsh there are over 5000 differences not just simple dialectal differences but differences that also change meaning.

At the top of my head, let me cite one. Any one in the polemic world would know this. We find in one of the Qurans, "Allah wonders" and in another, "Mohammed wonders". The reader can do so well to search online for others. I will even provide multiple differences as well after this comment. One begins to wonder, which is it? Was it Muhammad that wondered or Allah? I think I had this conversation with ohyoudidnt, about a year ago. He just parroted the same old script🥱 claiming there is no difference. How absurd!

As for Uthman, we find Uthman didn't have any authority nor sanction from Allah before he burnt his books😅. From their own stories, Ibn Masud didn't approve of this standardized Quran. By the way, Uthman wasn't the only one that standardized the Quran😂 another after him did the same thing🥱. Dare I say, it was a prevalent trend—"burn the Quran of Allah and standardize your own" 👀. Very ludicrous, If you ask me😅.

Honesttalk21 tried to tone down the consequences of a sheep, Sorry, goat😅🐐 eating the verse of stoning and adult breastfeeding😅. Any reasonable person would conclude the Quran isn't complete. To even add salt to injury, we find in their hadiths where one of the top scholars said "let no man say he has memorized the Quran but rather say he has memorized what's left of the Quran" (paraphrased).
So whatever Quran they are holding is what's left. Let me add this in parting, the Quran was memorized by men, but a number of them died in battle thus, this realization that the Quran was on the brink of being lost made them codify it😅. From their own sources we are to conclude that the Quran wasn't perfectly preserved and a great deal of it was lost.

honesttalk21:
The 5000 differences line sounds dramatic but it's mostly a counting trick. It groups pronunciation features;vowels, elongations, hamza into a large number. Early Arabic didn't write these, so they were always carried orally. The base text is the same across readings, and meanings stay within the same range. Calling recitation features contradictions is mislabelling, not analysis.
The Allah wonders vs Muhammad wonders claim needs an exact reference showing surah, ayah, and named reading. Without that, there's nothing to verify. Produce it precisely and it will be addressed precisely. These examples typically fall apart once cited properly.
Ibn Masud's disagreement is recorded openly which already demonstrates nothing was being hidden. His concern was about the written codex status of certain supplications, not a rival Qur'an with different beliefs. He never produced a competing text. Ali endorsed the standardisation. If another Qur'an with different doctrine existed, that was exactly the moment it would have surfaced. It didn't.
The goat narration, even accepted at face value, describes a physical page being lost not the text disappearing. Preservation was oral and distributed across a large community simultaneously. A single sheet being destroyed erases nothing memorised across thousands of people. The what's left of the Qur'an quote is presented without a chain or exact wording. In context, narrations of this type consistently relate to abrogation of material whose ruling was deliberately lifted not missing revelation. Produce the full report and it can be examined. The compilation after battlefield deaths shows the opposite of loss. The community identified risk early and consolidated what was already preserved before any gap could form. That is deliberate preservation, not recovery from corruption.
At the core is a point being consistently avoided: the Qur'an was transmitted through a fixed written base alongside authorised recitation variation; a system explicitly sanctioned in multiple narrations in Bukhari and Muslim. What is being presented here as evidence of corruption is actually evidence of a transmission method precise enough to carry both textual unity and recitation diversity across fourteen centuries. That isn't a weakness in the record. It's the record working exactly as designed.

You have said nothing useful. The very fact Ibn Masud disagreed with the Uthmanic Quran has called out your gimmick. 🥱 Remind me again, what Mohammed said about him? According to Mohammed and their traditions, Ibn Masud is among the four, that knew the Quran in-depth earning the prophet's praise! Ibn Masud lauded himself as memorizing the Quran while Zaid was still wearing pampers😅.(Paraphrase and emphasis mine)

So Now you know that there are differences👀. I thought your earlier claim was that there wasn't. As I have stated, even though there are vowel differences that don't change meaning but there are some that do change the meaning radically. My mention of Allah wonders and Mohammed wonders can be found in As-saffat 37:12. We have in two different Qurans, incompatible statements, it can't be both.

Let's take another one debilitating to your sentiment. Take a look at Surah 10:16.
In hafs, we have "He would not have made it known to you". In Qunbul we have " He would have made it known to you"🤕. Which is it? This is a contradiction and accepting both as acceptable is totally ridiculous🤦🏾‍♂️. That my friend, is the logic of Islam.

Let's take another one, In surah 3:158(hafs) we have "undoubtedly be gathered". This contradicts the topkapi "shall not be gathered"🥱.

Let's have another one as well, Surah 2:119. In hafs we have "being asked about things" and in Warsh, "being told not to ask about things". Obviously, they are not the same.
In Surah 3:146, we find in hafs "many a prophet fought" while in Warsh, "many a prophet killed"(emphasis and paraphrase mine). I could go on and on but time won't allow me. These are sufficient to disprove my disillusioned friend🥱.

As for your oral claim, which has its pivot in perfect memorization🤦🏾‍♂️,this failed horrendously. We find in your Quran, your prophet forgetting things, although, I am being generous by putting it this way, I am more inclined that he made things as he went along and forgot some of his statements over time, for the sake of this argument, let's go with him forgetting things.

Remind us again, what excuse or reason your prophet gave as to why he forgot a verse? To the reader it was because "Allah caused him to forget" 👀. What a wonderful reason🥱.
So any claim of yours as regards perfect memory is unsubstantiated and everyone knows that "memory fails" that's the essence why books came into existence. To preserve.

As for the sheet being eating by a goat🥱, the aim of the Quranic historians highlighting this was to pass across the sentiment that parts of the Quran had been lost. That's why some of your commentators recorded conversations of your prophet's companions saying this verse used to be as long as the cow and let no man say he has memorized the Quran but what's left of it among others. If not, then there is no point in mentioning them but when all these history are put against the Quran's claim👀. We see a completely different picture. The Quran wasn't perfectly preserved.

Stop with the lies, any more lies?🥱