Empiree:
Man, talk is cheap. Hafs, Warsh etc are different methods of Qirat (recitations) of Quran. What has this gotta do with distortions, discrimpancies like the Bible?. This is why I asked you to screenshot for the world to see. The dude's video you posted is a confused fellow. I repeat confused fellow.

You can simply go on YouTube and listen to different Qirat of Qur'an. You get to know what that means not copy copy you are doing here. It is not gonna help you, bro.

Remember, the ORIGINAL of the Koran exists with Allah in heaven. So, are you saying that all these "different methods of Qirat (recitations)" of the Koran exist as a SINGLE book with Allah or the different methods were created only on earth? And Allah chose to reveal ALL OF THEM only in Arabic? What of the other languages? Are they not important to Allah? If he could create different methods surely he could have done so in all languages.

But the issue is more than that. Even in the "different methods of Qirat (recitations)" of the Koran there are differences. That is the problem.

For example:
Chapter 3:146
Hafs - "And how many a prophet FOUGHT, with whom were many worshippers of the Lord"

Warsh - "And how many prophets WERE KILLED, with whom were many worshippers of the Lord"

Now, "FOUGHT" is definitely not the same as "WE'RE KILLED". So, which one was "perfectly preserved"?

sagenaija:


Remember, the ORIGINAL of the Koran exists with Allah in heaven.

don't be daft now. You are looking for excuses. Quran that was preserved on tablets in heaven is the same one we have.

sagenaija:


So, are you saying that all these "different methods of Qirat (recitations)" of the Koran exist as a SINGLE book with Allah or the different methods were created only on earth? And Allah chose to reveal ALL OF THEM only in Arabic? What of the other languages?

Quran was revealed only in Arabic and it is one.

sagenaija:




For example:
Chapter 3:146
Hafs - "And how many a prophet FOUGHT, with whom were many worshippers of the Lord"

Warsh - "And how many prophets WERE KILLED, with whom were many worshippers of the Lord"

Now, "FOUGHT" is definitely not the same as "WE'RE KILLED". So, which one was "perfectly preserved"?

now this is what I was expecting you to do. Clap for yourself.

Now let's see.

You have just successfully wow English translation. English translation or any language is not Qur'an but simply translations.


"FOURTH or WERE KILLED" are placed in parentheses. Which means they are subjectives.


Here is Qur'an in Arabic and it is the same everywhere in Arabic. Look at underlined Qo ta la means to kill depending on how it is used in a sentence. It also means fight, fought etc either in present or past tense. All depends on how it is used or constructed in a sentence. Not all our most the translations pointed to same thing. But in Arabic, it is same Qo ta la

So I'm saying you should bring different arabic wordings from another Arabic Quran not English because English is not Qur'an. So you are still unsuccessful trying to find fault.

Arabic it's the original. Translations are not. If at any time we have problems with translations we go back to Arabic Quran. But you on the other hand have nothing to fall back on.

So the fact here is that different translators of that Ayah still have is same idea but the wording in Arabic as it was revealed will never change.


Matter of fact, I just seen another translation by another translator used "COMBAT" instead of "FOUGHT". They still mean the same thing.

It is still a lose lose situation for you

Empiree:
now this is what I was expecting you to do. Clap for yourself.

Now let's see.

You have just successfully wow English translation. English translation or any language is not Qur'an but simply translations.


"FOURTH or WERE KILLED" are placed in parentheses. Which means they are subjectives.


Here is Qur'an in Arabic and it is the same everywhere in Arabic. Look at underlined Qo ta la means to kill depending on how it is used in a sentence. It also means fight, fought etc either in present or past tense. All depends on how it is used or constructed in a sentence. Not all our most the translations pointed to same thing. But in Arabic, it is same Qo ta la

So I'm saying you should bring different arabic wordings from another Arabic Quran not English because English is not Qur'an. So you are still unsuccessful trying to find fault.

Arabic it's the original. Translations are not. If at any time we have problems with translations we go back to Arabic Quran. But you on the other hand have nothing to fall back on.

So the fact here is that different translators of that Ayah still have is same idea but the wording in Arabic as it was revealed will never change.


Matter of fact, I just seen another translation by another translator used "COMBAT" instead of "FOUGHT". They still mean the same thing.

It is still a lose lose situation for you

I can see that you are facinated by Arabic.
Infact you must think it's the language of paradise.

But "genius" can't you see that you're missing something here in this out conversation?

sagenaija:

I can see that you are facinated by Arabic.
Infact you must think it's the language of paradise.

Well, it is language Quran was revealed. Therefore, Quran is in arabic

But "genius" can't you see that you're missing something here in this out conversation?

You may point it out. Maybe i missed by accident

Empiree:
You know a man is confused after knowing what tawhid or Oneness of God is and then foolishly renounced islam over trivial issue. You noticed that he never argued on essence of islam, that's major tenet which God is One. Rather he was busy over silly things. Thats definition of confusion. He could preach for 40yr. Who cares if he renounce islam after that?. So since he is still alive, he still has hope. He may tomorrow changes faith to Judaism to Hinduism to Buddhism to Taoism to Shintoism to Atheism to Scientologist back to Islam. You just cant tell at this moment.

Maybe you deliberately choose not to watch the video so that it will not weaken your faith as advised by Mohammed. If you take time to watch many of his videos, which I have done, maybe your opinion will shift. However, because of your arrogance, you may not like to watch it so that you will not have any reason to doubt your false prophet Mohammed; you may chose to remain in your fantasy world created by Mohammed and polished by Imam Bukhari.

His first video talked about why he left Islam. Another of his video talked about Mohammed and zainab (the wife of his adopted son, zaid). You will also a video he made on hafs, warsh and durin (I don't think I get the spelling) Quran. He also made video on how Muslims have been attacking him online after he left Islam, some threatening to kill him as recommended by Mohammed. This is the same people that were shouting 'Allahu Akbar' when he joined the fold of the ummah. That's Islam anyway.

Empiree:
onus is not on us but you since your bible or gospel already have these obvious distortions which confirms Quran position. I have out up a challenge up there for your buddy. See if you can help him. Seems he cant help himself. We are absolutely under no obligation to provide original injil. We have enough evidence to prove your distortions.



You dont have it. You dont need to be apologetic about it. It is too late for you to concoct fake names in 2019. Your 4 chronological Gospels are fraud. We muslims only picked whatever is in harmony with islamic teachings from it. We use Quran as a standard criteria to judge the Bible.



"Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion i:e Quran, upon His Servant that he may be to the worlds a warner" - Surah Furqan ayah 1



I simply did not notice. And, pint of correction.I know that you knew but you followed your dire. Quran was not names by Muhammad(saw) but His Creator. So these names of Animals you mentioned goes to show you that Qur'an covers all aspect of life including ant for that matter. It mentioned cow in reference to Jews who worshipped golden calf or questioned their prophet about sacrificial cow they were ordered for.

Mr. "educated and intelligent" one, since you (people of the Book) are so damn educated, how come you teach pupils in schools that 1+1+1=3 but when it comes to simple religious issue, 1+1+1=1 and then you told us that we can not understand unless and until we have "holy spirit"?. How's that "education" working for you?

You are not a good student of law and logic. If I present you a fake 1 dollar bill and you, as a banker, identified the money as a fake, you need to present me an original bill to show me that the money I wanted to deposit is fake. If I present a forged check, for payment in a bank, the bank, upon identifying the check as fake, will arrest me for forgery. If I try to claim innocence, the bank will not present me a book to tell me that the check is fake. They will present me a similar check for us to compare with the fake on my hand. That's how an organized setup works. The bank will not ask me to present an original check again, knowing fully well that i want to defraud them. They will show me an original check to confirm that what I presented is forged.

The onus is on who makes a claim is to present an evidence. The Muslims make a claim that the current Bible is distorted, although you will agree with the verses that does not contradict your Quran, so it is Muslims that need to provide the REAL bible that was not distorted. This is just commonsense.

You said Allah named the Quran by himself, including the surah (such as ant, table, donkey, camel, etc). In order words Allah inspired Uthman ibn Affan, the owner of the current Quran, to name each ayah after an ant, a table, a donkey, a cow, etc. And, you thinking you are dealing with kids, claimed that the 'surah cow: was in reference to the golden calf, kindly provide a proof. Pls provide a prove for his your sensational and smart claim.

As a typical deflector you are, you can't box me back into the issue of the Trinity because even your prophet did not understand it. Go back and read your Quran and come back and tell us how Mohammed understood it.

true2god:
You are not a good student of law and logic. If I present you a fake 1 dollar bill and you, as a banker, identified the money as a fake, you need to present me an original bill to show me that the money I wanted to deposit is fake. If I present a forged check, for payment in a bank, the bank, upon identifying the check as fake, will arrest me for forgery. If I try to claim innocence, the bank will not present me a book to tell me that the check is fake. They will present me a similar check for us to compare with the fake on my hand. That's how an organized setup works. The bank will not ask me to present an original check again, knowing fully well that i want to defraud them. They will show me an original check to confirm that what I presented is forged.

Fake man See as you are trying to copy my logical deduction?. In Ghanaian accent, it is not gonna werk

The onus is on who makes a claim is to present an evidence. The Muslims make a claim that the current Bible is distorted, although you will agree with the verses that does not contradict your Quran, so it is Muslims that need to provide the REAL bible that was not distorted. This is just commonsense.

Irrefutable fact is that you have multiple contradicted Bibles And I have pointed out Luke 1:2 as a case study but you snubbed all the time. For record, Luke said;



"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"


Question: who are they?

who were the eyewitnesses?

Obviously these were unknown people and Luke confessed that he was not even actual witness of the events which shows that he was a mere historian. He had no certain knowledge about Jesus and who Jesus was. This is just one of the many discrepancies Quran talks about and you are still asking me to presented your original Bible after this clear evidence of distortion?

You said Allah named the Quran by himself, including the surah (such as ant, table, donkey, camel, etc). In order words Allah inspired Uthman ibn Affan, the owner of the current Quran, to name each ayah after an ant, a table, a donkey, a cow, etc. And, you thinking you are dealing with kids, claimed that the 'surah cow: was in reference to the golden calf, kindly provide a proof. Pls provide a prove for his your sensational and smart claim

What is these jagbajagba all about?. Allah is the author of the Quran. Only Allah Can Author the Quran


"And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds." Sura 10:37



"Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it."[Q15:9]



Proof of Divine Authorship



Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. [Sura 4:82]



All these proves, that Quran is from Allah. Everything in Quran is from Allah. The name of suras, the words of verses, the numbers assigned to the chapters and verses. Every single word is from Allah.

true2god:
Maybe you deliberately choose not to watch the video so that it will not weaken your faith as advised by Mohammed. If you take time to watch many of his videos, which I have done, maybe your opinion will shift. However, because of your arrogance, you may not like to watch it so that you will not have any reason to doubt your false prophet Mohammed; you may chose to remain in your fantasy world created by Mohammed and polished by Imam Bukhari.

smh... i have been watching him the very first day he announced his renunciation of islam. I have decided after watching many of his other videos that shaytan is playing prank inside his brain.

His first video talked about why he left Islam. Another of his video talked about Mohammed and zainab (the wife of his adopted son, zaid). You will also a video he made on hafs, warsh and durin (I don't think I get the spelling) Quran. He also made video on how Muslims have been attacking him online after he left Islam, some threatening to kill him as recommended by Mohammed. This is the same people that were shouting 'Allahu Akbar' when he joined the fold of the ummah. That's Islam anyway.

Do i need a story from you?. I watched everything and you are free to believe whatever you want. He even went to mosque to make fun inside house of God. Foolish him. Please, he is irrelevant to me at this point. I see no reason to talk about him.

Empiree:
Well, it is language Quran was revealed. Therefore, Quran is in arabic

You may point it out. Maybe i missed by accident

There is no Mohamed’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Abu Bakr’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Uthman’s Koran manuscript today.
All we have are Koran according to Hafs, Warsh, etc. These were written long after Mohamed.
You stated that the word in question can be “kill”, or “fight” or “fought” depending on how it is used. If Allah wanted the Koran to be CLEAR then he needs to make the meaning clear in order to avoid CONFUSION! Everyone reading the Arabic and translating to any other language must see that word as the same in the context in which it has been used. The word can ONLY mean one thing in the context of this verse.
Now to the point you missed:
I gave the versions of Q. 3:146 by Hafs and Warsh. One said “fought” and the other said “were killed”. These are two recognized Koran versions.
So, in this example, who is right – Hafs or Warsh?

Empiree:
Well, it is language Quran was revealed. Therefore, Quran is in arabic

You may point it out. Maybe i missed by accident

There is no Mohamed’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Abu Bakr’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Uthman’s Koran manuscript today.

All we have are Koran according to Hafs, Warsh, etc. These were written long after Mohamed.

You stated that the word in question can be “kill”, or “fight” or “fought” depending on how it is used. If Allah wanted the Koran to be CLEAR then he needs to make the meaning clear in order to avoid CONFUSION! Everyone reading the Arabic and translating to any other language must see that word as the same in the context in which it has been used. The word can ONLY mean one thing in the context of this verse.

Now to the point you missed:
I gave the versions of Q. 3:146 by Hafs and Warsh. One said “fought” and the other said “were killed”. These are two recognized Koran versions.
So, in this example, who is right – Hafs or Warsh?

sagenaija:


There is no Mohamed’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Abu Bakr’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Uthman’s Koran manuscript today.

All we have are Koran according to Hafs, Warsh, etc. These were written long after Mohamed.

See this rookie trying to be relevant why is it so difficult for you to accept the truth?. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?

You stated that the word in question can be “kill”, or “fight” or “fought” depending on how it is used. If Allah wanted the Koran to be CLEAR then he needs to make the meaning clear in order to avoid CONFUSION! Everyone reading the Arabic and translating to any other language must see that word as the same in the context in which it has been used. The word can ONLY mean one thing in the context of this verse.

Now to the point you missed:
I gave the versions of Q. 3:146 by Hafs and Warsh. One said “fought” and the other said “were killed”. These are two recognized Koran versions.
So, in this example, who is right – Hafs or Warsh?

You keep presenting english translation. English choice of words are optional. Kindly present Arabic version that are different from what is revealed in the Quran. That's what i asked you. If you can't find it just admit Quran has no version in its revealed language. Quran is in Arabic and it is one.

Empiree:
Fake man See as you are trying to copy my logical deduction?. In Ghanaian accent, it is not gonna werk



Irrefutable fact is that you have multiple contradicted Bibles And I have pointed out Luke 1:2 as a case study but you snubbed all the time. For record, Luke said;



"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"


Question: who are they?

who were the eyewitnesses?

Obviously these were unknown people and Luke confessed that he was not even actual witness of the events which shows that he was a mere historian. He had no certain knowledge about Jesus and who Jesus was. This is just one of the many discrepancies Quran talks about and you are still asking me to presented your original Bible after this clear evidence of distortion?





What is these jagbajagba all about?. Allah is the author of the Quran. Only Allah Can Author the Quran


"And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds." Sura 10:37



"Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it."[Q15:9]



Proof of Divine Authorship



Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. [Sura 4:82]



All these proves, that Quran is from Allah. Everything in Quran is from Allah. The name of suras, the words of verses, the numbers assigned to the chapters and verses. Every single word is from Allah.

Sorry dear, I never knew you have a 'logical template' that is your exclusive reserve. At times you sound like a kid. You chosed to ignore the 'case study' I gave but rather engaged in an egoistic persuit. If you really have a good sense of logic, as you claimed, you will understand that it is someone that makes a claim that provides evidence. If a person accuse someone of murder, it is the person that makes the accusation that provides the evidence and not the other way round. If Mohammed accused the Torah and the injil of being distorted, a rational mind will expect Mohammed to provide the authentic one because it was perhaps in circulation at the time of Mohammed. Besides, since Allah (who always speak from both side of his mouth) said in the Quran that no one can change his words, the so-called previous revelations (Quran 6:115), why did he allow mortal men to change it? It is either Allah is lying or Muslims are confused.

You also raised the issue of eye witnesses when it comes to the account of the gospel according to Luke but you failed to mention any SINGLE eye witness to the so-called revelation in the Quran. Can you mention a single eye witness who can validate Mohammed's claim of receiving a 'revelation' from Allah through Jibril. The only slight witness to Mohammed's revelation fraud was by his child-bride, Aisha, who accused him of making 'revelation' up for his selfish desires. Read the hadith below:

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet),
"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

According to Aisha (an eye witness and a wife to the false prophet), the Quran is nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed and not any Allah. This incident, where Aisha bursted the bubble of your fake prophet, is enough for me. Maybe you will, in a classical Islamic fashion and deflection, lie to me that 'it is a weak hadith' because you guys always have escape route like James Bond. I am sorry to say, James Bond might be a Muslim.

Even the medieval Arabs accused Mohammed of being being a fraudulent man hiding behind Allah hence another convenient revelation which you quoted above:

"And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds." Sura 10:37

If the illiterate Arabs and one his many wives, who saw him, knew and knew his antics, could be sceptical about his so-called revelations, how about you an educated , exposed and modern man? Bros, you 'fall my hands ooo'. Honestly you really disappointed me if you can't see and reason for yourself. If you still don't understand that the Quran is all about 'circumstantial revelations' to suit a particular time, place and issue, then you need to put in your thinking cap. You also quoted the ayah below;

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. [Sura 4:82]

The ayah you quoted said 'they would have found within it MUCH contradiction'. The ayah didn't say they won't find ANY contradiction but that they won't find MUCH. Do you want us to start listing the contradictions and errors in the Quran?

Asalama lekum!

Empiree:
smh... i have been watching him the very first day he announced his renunciation of islam. I have decided after watching many of his other videos that shaytan is playing prank inside his brain.



Do i need a story from you?. I watched everything and you are free to believe whatever you want. He even went to mosque to make fun inside house of God. Foolish him. Please, he is irrelevant to me at this point. I see no reason to talk about him.

Ohh, when he joined the ummah (the world's largest political party) the devil was not playing on his brain but now that he has uncovered the many fraud in Islam the devil is now playing on his brain. If tomorrow he revert back to Islam you guys will once again shout 'Allahu Akbar'! Can you see that you are a hypocrite?

For now he will surely be irrelevant because is not useful in the hands of Islamic propagandist but will once again become your poster boy and useful idiot once he tells your guys that I have 'reverted' back to Islam. 'Abeg park well make I see road'.

Empiree:
See this rookie trying to be relevant why is it so difficult for you to accept the truth?. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?

You keep presenting english translation. English choice of words are optional. Kindly present Arabic version that are different from what is revealed in the Quran. That's what i asked you. If you can't find it just admit Quran has no version in its revealed language. Quran is in Arabic and it is one.

You keep running away from reality. The issue is simple; you who know Arabic, what does that Arabic word mean: Is it "fought" or is it "kill". A simple question, isn't it? You are communicating with me in English are you not? So, what does that word in English mean? If Arabic is one, what ONE THING does that word mean in the CONTEXT of that verse? Does it mean "fought" or does it mean "kill"?

By refusing to directly answer you are actually the one embarrassing yourself and your 'followers'.

sagenaija:


There is no Mohamed’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Abu Bakr’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Uthman’s Koran manuscript today.
All we have are Koran according to Hafs, Warsh, etc. These were written long after Mohamed.
You stated that the word in question can be “kill”, or “fight” or “fought” depending on how it is used. If Allah wanted the Koran to be CLEAR then he needs to make the meaning clear in order to avoid CONFUSION! Everyone reading the Arabic and translating to any other language must see that word as the same in the context in which it has been used. The word can ONLY mean one thing in the context of this verse.
Now to the point you missed:
I gave the versions of Q. 3:146 by Hafs and Warsh. One said “fought” and the other said “were killed”. These are two recognized Koran versions.
So, in this example, who is right – Hafs or Warsh?

The Quran never said there won't be ANY contradiction it said there won't be much (or many) contradiction but my 21st century Muslims will say 'there is no ANY single contradiction in the "glooorioouuuzzz" quran' while the Quran said the exact opposite:

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it MUCH (not no contradiction at all) contradiction. [Sura 4:82]

This is how deep this brainwashing, mostly done at the mosque, had gone.

You made mention of Hafs, according to Islamic tradition Hafs, like Ibn Majjah and Imam Bukhari, also compiled an hadith which was rejected as completely false and fabricated by his fellow Muslims. If Muslims cannot trust hadith compilations by Hafs, why will they now trust his Qur'anic recitations which over 85% of Muslims use worldwide.

The deeper one digs into Islam, the more filth one uncovers.

true2god:
The Quran never said there won't be ANY contradiction it said there won't be much (or many) contradiction but my 21st century Muslims will say 'there is no ANY single contradiction in the "glooorioouuuzzz" quran' while the Quran said the exact opposite:

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it MUCH (not no contradiction at all) contradiction. [Sura 4:82]

This is how deep this brainwashing, mostly done at the mosque, had gone.

You made mention of Hafs, according to Islamic tradition Hafs, like Ibn Majjah and Imam Bukhari, also compiled an hadith which was rejected as completely false and fabricated by his fellow Muslims. If Muslims cannot trust hadith compilations by Hafs, why will they now trust his Qur'anic recitations which over 85% of Muslims use worldwide.

The deeper one digs into Islam, the more filth one uncovers.

You are correct!
The bold is an issue that Moslems must confront: A man is said to be a liar and fabricator YET his version of the Koran is ACCEPTED and used by MAJORITY of Moslems! What a CONTRADICTION!

Some textual variations: warsh and hafs Quran.

Let me stop here for now.

We are just looking at two variations, hafs and warsh, out of 7 different 'readings' and have seen the contradictions in the the Arabic text. We have not even seen the manuscript yet, the manuscript dated from the time of Uthman ibn Affan, to do another comparison with what we have today but yet we are seeing obvious contradictions. The Quran made it clear that there will not be 'much contradictions' and yet we are seeing enough contradictions in different Arabic readings of the Quran.

If we can get hold of the Uthmanic manuscript, which I don't think ever existed or currently available, we will surely see the full disaster in the Quran.

Islam is a joke!

sagenaija:


There is no Mohamed’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Abu Bakr’s Koran manuscript today. There is no Uthman’s Koran manuscript today.

All we have are Koran according to Hafs, Warsh, etc. These were written long after Mohamed.

You stated that the word in question can be “kill”, or “fight” or “fought” depending on how it is used. If Allah wanted the Koran to be CLEAR then he needs to make the meaning clear in order to avoid CONFUSION! Everyone reading the Arabic and translating to any other language must see that word as the same in the context in which it has been used. The word can ONLY mean one thing in the context of this verse.

Now to the point you missed:
I gave the versions of Q. 3:146 by Hafs and Warsh. One said “fought” and the other said “were killed”. These are two recognized Koran versions.
So, in this example, who is right – Hafs or Warsh?

believe me, I'm not going back to this street this. I did screenshots for you before but you want to believe what you want to believe. Now for the last night, look at these screenshots.

The same word used in Q3:146 is used in Q2:190

true2god:
Sorry dear, I never knew you have a 'logical template' that is your exclusive reserve. At times you sound like a kid. You chosed to ignore the 'case study' I gave but rather engaged in an egoistic persuit. If you really have a good sense of logic, as you claimed, you will understand that it is someone that makes a claim that provides evidence. If a person accuse someone of murder, it is the person that makes the accusation that provides the evidence and not the other way round. If Mohammed accused the Torah and the injil of being distorted, a rational mind will expect Mohammed to provide the authentic one because it was perhaps in circulation at the time of Mohammed. Besides, since Allah (who always speak from both side of his mouth) said in the Quran that no one can change his words, the so-called previous revelations (Quran 6:115), why did he allow mortal men to change it? It is either Allah is lying or Muslims are confused.

You also raised the issue of eye witnesses when it comes to the account of the gospel according to Luke but you failed to mention any SINGLE eye witness to the so-called revelation in the Quran. Can you mention a single eye witness who can validate Mohammed's claim of receiving a 'revelation' from Allah through Jibril. The only slight witness to Mohammed's revelation fraud was by his child-bride, Aisha, who accused him of making 'revelation' up for his selfish desires. Read the hadith below:

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet),
"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

According to Aisha (an eye witness and a wife to the false prophet), the Quran is nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed and not any Allah. This incident, where Aisha bursted the bubble of your fake prophet, is enough for me. Maybe you will, in a classical Islamic fashion and deflection, lie to me that 'it is a weak hadith' because you guys always have escape route like James Bond. I am sorry to say, James Bond might be a Muslim.

Even the medieval Arabs accused Mohammed of being being a fraudulent man hiding behind Allah hence another convenient revelation which you quoted above:

"And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds." Sura 10:37

If the illiterate Arabs and one his many wives, who saw him, knew and knew his antics, could be sceptical about his so-called revelations, how about you an educated , exposed and modern man? Bros, you 'fall my hands ooo'. Honestly you really disappointed me if you can't see and reason for yourself. If you still don't understand that the Quran is all about 'circumstantial revelations' to suit a particular time, place and issue, then you need to put in your thinking cap. You also quoted the ayah below;

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. [Sura 4:82]

The ayah you quoted said 'they would have found within it MUCH contradiction'. The ayah didn't say they won't find ANY contradiction but that they won't find MUCH. Do you want us to start listing the contradictions and errors in the Quran?

Asalama lekum!

I know it is painful and frustrating for you to come up with this. It is too late to say muhammad is "fake prophet". It is old allegation. Get over that. Even your fellow CHRISTIAN leaders have dropped that myopic view long ago.

I believe your are a Catholic. If your religious leaders said prophet muhammad was a true prophet, who are you to argue otherwise?. Do you know better than him?.


And the Ayah you quoted, why did you place much emphasis on this translation when there are other translations that didn't use "much"?. In the Arabic lexicon if you translate the original Arabic word used in the Qur'an, ikhtilaf (اخْتِلَافًا) it gives you "discrimpancy", "different". There is nothing like added adjective in the prefix.


So if you copy paste part of the Ayah in translated lexicon it simply reads

"....they would surely have found in it discrepancies which means ZERO error.


Look at the last screenshot, I used the word ikhtilaf اخْتِلَافًا in another sentence. See what came up.

Empiree:
I know it is painful and frustrating for you to come up with this. It is too late to say muhammad is "fake prophet". It is old allegation. Get over that. Even your fellow CHRISTIAN leaders have dropped that myopic view long ago.

I believe your are a Catholic. If your religious leaders said prophet muhammad was a true prophet, who are you to argue otherwise?. Do you know better than him?.


And the Ayah you quoted, why did you place much emphasis on this translation when there are other translations that didn't use "much"?. In the Arabic lexicon if you translate the original Arabic word used in the Qur'an, ikhtilaf (اخْتِلَافًا) it gives you "discrimpancy", "different". There is nothing like added adjective in the prefix.


So if you copy paste part of the Ayah in translated lexicon it simply reads

"....they would surely have found in it discrepancies which means ZERO error.


Look at the last screenshot, I used the word ikhtilaf اخْتِلَافًا in another sentence. See what came up.

I have no time to entertain your deflection and distraction techniques this time around. We are not discussing a single misguided retired cardinal who shamelessly called Mohammed a prophet. The official stand of the Catholic church worldwide, as at today, is that Mohammed is a false prophet. I will rather stick to Catholic church's official statements and doctrines with respect to the person of Mohammed than an isolated 'cardinal' who probably didn't know whether an hadith existed. I won't respond to your Catholic cardinal propaganda again so that you don't drag me to another discussion. I am not a Catholic.

I thought Muslims claim that Quran are the same, why are you complaining about the translation I am using? As a matter of fairness, I used the translation you provided on this thread with respect to Quran 4:82 so why are you now complaining about your own information? For the benefit of doubt, let's see how other translators render this same ayah:

Asad : Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur'an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it MANY an inner contradiction!

Khattab : Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it MANY inconsistencies.

Malik : Why don't they research the Qur'an? Don't they realize that if it was from someone other than Allah, they would find MANY discrepancies in it.

Pickthall : Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein MUCH incongruity.

Yusuf Ali : Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein MUCH discrepancy.

Sahih International (Saudi official quran)
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it MUCH contradiction.

I have given you 6 translations saying the same thing. The translators have scholarship in Arabic language, which I doubt you do, so their translations are credible and they collaborated each other. If you are not intellectually dishonest, you won't even bring this up as an issue. So according to your own Quran, there will be discrepancies, which I have shown you, but they won't be MUCH or MANY (Qur'an 4:82).

You completely ignored the discrepancies I screenshot between the Hafs and the warsh Quran. So before you quote any ayah for me, look at it critically so that I won't use it against you.

You equally ignore the hadith narration I provided with respect to Aisha's view on Mohammed's alleged revelation:

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet),
"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

I need you to comment on Aisha's observation.

Asalama lekum!

true2god:
I have no time to entertain your deflection and distraction techniques this time around. We are not discussing a single misguided retired cardinal who shamelessly called Mohammed a prophet. The official stand of the Catholic church worldwide, as at today, is that Mohammed is a false prophet. I will rather stick to Catholic church's official statements and doctrines with respect to the person of Mohammed than an isolated 'cardinal' who probably didn't know whether an hadith existed. I won't respond to your Catholic cardinal propaganda again so that you don't drag me to another discussion. I am not a Catholic.

I thought Muslims claim that Quran are the same, why are you complaining about the translation I am using? As a matter of fairness, I used the translation you provided on this thread with respect to Quran 4:82 so why are you now complaining about your own information? For the benefit of doubt, let's see how other translators render this same ayah:

Asad : Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur'an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it MANY an inner contradiction!

Khattab : Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it MANY inconsistencies.

Malik : Why don't they research the Qur'an? Don't they realize that if it was from someone other than Allah, they would find MANY discrepancies in it.

Pickthall : Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein MUCH incongruity.

Yusuf Ali : Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein MUCH discrepancy.

Sahih International (Saudi official quran)
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it MUCH contradiction.

I have given you 6 translations saying the same thing. The translators have scholarship in Arabic language, which I doubt you do, so their translations are credible and they collaborated each other. If you are not intellectually dishonest, you won't even bring this up as an issue. So according to your own Quran, there will be discrepancies, which I have shown you, but they won't be MUCH or MANY (Qur'an 4:82).

You completely ignored the discrepancies I screenshot between the Hafs and the warsh Quran. So before you quote any ayah for me, look at it critically so that I won't use it against you.

You equally ignore the hadith narration I provided with respect to Aisha's view on Mohammed's alleged revelation:

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet),
"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

I need you to comment on Aisha's observation.

Asalama lekum!

YOu will forever argue this. MUCH or MANY is not our problem at all. Matter of fact they are valid. Ikhtilaf (singular) means "iyapa enu" in yoruba language. If you connect it in yoruba, it means you would have found therein orisirisi iyapa enu. The reason you can never understand is bcus you already made up your mind on a very simple issue. You chose to understand it differently to mean MUCH discrepancies suggest there are some discrepancies in it according to you. This is your understanding. In the ayah it actually used plural form, Ikhtilafan. "fan" is whats driving you crazy. The verse is clear but i dont understand what exactly is your problem?. I am not surprised by the way. It is evangelism thing.

Empiree:
believe me, I'm not going back to this street this. I did screenshots for you before but you want to believe what you want to believe. Now for the last night, look at these screenshots.

The same word used in Q3:146 is used in Q2:190

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT VERSES USING THE SAME WORD!
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS ONE VERSE IN TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS HAVING DIFFERENT WORDS!

I was trying to make things simple but its like you’re trying avoid the obvious or you’re being deceitful – trying to make readers believe something that you know (or have been self-brainwashed to think) is not true. A common trick is for you Moslems to say that the Koran and the Hadith can only be understood in Arabic. Is Allah so boxed into a corner that he cannot communicate with his creatures in any of their languages?

Now back to our matter:
Did Hafs and Warsh use the same Arabic word?
Did Hafs and Warsh both use “qatala”?
Or
Did Hafs and Warsh both use “qutil”?

If they BOTH used the same word and that same word in Arabic has different meanings how on earth did Allah who CLAIMED he set out to make the Koran CLEAR cause such a CONFUSION!

If they used DIFFERENT words how can you, Empiree, claim that the Koran in Arabic is one!

Do you see one more DILEMMA for you Moslems to get over?

true2god:
I have no time to entertain your deflection and distraction techniques this time around. We are not discussing a single misguided retired cardinal who shamelessly called Mohammed a prophet. The official stand of the Catholic church worldwide, as at today, is that Mohammed is a false prophet. I will rather stick to Catholic church's official statements and doctrines with respect to the person of Mohammed than an isolated 'cardinal' who probably didn't know whether an hadith existed. I won't respond to your Catholic cardinal propaganda again so that you don't drag me to another discussion. I am not a Catholic.

Our guy just used the headline of the article to create a wrong impression.
The very first sentence show that the writer was actually against the stand of the cardinal:
“Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, Washington’s retired “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick opens his mouth at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and essentially endorses the Muslim religion.”

A following sentence makes things clearer:
“What can one say? The apostasy is full-blown at this point — the Modernists of the Vatican II Sect are no longer ashamed to openly praise the Islamic deity and use Muslim theological phrases in their public statements.”

Since Moslem apologists are quick to grab anything that seems to ‘support’ Islam they can hold on to anything even if it is a straw.

Like you pointed out, DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION are part of the rule of the 'game' for them.

sagenaija:

Our guy just used the headline of the article to create a wrong impression.
The very first sentence show that the writer was actually against the stand of the cardinal:
“Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, Washington’s retired “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick opens his mouth at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and essentially endorses the Muslim religion.”

A following sentence makes things clearer:
“What can one say? The apostasy is full-blown at this point — the Modernists of the Vatican II Sect are no longer ashamed to openly praise the Islamic deity and use Muslim theological phrases in their public statements.”

Since Moslem apologists are quick to grab anything that seems to ‘support’ Islam they can hold on to anything even if it is a straw.

Like you pointed out, DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION are part of the rule of the 'game' for them.

Anything they can hold onto to distract a discussion is a fair game to Muslims. Even the article is against the so-called 'cardinal' yet my guy still make reference to it. I seriously don't understand how this guy think.

Empiree:
YOu will forever argue this. MUCH or MANY is not our problem at all. Matter of fact they are valid. Ikhtilaf (singular) means "iyapa enu" in yoruba language. If you connect it in yoruba, it means you would have found therein orisirisi iyapa enu. The reason you can never understand is bcus you already made up your mind on a very simple issue. You chose to understand it differently to mean MUCH discrepancies suggest there are some discrepancies in it according to you. This is your understanding. In the ayah it actually used plural form, Ikhtilafan. "fan" is whats driving you crazy. The verse is clear but i dont understand what exactly is your problem?. I am not surprised by the way. It is evangelism thing.

The word 'MUCH CONTRADICTIONS' have become so complex that you have to start a linguistic class to make it clear to us. This is desperation at it peak. We have to enrol on a Yoruba language class to understand Arabic language translated into English by over 6 specialist in Arabic language. You are very confused.

As a matter of fact you have ignored the contradictions in Hafs and warsh Quran,, :maka why omo iyami'? I equally did a screenshot of these contradictions for you to do your independent verification but you pretended you never saw it, 'maka why nau'? I taught your 'gloooriozzzz' al-quran was sent down from heaven and personally handed over to rasool, and was also perfectly preserved, without ANY contradiction. This is what my Muslim friends told me when I was in secondary school and I believed you, at one point in your life, had also shared this falsehood.

'Abeg make una park well make I see road pass'. Thank God for Mr Bukhari and Mr Majjah for exposing guys.

sagenaija:

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT VERSES USING THE SAME WORD!
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS ONE VERSE IN TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS HAVING DIFFERENT WORDS!

I was trying to make things simple but its like you’re trying avoid the obvious or you’re being deceitful – trying to make readers believe something that you know (or have been self-brainwashed to think) is not true. A common trick is for you Moslems to say that the Koran and the Hadith can only be understood in Arabic. Is Allah so boxed into a corner that he cannot communicate with his creatures in any of their languages?

Now back to our matter:
Did Hafs and Warsh use the same Arabic word?
Did Hafs and Warsh both use “qatala”?
Or
Did Hafs and Warsh both use “qutil”?

If they BOTH used the same word and that same word in Arabic has different meanings how on earth did Allah who CLAIMED he set out to make the Koran CLEAR cause such a CONFUSION!

If they used DIFFERENT words how can you, Empir.ee, claim that the Koran in Arabic is one!

Do you see one more DILEMMA for you Moslems to get over?

you don't understand Arabic, do you?. Your will be waste of time for me should we go further from here.

You don't understand Arabic needless to say Quran, do you?