₦airaland Forum

Thesis: Proving the Corruption of the Qur'an Beyond Reasonable Doubt
This thesis systematically demonstrates that the Qur'an has not been perfectly preserved, contrary to Muslim claims based on verses like
Quran 15:9
("We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)".

Using historical, textual, and manuscript evidence, including arguments and evidences from TenQ's submissions, combined with additional scholarly sources, we refute every major Muslim defense: mass transmission (tawatur), intentional variants (qira'at or ahruf), abrogation (naskh), and divine protection. The case progresses logically from foundational flaws in transmission to empirical proofs of alterations, deletions, and additions, showing the Qur'an's earthly text diverges from any claimed eternal original.

1. Foundational Flaws in Qur'anic Transmission: Reliance on Weak Narrators Undermines Claims of Perfection
Muslims assert the Qur'an's preservation through tawatur (mass, unanimous transmission), distinguishing it from hadith grading (sahih, da'if, mawdu'). However, the most widespread recitation—Hafs (used by ~95% of Muslims)—relies on narrators deemed unreliable by Islamic standards, violating consistency.

Hafs ibn Sulayman's Weakness:
TenQ cites Al-ʿUqaylī's Ḍuʿafā’ al-ʿUqaylī (ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿahjī, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984, 1:257):
"كَانَ يَسْرِقُ الْكُتُبَ، وَيَضَعُهَا فِي كُتُبِهِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ وَأَبُوهُ مَتْهُونَيْنِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعِيفَيْنِ"
("He used to steal books and incorporate them into his own books. He and his father were considered worthless/despised in Ḥadīth, weak.".

Hafs is weak in hadith due to poor memory and fraud, yet accepted for Qur'an. This "category error" (Muslim defense) fails: the Qur'an is a "hadith of Allah" (Q39:23), transmitted via chains.
Why accept Hafs for Qur'an but reject him for hadith? TenQ questions: If known liars taint hadith as mawdu' or matruk, why not Qur'an? Muslims "pick and choose" standards.

Chain Disappearances:
Despite thousands memorizing pre-Hafs, Muslims rely on his chain.
TenQ asks: "Are you telling me that other credible chains of transmission of the Qur'an somehow disappeared!?" The 1924 Cairo edition standardized Hafs despite faults, due to Ottoman printing, not divine merit. This contradicts tawatur: if mass-transmitted, why standardize a weak version?
Refuting Muslim Claims:
Tawatur requires unanimous, independent verification. But Hafs' acceptance ignores his flaws, showing subjective bias. Scholarly sources confirm Hafs' weakness in rijal (narrator criticism). If tawatur protects, why include frauds? This proves early corruption in transmission, defeating claims of flawless chains.

2. Multiple Arabic Qur'ans with Meaning-Altering Variants: No Single "Exact Copy"
Muslims claim one Qur'an with minor dialectical readings (qira'at) within the rasm (consonantal skeleton), all from seven ahruf (modes) for flexibility, not corruption. But variants change words, grammar, and meanings, proving textual divergence.

List of Variants:
TenQ lists 32-36 Arabic Qur'ans (e.g., Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, Al-Duri), noting ~51 differences between Hafs and Warsh alone, affecting 77,000+ words. Examples:
Q2:125: Hafs ("wattakhizu" – "take" vs. Warsh ("wattakhazu" – "you have taken". Changes imperative to statement.
Q2:140: Hafs ("taquluna" – "you say" vs. Warsh ("yaquluna" – "they say". Shifts subject.
Q3:133: Hafs ("wasaari'uu" – "and hasten" vs. Warsh ("saari'uu" – "hasten". Extra "wa" alters connection.
Q5:54: Hafs ("yartadda" – "turn back" vs. Warsh ("yartadid" – "turn back". Dialectical but variant roots.
Q91:15: Hafs ("walaayakhaafu" – "and for him is no fear" vs. Warsh ("falaayakhaafu" – "therefore, for him is no fear". Changes "and" to "therefore," altering logic.

Doctrinal Impacts: Variants aren't mere "nuance.
" Q98:6: Hafs ("sharru al-bariyyati" – "worst of creatures" vs. Warsh ("sharr al-bari'ati" – "worst of the innocent".
Changes meaning subtly.
Verse counts differ: Hafs (6,236) vs. Warsh (6,214).

TenQ asks: "Which one is the exact copy of the Quran of Allah in heaven (Lawh Mahfuz)?"
No Muslim can answer, as all claim equality, yet differ.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Qira'at as "divine diversity" fails: Uthman standardized one rasm in Quraysh dialect, burning others.
TenQ asks: "Were the other six dialects written down? Where are the other six ahruf?"

If ahruf accommodate dialects within rasm, why burn variants? Sources show 25x more variants than claimed. This proves post-revelation corruption, not flexibility.

3. Missing Verses: Hadiths Prove Deletion of Revealed Text
Muslims claim "missing" verses were abrogated (naskh) during revelation, not post-Muhammad deletion, preserved in hadith for rulings, not as Qur'an. But hadiths show verses recited until Muhammad's death, then removed.

Suckling Verse:
TenQ cites
Sahih Muslim 1452:
"'A'isha reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims)."

Also
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Aisha's paper with "stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times" eaten by a sheep.

Muwatta Malik 30:17: "Ten known sucklings made haram, abrogated by five... it was what is now recited."

TenQ asks: "Why do you think Allah revealed the verse of breastfeeding adults ten times?" If abrogated pre-canon, why recited post-death? No manuscript includes it.
Stoning Verse:
Sahih Muslim 1691b: Umar: "The verse of stoning was included... We recited it, retained it... I am afraid people may say: We do not find stoning in the Book."
Sunan Ibn Majah 2553: Umar fears forgetting stoning verse. TenQ: "The verses existed till Mohammed died!"

If tawatur-protected, why missing? No protests from companions?

Lineage Verse:
Sahih Muslim 1453a: "Do not forsake your real father... for this is kufr." Recited but absent.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Abrogation was pre-canon, but hadiths say verses "revealed in the Holy Qur'an" and "recited by Muslims" post-death. If solitary (ahad) reports, why in sahih collections? Transparency? No: proves deletion due to "shame." TenQ: "These verses were removed because Muslims are ashamed." Bottom line: "The Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed." Sources confirm hadiths as fabrications or excuses for missing text.

4. Additions to the Text: Basmala Inserted Post-Revelation
Muslims claim Basmala (Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem) is Qur'anic (Q27:30), placed by Muhammad in compilation (order differs from revelation).

Asbab al-Nuzul for Quran 17:110:
TenQ: 50th surah by revelation. Muhammad used "In Thy name, O Allah" for first 49 surahs. After encountering Musaylimah's "Beneficent," idolaters mocked;
Allah revealed Quran 17:110. Thereafter, Muhammad wrote Basmala. But it appears in surahs 1-49 (pre-50th).

TenQ asks: "How come every chapter... except 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem? Was it Jibril that came back to re-reveal? Whose words in 1-49: Allah's or Mohammed's?" Proves addition by Muhammad/followers.

Refuting Muslim Claims:
Revelation order vs. compilation doesn't explain retroactive insertion. Quran 27:30 (48th by revelation) has Basmala, but pre-Q17:110, Muhammad hadn't used "Rahman."
Sources: Early scholars debated Basmala as verse or separator; some saw additions as corruption. If divine, why not from start? Proves human editing.

5. Manuscript and Preservation Flaws: Empirical Evidence of Changes
Muslims claim oral memorization flawless, manuscripts consistent with rasm.

Sana'a Manuscript: Lower text (pre-671 CE) varies from upper (Uthmanic): different order, wording (e.g., Q2:87 "wa-qaffaynā 'alā āthārihi" vs. standard "wa-qaffaynā min ba'dihi". 61 non-orthographic variants in 11 folios. TenQ: Sana'a differs from Hafs/Warsh. Proves non-Uthmanic variants survived, contradicting standardization.

Forgetting Verses: Sahih al-Bukhari 5037-5038: Muhammad forgot verses.

TenQ: "Even Mohammed forgot the Qur'an... Muslims have better memories than their prophet?"

No Originals: TenQ: "Where is the copy of copies of Uthman's Qur'an? Qur'an of Abubakar identical to Uthman's?" Birmingham (~1% Quran) incomplete; Topkapi/Samarkand 8th century, variant.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Tawatur failed: variants show "defective" memory (TenQ). Uthman's burning hid corruption. Sources: Uthman destroyed to prevent "division, strife." If protected, why burn?

6. Unanswered Questions: Burdens on Muslims Expose Inconsistencies
TenQ's questions defeat defenses:

"Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with Uthman?"
"Where are the other six ahruf?"
"If you cannot RECITE these recited verses [stoning/suckling], your recitations are flawed."
"Provide manuscript of Muhammad/Abubakar/Uthman."
"Consensus that verses NEVER revealed?"
No answers, as evidence contradicts claims.

Conclusion: Beyond Doubt, the Qur'an is Corrupted
The Qur'an's transmission relies on frauds; variants alter meanings; verses deleted for shame; additions human; manuscripts diverge; preservation flawed. Muslim claims—tawatur, ahruf, naskh—collapse under evidence. No "exact copy" matches heavenly tablet. This proves corruption, defeating divine preservation.

Zinpat:
Wonderful! But these demons are same ones in hell with the devil, right?

It is a false doctrine that demons or satan are in hell already. Satan goes to fro the earth until the time that he would be chained and thrown into the bottomless pit.
Rev 20:3:
"And cast him (satan) into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."
It is also a false doctrine that they are the ones who punish human souls in hell.
These two doctrines above cannot be substantiated with any scripture.

1. There is a difference between Hell and the Lake of Fire
2. The lake of fire is presently EMPTY until judgement day, however Hell is where the unsaved humans are packed before judgment
3. It may be possible that some demons are in hell probably cast there during deliverance BUT there is no iota of definite proof.
Mat 8:29:
"And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God? are you come here to torment us before the time?"
4. Some fallen Angels are already in chains and some in Hell, it is possible that this are confused with demons
2 Peter 2:4
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment…”
Jude 6
“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day".

4. The bottom line is this: If demons or fallen angels are in hell, they are not there as overseers. It is also a place of punishment for them.

5. There seems to be some class of Fallen Angels already in the bottomless pit whom would be released to torment the earth at the end of times but these are not demon
Rev 9:2,11:
"And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. … And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue has his name [b]Apollyon[/b]b."

honesttalk21:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in another's eye and ignore the plank in your eye?

Sure a week will be enough for you to ponder and repent?

Every Muslim must enter the fire of hell then younwill wait endlessly for Allah to remove you from it.

I know you selectively believe Allah but a reminder of what he says to you

Quran 19:71-72
"There is not one of you who shall not go down to it (Hell): such is a thing decreed, determined by your Lord."
"Then, We will save those who were cautious of Us, but the harmdoers shall be left there hobbling on their knees."

Even Allah sometimes speak the truth to you but you wouldn't listen. You will rather invent a non-existent bridge of Sirat above the fire.

A word is enough for the wise!



Have a Good day please!

FxMasterz:
Muslims will Become Green Birds in Paradise.

Antichristian, is the Hadith really true? Do you believe you'll become a green bird in paradise? Do you really want to become a green bird? Will the true God really turn you in a bird? What is His purpose for turning you into a green bird really? Please TenQ, can you help shed more lights into this?


The Hadith is Sahih.

Sahih Muslim 1887:

It has been narrated on the authority of Masruq Who said: We asked 'Abdullah about the Qur'anic verse: "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.." (iii. 169).

He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said:

The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers.

Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven).


A Message for all Muslims. Please think deeply about you becoming a bird in paradise, and consider if truly, this Islam you so much believe in is the truth of God Almighty.

I will appreciate your response to my questions. They're not just for those people I mentioned alone.

Thank you, and may God lead us all into the Way, the Truth and the Life. May your eyes be opened.

Your are very correct for both Muslim children who died amd martyrs

Here is another hadith

The Martyr

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1641
Narrated Ka'b bin Malik:
From his father that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "The souls of the martyrs are in green birds, suspended from the fruit of Paradise, or the trees of Paradise."
[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.


The Muslim Babies

Sahih Muslim 2662 b
'A'isha, the mother of the believers, reported that a child died and I said:
There is happiness for this child who is a bird from amongst the birds of Paradise. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Don't you know that Allah created the Paradise and He created the Hell and He created the dwellers for this (Paradise) and the denizens for this (Hell)?


Other Muslims

Sunan Ibn Majah 4271
It was narrated from ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Ka’b Al-Ansari that his father used to narrate that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“The believer’s soul is a bird that eats from the trees of Paradise, until it will be returned to his body on the Day when he is resurrected.”

https://sunnah.com/urn/505720
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab ibn Malik al-Ansari told him that his father, Kab ibn Malik, used to relate that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The ruh of the mumin is a bird that sits in the trees of the Garden until Allah returns it to his body on the day He raises him ."


Mishkat al-Masabih 1632
He quoted his father to the effect that he used to tell that God’s messenger said, “The spirit of a believer is only a bird which feeds on (Here the Arabic is ta'luqu fi. Mirqat quotes Suyuti who explains it as in the translation above. The verb can have either the sense of being attached to something or of eating) the trees of paradise till God restores him to his body on the day He resurrects it.”

Lets see how Muslims will twist the plain Hadith!



Why LIES are so many, the LIARS forget that they have spoken other contradictory lies.

honesttalk21:
Only when you're done grieving through outpouring about publicly being caught in lies will I respond. Keep pouring.

Observers note the questions answered and numbered in red 1, 2 and 3 perharps 2 should have been numbered a few words before however Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes. (Prov. 26:4–5)





I hope you are able to retain proper composure for appropriate understanding and discernment soon.

.
A man who ignores the Truth will fall into the irrevocable destruction!

Being Obstinate is not the same thing as Faith!

Faith itself is the Trust in the INTEGRITY of God and not in the integrity of a Man called Mohammed!...


Have a good week!

honesttalk21:
When you stop feigning loss of composure, pretending not to see whst is written directly, you will find all three answers already sitting in the post you quoted.

Boohoo!!!

1. Your prophet claimed he was recieving the Qur'an from a purported Angel called Jibril

2. For the first 49 purported revelations, Mohammed started the Qur'an according to Jibril with the phrase "In Thy name, O Allah"!

3. Then Mr Mohammed met this guy called al-Yamamah who called his god by the name the beneficent

4. But Mohammed fell in love with the name of the god of al-Yamamah and he began to recite his Quran with the phrase Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

5. 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)’,

6. Therefore Allah, revealed this verse Quran 17:110

7. Since then, “At the beginning of revelation, Mohammed 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’

8. So, we expect that only the 50th chapter through the 114th chapter by revelation would contain this new found phrase of Mohammed.

9. Unfortunately, someone EITHER Mohammed himself or One of his Followers decided to Add to the earlier Revealed chapters Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem : a phrase Jibril never dictated to Mohammed.

10. Muslims like honesttalk21 wish that the Asbab al-Nuzul for the verse Quran 17:110 was incorrect ALAS the Asbab al-Nuzul for the verse is iron cast.

But because these people Love LIES and hate the TRUTH, they will pretend they are not seeing the OBVIOUS Truth but Adopt the falsehood they have chosen to believe.

It is not a wonder that it is impossible for Muslims to truthfully answer the 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 AGAIN because this is another evidence that the Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed .

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.

This was my observation and not the question asked.
My Question was:
1. How come every chapter of the Qur'an (including chapters 1-49 according to Revelation) except chapter 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem ?

Mohammed NEVER RECITED Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem until surah 50 by revelation.

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

I never asked you if the order of revelation differs for the order of RECITATION. No one heard Mohammed call Allah by Rahmanir Raheem before the 50th Surah according to Revelation. The Question I asked was

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?

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.

I did not dispute that al-Rahman al-Rahim was part of the Qur'an. I only follow your Asbab al-Nuzul where people were saying that Mohammed now has two gods Allah and the God of al-Yamamah (meaning Musaylimah the liar)

How is it that al-Rahman al-Rahim was also part of then first 49 surahs according to Revelation.

What is your explanation?

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!

SMH!
I asked a question and you answer a different question and you also give yourself a pass mark for the answer you gave!?

ME: What is the name of the President of Nigeria?
YOU: The president of Nigeria is over 80 years old and he is an extremely good politician. He used to be the governor of Lagos state.

Ask yourself: is this the right answer to the question?


The Question was:
3. Who's words then is Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem in chapters 1-49 (according to Revelation): Is it Allah's words or Mohammed's words?

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

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

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

Audio Answers!

keep it up!

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.

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:
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?

You very well know that I know then difference!

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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

honesttalk21:
.
.

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:
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?

Stop dodging and answer my questions: why are you evasive. There are hundred ways to skin a cat
.[quote author=TenQ post=138549692]Are you scared on top of the fact that you don't respect facts and evidences


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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

motayoayinde:
Assuming this is true, in what way does this compare to the utter damage that the west has done to women?
Epstein has revealed it all.

No wonder this same Epstein bought the covering of the Kaaba from Saudi Arabia!

SMH!!

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.

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:
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.

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 treating two very different things as if they’re the same and that’s where your entire argument slips.

There’s a difference between variation within transmission and corruption of content.

Yes, Hafs and Warsh differ in vocalization, pronunciation, and minor spelling conventions.
No, that does not mean the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad differed in substance.

The Qur’an was preserved in two reinforcing ways: mass memorization and a stable consonantal framework (rasm). When you examine the earliest manuscripts — Birmingham (568–645 CE), the Sanʿaa palimpsest (pre-671), Topkapi, and others, they reflect that same underlying consonantal structure. And none of them contain the verses you claim were deleted.

Now let’s address Topkapi carefully, because this is where the confusion became serious.

You said it is “missing 22%.”

But your own cited material distinguishes between two completely different issues:

• Missing folios: Altıkulaç’s detailed study concludes the manuscript is more than 99% complete, missing only two folios — roughly 23 verses out of 6,236. That is about 0.37%.
• Damaged areas: The “22%” figure refers to fading or water damage affecting readability in places not deleted verses, not missing chapters, not textual removal.

Physical deterioration is not textual corruption. Ancient parchment ages. That is a material reality, not evidence of erased scripture.

Altıkulaç documented around 2,270 orthographic variants between Topkapi and the 1924 Cairo edition. His conclusion — which is crucial — was that these reflect normal scribal and linguistic development, not corruption. They involve spelling conventions, hamza placement, orthographic habits. They do not introduce new surahs. They do not remove surahs. They do not add a stoning verse. They do not preserve a suckling verse. They do not reveal a hidden canon.

You cited his numbers, but not his conclusion.

As for breastfeeding and rajm: abrogation during the prophetic period is not the same as post-prophetic deletion. Islamic legal theory distinguishes between material recited temporarily and material fixed into the final canon. That is precisely why such reports appear in hadith discussions but not in the Mushaf transmitted by the community.

Rajm was enforced through prophetic practice (Sunnah), not through a verse preserved in the codified Qur’an. Conflating legal authority with canonical text does not demonstrate removal.

And the claim about “edition and addition until 1924” misunderstands what happened. The 1924 Cairo edition standardized one vocalization tradition for printing. It did not add or remove verses. Manuscripts centuries earlier already contained the same surah structure and verse corpus.

If your claim is deletion, then the burden is straightforward:

Show a manuscript containing the longer version.
Show a recitation chain preserving those verses as Qur’an.
Show a historical record of protest when they were removed.

There is none.

So the real question; the one everything turns on, is simple:

Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet’s death as established Qur’an?

If yes, where is the transmission evidence?
If no, then it was never canonically fixed.

Without evidence of a publicly transmitted canon that later vanished, the corruption claim isn’t daring or disruptive.

It’s just unproven.

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:
Please clarify that you are now presenting the ~2,270 Topkapi variants as if the number itself proves instability? But every serious study of those variants including Altıkulaç, Deroche, van Putten, and even critical scholars like Keith Small reach the same conclusion:

They are orthographic and scribal.

Not structural.
Not canonical.
Not doctrinal.

Altıkulaç catalogued them in detail. His conclusion was explicit that they reflect early Arabic script conventions and scribal practice, not corruption.

Deroche describes early manuscripts like Topkapi as showing remarkable textual uniformity despite spelling variation.

Van Putten’s linguistic analysis confirms the consonantal skeleton (rasm) across early manuscripts is strikingly stable.

Keith Small who is hardly a confessional apologist acknowledges the variants do not alter substantive content.

Most importantly:

None of these scholars found:

A stoning verse

An adult suckling verse

A “forsake your father” verse

An additional surah

A missing surah


If entire canonical verses had been deleted, the most exhaustive variant study of Topkapi would have exposed them.

It did not.

What was found? Spelling variation.
Hamza placement.
Alif usage.
Scribal normalization.

That is orthographic development not textual excision.

Your argument now depends on equating: “2,270 differences” with “deleted canon.”

But the documented differences are letter-level phenomena within a stable rasm tradition. They are not verse-level additions or removals.

I encourage you to investigate what you mean by " it is missing about 22% of its original content due to damage, or roughly 23 verses across two missing folios" for accuracy and specific relevance.

Are you saying that you accept the fact that the Qur'an of Mohammed is different from the Hafs or Warsh Qur'an BUT entire verses were not deleted and the differencs are not significant?

Do you know that the implication of this is that you don't have the exact Qur'an of Allah.
Also, it means that Allah couldn't collect the Qur'an neither could he protect it.

honesttalk21:
So we return to the only question that matters:

Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet’s death?

Are you saying that every verse of the Qur'an is recited during your congregational prayers!?

Then question you should ask yourself is:
Why was the 10 times breastfeeding abrogated to 5 and then later to 0?
Why would the Almighty Allah give such a shameful verse as command in the Qur'an?
Why did your prophet practice Rajam if it is jot from Allah?

honesttalk21:
If yes, provide a manuscript, a recitation chain, or a recorded historical protest when it was removed.

If no, then it was never canonically fixed as Qur’an.

Until evidence of a removed, publicly established canon is produced, the corruption claim remains unproven.

Sorry!
Since in any debate, both sides should bring their evidence and so I asked you for your own evidence according to your own standard which unfortunately and disappointingly you FAILED woefully.
# You couldn't bring any Qur'an from the tine of Mohammed to show that no difference exist.
# The best of your oldest Qur'an in existence was shown to you that it was not identical to either the Hafs Quran or the Warsh Qur'an because deletion, edition and additions to the Qur'an was an on-going process till someone decided to adopt rhe Hafs Qur'an in 1924.
# Rather as predicted, you keep on repeating what your Alfa's have told you about the wonderfully perfectly preserved Qur'an dictated by Jibril from the almighty Allah.

If I git you correctly, you said:

Let’s make this simple and decisive.

Your claim is not about vowels, spelling, or recitation style.
Your claim is about deletion of canonical verses after the Prophet’s death.

Are you saying that you accept the fact that the Qur'an of Mohammed is different from the Hafs or Warsh Qur'an BUT entire verses were not deleted?

honesttalk21:
You’re not engaging the argument; you’re reacting to repetition while ignoring the evidence behind it.

Let’s make this simple and decisive.

Your claim is not about vowels, spelling, or recitation style.
Your claim is about deletion of canonical verses after the Prophet’s death.

Linking to a Google AI summary does not constitute evidence. Manuscripts serve as evidence. Transmission chains provide evidence. The public formal record is also evidence.

That is a massive historical claim. It requires evidence of a removed, established canon.

Here is what the manuscript record shows:

Birmingham folios (568–645 CE) within the Prophet’s lifetime range; same consonantal framework.

Sanʿaa palimpsest (lower text, pre-671 CE) has early layer with scribal and ordering variations, but no extra stoning, suckling, or “forsake your father” verse.

Topkapi manuscript (early–mid 8th century) is nearly complete; same rasm; no additional canonical material.


Yes, Topkapi is not identical to Hafs or Warsh in vocalization. That is expected. Early codices were written in rasm; a consonantal skeleton without full vowelization. Hafs and Warsh are later canonical readings operating within that same skeletal text.

Differences involve:

Vowel marks

Diacritical pointing

Orthographic conventions


They do not involve:

Additional verses

Missing verses

Different surah counts

Competing canons


Variation in reading is not variation in scripture.

If Topkapi represented a different Qur’an, you would be able to show:

A different verse count

An added stoning verse

A preserved alternate surah

A competing textual tradition


You cannot; because it contains none.

Across manuscripts, across regions, across qiraat lineages, your alleged verses appear nowhere as canonical Qur’an.

So the decisive question remains:

Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet’s death?

If yes — produce a manuscript, a transmission chain, or a recorded protest when it was removed.

If no — it was never canonically fixed.

Until you can demonstrate a removed canon;not narrations about legal rulings, the corruption claim remains unproven.

That is not repetition.
That is historical method.

1. I gave you EVIDENCES upon evidences from your hadiths to show that the extant Qur'an is different fron the Qur'an of Allah, BUT you without any counter-evidence pretended they di not matter
2. You asked for the only evidence that will satisfy you: that is Qur'an at the time of Mohammad knowing that you Muslims starting from Abubakar and Uthman had been destroying what you asked for
3. Since in any debate, both sides should bring their evidence and so I asked you for your own evidence according to your own standard which unfortunately and disappointingly you FAILED woefully.
# You couldn't bring any Qur'an from the tine of Mohammed to show that no difference exist.
# The best of your oldest Qur'an in existence was shown to you that it was not identical to either the Hafs Quran or the Warsh Qur'an because deletion, edition and additions to the Qur'an was an on-going process till someone decided to adopt rhe Hafs Qur'an in 1924.
# Rather as predicted, you keep on repeating what your Alfa's have told you about the wonderfully perfectly preserved Qur'an dictated by Jibril from the almighty Allah.



So, using your own words (and based on the fact that several hadiths showed that verses were REMOVED, FORGOTTEN from your Qur'an by Abubakar and Uthman)
"Until you can demonstrate a non-removed canon;not narrations about legal rulings, the corruption claim remains proven."





As a rebuttal to your claim that where you said.

Yes, Topkapi is not identical to Hafs or Warsh in vocalization. That is expected. Early codices were written in rasm; a consonantal skeleton without full vowelization. Hafs and Warsh are later canonical readings operating within that same skeletal text

The major problem wasn't diacritical or vowels but CONSONANTS that changes meaning anot pronunciations

Key Differences and Comparisons
Consonantal Variations:
Detailed studies, such as those by Dr. Tayyar Altıkulaç, have identified approximately 2,270 consonantal differences between the Topkapi manuscript and the 1924 Cairo Edition (which follows the Hafs recitation).

Missing Text: The manuscript is not a 100% complete record; it is missing about 22% of its original content due to damage, or roughly 23 verses across two missing folios.

Textual Updates: Some words were added to the manuscript much later to make it "comply" with later standardized readings.

For example, the word "huwa" (He) in Surah 9:72 and the name "Allah" in Surah 66:8 were added in a different hand and nib than the original..

Hafs vs. Warsh in the Manuscript:
The Topkapi text sometimes aligns with the Hafs reading and at other times differs from both Hafs and Warsh.

Surah 1:38: Topkapi reads "He revealed," whereas the Hafs version used today reads "We reveal".

Surah 3:158: Topkapi reads "Shall not be gathered," while Hafs reads "undoubtedly be gathered".

Above according to:
https://share.google/aimode/2N1IU6R7xxEK0VWn2



But according to you Muslims like you:
This changes are miracles of Allah and it can only mean one thing: that the Qur'an had never been changed.
SMH!

honesttalk21:
You asked me to have a nice day then immediately re-enaged?

Fragments dated from 568–645 CE (Birmingham), the pre-671 Sanʿa lower text, and the early–mid 8th-century Topkapi codex all align on the same consonantal skeleton (rasm). That is not just fragments. That is documented textual continuity across regions and generations.

You dismiss them precisely because they lack the verses you claim were removed. Exactly. That is the point. No manuscript from any period contains them.

You ask: how old is the oldest near-complete Qur’an?
Topkapi (early–mid 8th century) preserves roughly 99% of the text. It contains:

No stoning verse

No adult suckling verse

No “forsake your father” verse

If those verses were canonical and later removed in the mid-7th century, an early 8th-century codex would show evidence of that longer tradition. It does not.

You request hadith, sirah, or tafsir proving these verses were never Qur’an. That remains a burden reversal. You claim they were canonized and removed. Why would there be reports denying the canonicity of verses that were never canonized? Canonization is demonstrated by:

Manuscript inclusion

Mass recitational transmission

Public liturgical use


You have provided none of these.

Universal absence across all textual witnesses is not “no evidence.” It is evidence of non-canonization.

So the decisive question remains:

Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet’s death?

If yes — provide a transmission chain or manuscript.
If no — it was never canonically fixed.



Regarding your final point:

Topkapi is not identical to Hafs or Warsh in later vocalization and orthographic detail. Correct. That is expected.

Hafs and Warsh differ in:

Vowelization

Diacritical pointing

Minor orthographic conventions


They do not differ in adding or removing verses.

Topkapi reflects the early Uthmanic consonantal skeleton from which the canonical qiraat operate. Variations within qiraat are controlled readings of the same rasm not competing canons.

Different readings are not different Qur’ans.

The central issue remains unchanged:

Show a manuscript, recitational chain, or documented public usage containing your alleged verses as Qur’an.

Until then, the deletion claim lacks historical evidence.

Just as predicted, I knew you were going to repeat your story thinking that the more your repeat them, the factual they are.

Recall that I said: !
It is impossible to have an intellectual debate with a person who doesn't respect presented EVIDENCES.
The you I know will repeat your claims and assume it is true because you have repeated it.


Are you even aware that your Topkapi Manuscript (the oldest nearly complete Qur'an) is not identical with either the Hafs Qur'an or the Warsh Qur'an.
If you doubt, check this Google AI link

https://share.google/aimode/2N1IU6R7xxEK0VWn2

Let me know your view on this

honesttalk21:
You're still reversing the burden of proof.

Because you chose to be blind to direct hadiths that stated CLEARLY that some verses USED to be RECITED as Quran

honesttalk21:
You are claiming that a publicly recognized Qur'anic canon was later altered.
That requires evidence of a longer, established Qur'an that subsequently disappeared.

So let's answer your four questions directly and clearly.

1. Where is Muhammad's / Abu Bakr's / Uthman's copy?

There was no single bound autograph manuscript in 7th-century Arabia. Revelation was preserved through memorization and written materials compiled into a codex.

What we do have:

Birmingham folios (568–645 CE) – within the Prophet's lifetime range; matches the received consonantal text.

Sanʿaʾ palimpsest (upper and lower text) – early layer shows orthographic/order variants, but no additional stoning, suckling, or forsake your father verse.

Topkapi and Samarkand codices (early–mid 8th century) – reflect the same Uthmanic rasm.

Across these witnesses: no manuscript anywhere contains your alleged verses as Qur'an.

If deletion occurred, produce the longer textual tradition. None exists.

Non of these could be traced to the copy of copies of either the Qur'an of Mohammed or Abubakar or Uthman. Moreover, they are fragments

BTW: How old is the oldest complete Qur'an in existent?

honesttalk21:
2. Physical evidence of continuity?

The objective evidence is:

Early manuscripts across regions sharing the same consonantal skeleton (rasm).

No alternate manuscript family with extra canonical content.

No codex tradition preserving your verses.

Textual removal leaves documentary residue. There is none.

I see no evidence here: these are just claims

honesttalk21:
3. Record of public recitation?

Multiple independent qirāʾāt traced back to named companions exist.

Not one transmits:

A stoning verse as Qur'an

An adult suckling verse as Qur'an

A forsake your father verse as Qur'an

If these were publicly recited canonical verses, at least one recitational lineage would preserve them. None do.

Thisnwas not the question. My question was clear and direct

honesttalk21:
4. Companion consensus?

You're asking us to prove they were never revealed. That's not the claim under debate.

You must show they were:

Publicly recited as Qur'an after the Prophet

Universally recognized as part of the canon

Then later removed

There is zero evidence of that middle step.

Their universal absence from every codex, manuscript, and recitation chain — not Ibn Masʿud, not Ubayy, not anyone — is precisely the evidence that they were not canonically fixed.



If Uthman erased established scripture, we would expect:

Companion revolt

Rival Qur'an traditions

Competing manuscript families

Early polemics accusing suppression

We see none.

So the decisive question remains:

Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet's death?

Yes or no.

If yes — provide the transmission chain.
If no — it was never canonically established.

Until a removed canon is demonstrated, the corruption claim remains assertion, not evidence.

All that I need is not recitals but EVIDENCES from either the hadith or Sirah or Tafsir that these are never part of the Qur'an.







Have a nice day!
It is impossible to have an intellectual debate with a person who doesn't respect presented EVIDENCES.
The you I know will repeat your claims and assume it is true because you have repeated it.


Are you even aware that your Topkapi Manuscript (the oldest nearly complete Qur'an) is not identical with either the Hafs Qur'an or the Warsh Qur'an.
If you doubt, check this Google AI link

https://share.google/aimode/2N1IU6R7xxEK0VWn2

Let me know your view on this

honesttalk21:
You keep shifting the burden because the corruption claim cannot survive normal historical method.

You claim post-prophetic alteration.
That requires proof that an established, publicly recognized canon was later removed not proof that we possess a bound personal codex of Muhammad pbuh.

1. No “Muhammad copy”

There was no single autograph manuscript. The Qur’an in the Prophet’s lifetime was preserved through:
Mass memorization
Written parchments
Multiple scribes
That is standard 7th-century transmission. No ancient prophet left a signed master copy.


2. Early manuscript continuity

What we do have:
Birmingham folios (568–645 CE) dated to the Prophet’s lifetime range; matches the received consonantal text.
Sanʿa palimpsest (lower and upper text) —early layer shows variants in order and spelling, but no extra stoning, suckling, or “forsake your father” verse.

Topkapi & Samarkand codices (early–mid 8th century) — reflect the same Uthmanic consonantal skeleton.

Even the Sanʿa lower text — the one you highlight — contains no trace of your alleged deleted verses.

If removal occurred, where is the longer Qur’an tradition?
Textual deletion leaves residue. There is none.


3. Recitation record

Multiple independent qira'at traced back to named companions exist across regions.
None transmit your alleged verses as Qur’an.
If they were publicly recited canon, at least one recitational lineage would preserve them. None do.


4. Companion consensus

You ask for proof they were never revealed. That’s a category error.
You must prove they were:
Canonically fixed
Publicly recited after the Prophet
Universally recognized as Qur’an
Then later removed
There is no evidence of step two.
If Uthman truly erased established scripture, we would expect:
Companion revolt
Rival Qur’an traditions
Sectarian codices
Early polemics documenting suppression
We see none. Instead, we see early and widespread textual stability.
So the decisive question remains:
Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer after the Prophet’s death?

If yes — where is the record of its removal?
If no — it was never canonically fixed.

Until a removed canon is demonstrated, the corruption claim remains unproven.

I did not ask you to repeat your story. I asked you to answer my questions as a way of providing EVIDENCES to your claims.




Again:

Therefore, using the same kind of evidences that would have satisfied you,

The Ball is in your court now
1. Where is YOUR manuscript evidence of the copy of copies of the Qur'an of Mohammed, Qur'an of Uthman and Qur'an of Abubakar?

2. Where is the objective physical EVIDENCE that your extant mass transmission is consistent with the Qur'an of Mohammed, the Qur'an if Abubakar and the Qur'an of Uthman?

3. Where are the record of public recitation dating back to the time of Mohammad or Abubakar or Uthman?

4. Where is the consensus among the companions that
a. The verse of Stoning was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed
b. The verse of Breastfeeding was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed.
c. The verse "`Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr, if you do that, or it is an act of kufr to forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else).` " was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed ?



The ball is in you court

I Await your evidences please

delzbaba:
She has a fair share of blame in all of this, just because you had insomnia you now drank yourself to stupor when you could have gone to the hospital for proper treatment, you were probably staggering on the road when the rapist trailed you home, say no to rape, say no to alcohol addiction.

Pray that you don't have a situation where drug prescriptions don't work on you.

I know a man that every drug given for him doesn't work

franchasofficia:
The story sound fishy and made up.


First, how did the alleged molester know her handle and she too knows his? It's either they are possibly dating and she has been turning down his sexual request or something. But claiming the guy is a stranger makes the story sound fishy cos how did she know the stranger's Tiktok handle and the molester also knows hers?


And why would the molester send her message detailing how he committed the act, to what end?


Also, is it possible for someone to message someone they are not following back message on Tiktok? I don't know how the Tiktok of a thing works, someone should throw more light because for the alleged molester to be able to message her, it means they are following each other on the platform, right?


I still believe the story is fishy somehow

The attacker created a fresh account thinking he cannot be located: Unfortunately, he doesn't know that every electronics equipment has a MAC address.

If the concerned state government take this up, he would be caught!

I pray that this sick boy/man is caught and given life imprisonment

honesttalk21:
The Sanʿa palimpsest, which includes lower text from the Prophet's and early caliphal period, is completely consistent with the final Uthmanic codex. The Birmingham folios (568–645CE), which span the Prophet's lifetime and Abu Bakr's time, match the consonantal text of the Uthmanic Qur'an. The manuscripts of Topkapi and Samarkand show the Uthmanic standardisation during Uthman's caliphate; the text is consistent with Abu Bakr/Umar compilation and earlier Prophetic memorisation. Across the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman eras, all exhibit striking textual continuity.

No sir.
In fact, they are very different that some of your scholars were saying that the lower text was written by a student who doesn't know the Quran.


I helped you to ask Google AI this question:

Are the lower text of the sa'ana text exactly the same as the upper text


The Birmingham folios is less than 1% of the whole Quran: how can it be any reliable evidence

The Topkapi and Samarkand manuscripts are both among the oldest surviving copies of the Quran, often attributed to the early Uthmanic codices (mid-7th century), though modern analysis suggests they date to the late 1st/early 2nd century AH (early to mid-8th century CE).




Therefore, using the same kind of evidences that would have satisfied you,

The Ball is in your court now
1. Where is YOUR manuscript evidence of the copy of copies of the Qur'an of Mohammed, Qur'an of Uthman and Qur'an of Abubakar?

2. Where is the objective physical EVIDENCE that your extant mass transmission is consistent with the Qur'an of Mohammed, the Qur'an if Abubakar and the Qur'an of Uthman?

3. Where are the record of public recitation dating back to the time of Mohammad or Abubakar or Uthman?

4. Where is the consensus among the companions that
a. The verse of Stoning was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed
b. The verse of Breastfeeding was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed.
c. The verse "`Do not forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else), for this is an act of kufr, if you do that, or it is an act of kufr to forsake your real father (and attribute yourself to someone else).` " was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an of Mohammed ?



The ball is in you court

I Await your evidences please