₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
Your argument has a contradiction.

You assert that Uthman destroyed all competing manuscripts, yet you ask me to provide evidence of those manuscripts he supposedly eliminated. You can't claim total suppression and then require access to what you say was erased. If everything was indeed destroyed, you cannot prove what was in those copies. This reasoning falls apart.

Now, let’s examine the historical evidence.

If the verses on stoning or suckling were truly part of the canonical Qur'an, we would expect to see:

Public recitation during daily prayers

Widespread memorization across different regions

Consensus among the companions after the Prophet's death

At least one surviving manuscript

Some recorded debate regarding their removal

But we have none of that.

What we do have are early manuscript witnesses:

The Birmingham folios (radiocarbon dated to within the Prophet's lifetime)

The Sanʿaʾ palimpsest (which includes its lower text)

The Topkapi manuscript

The Samarkand manuscript

All of these reflect the same consonantal structure as the accepted Qur'an.

None of them include:

A stoning verse

A suckling verse

Any additional surah

Any evidence of such material being erased

Across various regions and over centuries, the textual foundation remains consistent.

Umar's own statement is telling:

"If not that people would say I added to the Book of Allah, I would have written it."

This indicates that a recognized canon already existed. If the verse were universally established in the Qur'an, writing it down would not be considered "adding."

So, the question is straightforward:

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

If yes — where is the record of its removal?
If no — it was never part of the canonical text.

That’s the key historical question.

Sorry,
Didn't you ask me to provide evidences Uthman claimed he burnt?

I had been the one showing you evidence upon evidences from your hadiths showing that your extant Quran is different from the Quran of Mohammed.

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

honesttalk21:
You too. Updated please. Didn't have enough time b4

Since you chose to be BLIND to the Evidences I presented in your hadiths, I have been fair to you that YOU present your own EVIDENCE according to your stated preferred requirements

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 ?



Please be brief with your citations of the EVIDENCES, Thanks!

honesttalk21:
You've referenced these hadiths multiple times without addressing the key questions:

Where is the manuscript evidence?
Where is the mass transmission?
Where is the record of public recitation?
Where is the consensus among the companions?

Let me clarify this practically:

Canonical Quranic verses:

Memorized by hundreds of companions,
Recited in daily prayers throughout the land,
Included in all manuscripts,
Supported by multiple independent transmission chains,
And universally accepted by the community.

Now, regarding your "suckling verses":

They are transmitted through a limited chain (primarily Aisha to Amra),
Not found in any manuscript,
No public prayer recitation,
And there is no consensus among companions that they were part of the Quran.
Even Malik states, "One does not act on this."

This comparison clearly shows that these were legal discussions recorded in hadith, not widely transmitted canonical verses of the Quran.

These are fundamentally different.

The stringent transmission requirements that excluded this from the Quran illustrate that the canonization process was effective; they do not suggest corruption.

If you cannot find manuscript evidence or mass transmission chains, you're actually reinforcing my argument rather than yours.

Since you are not willing to submit to Clear EVIDENCES from your own religious literatures. It would be pointless and a waste of my time to proceed on this EXCEPT you can get a neutral referee to judge THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS YOURS

You are therefore REQUIRED to present the following as your clear irrefutable evidences
1. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Mohammad
2. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Abubakar
3. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Uthman
4. A hadith that states categorically that the verse of suckling was NEVER revealed in the Qur'an.

We will then compare as an EVIDENCE to show that the extant Qur'an is the same as the of Allah. Otherwise, it stands true that your Qur'an is not IDENTICAL based on the evidences presented to you from the hadiths. The verse of Suckling was revealed in the Qur'an of Allah, where is it?

I await your EVIDENCES

honesttalk21:
You’ve brought up these reports so many times already. I’m asking a simpler question that still hasn’t been answered:
Where is the manuscript evidence?
Where is the mass transmission?
Where is the record of public recitation?
Where is the documented companion consensus that these were Qur’an after the Prophet’s death?

That’s the core issue.

Uthman burned everything so stop asking for manuscripts

Even if we grant that Uthman ordered variant materials destroyed, that does not erase:
-Public memory
-Widespread daily recitation
-Independent memorizers across regions
-Political opposition
-Sectarian preservation
If a verse was truly being recited in the five daily prayers across Arabia, you cannot quietly eliminate it by burning parchments. Thousands would have known it by heart.
History records disputes over leadership, law, politics even minor issues. Yet there is no recorded uprising, no faction, no preserved codex claiming that Uthman removed a publicly established Qur’anic verse.

That absence is not trivial. It is historically significant.

Stoning is in the Book of Allah
Yes! Umar says the verse of stoning was revealed.

Yes — he says stoning is in the Book of Allah.
But he also says:
“If not that people would say I added to the Book of Allah, I would have written it.” ??

That statement tells us something critical:
By that time, there was already a recognized boundary for what counted as Qur’an. He could not insert material on the basis of memory or legal conviction.

If the verse had been universally recited and fixed through mass transmission, writing it would not be adding. It would already be present.

His hesitation demonstrates canon awareness not suppression.

“In the Book of Allah” in early Islamic language can mean divinely legislated or revealed as ruling. It does not necessarily mean “present in the finalized written mushaf.”

Yamamah
You cite the report that those who used to read it died at Yamamah.
If the loss of certain individuals meant the disappearance of a verse, that proves it was not mass transmitted in the first place.
Mass transmission does not collapse when a few reciters die.
That point actually reinforces the distinction between:
Material known broadly and fixed in communal recitation and
Material known to limited individuals
Only the first category became canon.

Practical Comparison
Established Qur’anic verses:
-Memorized by large numbers of companions
-Recited publicly in daily prayers
-Preserved in all manuscript traditions
-Transmitted through multiple independent chains
-Accepted across regions without dispute

The stoning and suckling reports:
-Limited transmission chains
-No manuscript inclusion
-No evidence of public liturgical recitation after the Prophet’s death
-No recorded consensus that they remained Qur’an
-Discussed in legal contexts, not preserved as canonical text

Those two categories are not the same.
The fact that the latter did not enter the mushaf suggests strict transmission standards not textual tampering.

Your Actual Claim
You are not arguing that revelation occurred gradually.
You are arguing that the Qur’an was altered after Muhammad’s death.
To sustain that claim, you must demonstrate:
The verse was publicly established as Qur’an.
It continued to be recognized as Qur’an after his death.
It was later removed.
There is no evidence for step two.
Without that, the accusation of post-prophetic alteration remains unproven.

Final Question (Again)
Was the stoning verse recited in congregational prayer across Arabia after the Prophet’s death?

If yes where is the documentation of its removal?

If no — then it was never canonically fixed through mass transmission.

That is the issue.

Indeed many Muslims detest the Truth and it seems you are Chief amongst them in this respect.
Debate is only possible between two people who speak the truth from their point of view. But impossible with a person who Obstinately Closes his Eyes to the Truth presented before him in Black and White but chooses instead DISHONESTY


As a summary, your hadiths clearly said:
1. Uthman ordered that ALL EVIDENCES including all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt?

2. Truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included

3. Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah

4. Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah

5. The verse of stoning was revealed but those who used to read it and other verses of the Qur`an died in al-Yamamah.


Since you are not willing to submit to Clear EVIDENCES from your own religious literatures. It would be pointless and a waste of my time to proceed on this EXCEPT you can get a neutral referee to judge THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS YOURS

You are therefore REQUIRED to present the following as evidences
1. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Mohammad
2. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Abubakar
3. The copy of copies of the Qur'an collected by Uthman

We will then compare as an EVIDENCE to show that the extant Qur'an is the same as the of Allah. Otherwise, it stands true that your Qur'an is not IDENTICAL based on the evidences presented to you from the hadiths.

Until then, it stands sure that
Evidences abound that the Qur'an had not been PRESERVED. It had beed edited , doctored and changed with three solid examples presented.

honesttalk21:
.

It is good you realised that it is always impossible to defend ANYTHING that is based on FALSEHOOD!

Evidences abound that the Qur'an had not been PRESERVED. It had been doctored and edited over time till it's final extant form!

Have a nice day!

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

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

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

honesttalk21:
Are there hadith of similar wording or context graded Sahih? There indeed is the point outside these 2 narrators are there chains without them?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Did your prophet practiced Suckling?


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

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

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

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




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

honesttalk21:
Let's slow this down and answer your actual claim clearly and directly.

Your central claim is that changes took place after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). That is a historical claim.

Historical claims require historical evidence.

Now let's focus tightly on that issue.

1. The Real Question

Not:
- Were variant materials burned? (Yes.)
- Did companions have personal notes? (Yes.)
- Do hadith mention verses revealed at some stage? (Yes.)

The real question is:

Was something widely recognized as Qur'an during the Prophet's lifetime later removed from the canon after his death?

That is the allegation, isn't it?

To establish that, you would need at least one of the following:
- A manuscript preserving a longer Qur'an
- A codex tradition maintaining extra verses
- A companion publicly accusing Uthman of deleting revelation
- A sect preserving a rival textual tradition
- Early political controversy over missing scripture

None of these exist.

2. "Uthman Burned Everything!"

Even if we assume he ordered all variant copies destroyed (as the reports state), that still does not demonstrate content deletion.

Burning variant materials only proves standardization occurred.

It does not prove:
- Entire verses were removed
- Legal rulings were erased
- Canonical material was suppressed

If a widely recited verse had been removed, you would expect resistance.

Consider who was alive during Uthman's time:
- Aisha
- Ibn Abbas
- Ali ibn Abi Talib
- Thousands of memorizers
- Veterans of Badr and Uhud

If Uthman had removed publicly recited Qur'an, do you believe there would be silence?

Instead, what we find is broad acceptance of the standardized codex. That is historically significant.

3. The Rajm and "Missing Verse" Reports

Let's focus here, since this is often the core issue.

The reports say:
- Something was revealed
- The ruling remained
- The recitation was not written in the Mushaf

Now here is the decisive detail:

Umar himself says: "If not that people would say I added to the Book of Allah, I would have written it."

That line shows something important. There was already a recognized boundary of what counted as Qur'an. He feared being accused of adding to it.

That is canon consciousness, not post-prophetic editing.

If he believed it was part of the fixed, recited Qur'an, writing it would not be "adding." It would already be there.

4. Yamamah and the Death of Reciters

You argue changes happened after the Prophet's death. But the Yamamah event actually shows why compilation began: Reciters died in battle, so Abu Bakr feared loss of material.

Notice what Zayd required during compilation:
- Written material
- Two witnesses

Only what met strict criteria was included.

That suggests caution, not manipulation. If something failed those criteria, that does not mean it was deleted after canonization. It means it was never canonically fixed through mass transmission.

5. "Why do Muslims detest the truth?"

That is rhetoric, not evidence.

If someone disagrees with your historical conclusion, that does not mean they detest truth. It means they interpret the evidence differently.

The real issue is not emotion. It is this:

Can you demonstrate that something universally recognized as Qur'an during the Prophet's lifetime was later removed?

Not mentioned in a hadith. Not remembered by one companion. Not discussed in legal context.

But universally recognized, publicly recited, mass transmitted scripture.

If that happened, history would show fragmentation. It does not.

6. Manuscripts Matter Here

You object to being asked for manuscript fragments. But here's why they matter:

When texts are altered after canonization, you get textual divergence. We see this pattern historically in many traditions:
- Longer and shorter versions
- Competing endings
- Regional variants
- Theological insertions

That is what post-canon editing looks like.

The Qur'anic manuscript tradition does not show evidence of a removed chapter on stoning, or a missing passage preserved by a faction. It shows early stabilization.

That doesn't prove theology. But it does undermine the claim of post-prophetic deletion.

7. So We Return to Your Claim

You are not arguing: Some material was revealed temporarily.

You are arguing: Changes took place after the Prophet's death.

That is a much stronger accusation.

To prove that, you need to show:
- A before (what was publicly recited)
- An after (what was removed)
- And evidence of the transition

Without that, the claim remains hypothetical.

If you want to move forward productively, we can narrow this to one precise question:

What specific verse do you claim was universally recited during the Prophet's life and then removed after his death?

Let's examine one case at a time and test it historically.

You many times believe that speaking erodes the clear evidences against you.

1. If it is true that Uthman ordered that ALL EVIDENCES including all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt?

Then for God's sake stop asking for burnt manuscripts as evidence

2. If it is TRUE that in
https://sunnah.com/bulugh/10/5
لحدود10 Hudud it says
a. Verily Allah has sent Muhammad with the Truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included

b. Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery,

Your case is SEALED!

Does it say the stoning is in the Book of Allah?

I don't understand your argument. You will need to explain when it was abrogated from the BOOK of Allah.

3. If it is TRUE that in Musnad Ahmad 276 says
Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery,

So, what happened to stoning as we cannot find it in your current Qur'an. It is definite that the verse of Stoning was in your Qur'an: who removed it

4. If it is TRUE that Musnad Ahmad 1210
The verse of stoning was revealed but those who used to read it and other verses of the Qur`an died in al-Yamamah.


When was the verse of stoning abrogated?


Sorry!
The Quran had been updated and you don't have any explanations for it other than repeating your faulty and erroneous standard islamic narrative.




Repeating yourself without addressing the issues doesn't help your case one bit!

I think you should ask yourself the question why it seems that Muslims detest the truth

honesttalk21:
You are conflating entirely different claims, and that confusion is doing most of the argumentative work for you.
There are only two coherent possibilities:
Verses were removed after the Prophet’s death (post-canon deletion) or verses were revealed during the Prophet’s lifetime but later abrogated before final canonization.
If you are arguing the first, then the burden is on you to produce manuscript evidence of post-prophetic removal.
Where is the rival codex tradition?
Where is the alternate surah count?
Where is the regional recitation preserving rajm as Qur’an?
Where is the documented communal protest over its removal?

Textual corruption leaves textual fingerprints. Across fourteen centuries, across all manuscript families, across all recitational traditions there are none. The Qur’an presents a single textual tradition from the 7th century onward. That is not what corruption looks like.
If instead you are arguing the second that something was revealed and later withdrawn before the final canon was fixed then manuscript absence is exactly what we would expect. Something abrogated before canonization would not appear in manuscripts of the finalized text.

You are demanding manuscript evidence for something that, under the classical claim, would not have remained in manuscript form.

My claim is that the Qur'an was that changes took place AFTER the death of your prophet.

You ask for fragments of manuscript!

But you seem to forget that Uthman commanded ALL these to be burnt other than his own version of the Qur'an!?

Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before." So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt

Did you read here that Uthman ordered that ALL EVIDENCES including all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt?


So, we have to fall on reports in your hadiths orn can you suggest where else to reverse the burnt Qur'an EVIDENCES?

honesttalk21:
Now let’s address the hadith directly.
Ibn Majah 1944 (Aisha’s report about a page):
The narration refers to a sheet in her private possession. The Qur’an was primarily preserved orally. If the recitation had already been abrogated before the Prophet’s death, the survival or destruction of a physical page would have no bearing on the canon. The report does not say the community was still reciting those words as Qur’an after his death.

1. is it true that Aisha said: The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed?
2. If the verses were abrogated, what was it doing in the house of Mohammed at his death?
3. Why didn't Aisha say that the verse was already Abrogated

And not so fast!
https://sunnah.com/bulugh/10/5
لحدود10 Hudud
1. Is it untrue the hadith said:
Verily Allah has sent Muhammad with the Truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included
2. is it untrue that the hadith said:
Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery,

You managed to skip Musnad Ahmad 276

Is it untrue the Hadith said:
Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery,

You also omitted Musnad Ahmad 1210
Is it untrue that the hadith said:
The verse of stoning was revealed but those who used to read it and other verses of the Qur`an died in al-Yamamah.

Was the battle of al-Yamamah during or after the death of your prophet?

honesttalk21:
Umar’s statement (Sahih Muslim 1691a, Musnad Ahmad):

Umar says, “If not that people would say that I had added to the Book of Allah, I would have written it.” You've repeated this statement several times; didn't you understand it the first time? This shows the distinction between rulings and recitation. The Mushaf was limited to what was transmitted en masse as the Qur'an. His hesitation does not prove deletion; it shows canon consciousness.

Is it untrue that Umar said:
Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him.

Was the verse of stoning included in the Book of Allah?

honesttalk21:
Musnad Ahmad (Yamamah):
The death of reciters at Yamamah triggered formal compilation precisely to safeguard what was widely transmitted. The compilation process required multiple witnesses and written corroboration. That is controlled canonization, not textual collapse. Material known only to isolated individuals would not meet the standard of mass recitation and transmission (tawatur) required for inclusion.

Reports like forsake your fathers:
No manuscript tradition preserves it as Qur’an. No codex contains it. No recitational lineage transmits it. Its total absence across every textual family is evidence that it never formed part of the finalized canon.
In other words, isolated reports do not override mass transmission. In Islamic epistemology, tawatur establishes the Qur’an; solitary narrations do not.

The verse of stoning was revealed but those who used to read it and other verses of the Qur`an died in al-Yamamah.

This was the reason given for the absence of these verses in the Qur'an of Uthman. Those who had memorized it DIED!

honesttalk21:
Now to the Biblical comparison.
You object to Islamic abrogation while accepting covenantal shifts in Christianity under different terminology.
Genesis 17 calls circumcision an everlasting covenant, yet Galatians 5 declares it religiously unnecessary. Why?

Exodus 31 prescribes death for Sabbath violation, yet Colossians 2 states believers are not to be judged regarding Sabbaths.

Leviticus 11 prohibits certain foods, yet Mark 7:19 declares all foods clean.

You call this fulfillment or progressive revelation. Islam calls its internal process abrogation within a single prophetic lifespan. The principle of progressive divine legislation is not unique to Islam. The difference is structural:

Unfortunately, even if we concede this, the covenant was to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

I am sure you have never read this before
Acts 15:5:
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Acts 15:6,10:
"And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. … Now therefore why tempt you God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

Their conclusion

Acts 15:28-29:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things; That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Fare you well."


Read the whole chapter if you still have your doubts about Christians not following the commands of of Moses to the children of Israel.

Sorry!

honesttalk21:
Christianity layers a new covenant onto an existing corpus while retaining earlier texts in scripture. Islam maintains that refinement occurred within the 23-year revelation period and that the final canon reflects the completed form of revelation.

That is a theological distinction, not evidence of textual instability. The decisive historical question remains this:
Is there any manuscript evidence of a rival Qur’an?
Any alternate canon?
Any preserved textual family containing your alleged missing verses as Qur’an?
There is none.
The Qur’an’s manuscript tradition is uniform across regions and centuries. No competing textual stream survived. No canonical fragmentation occurred.
So the issue is not whether isolated reports mention temporary recitation. The issue is whether the final Qur’anic canon was preserved.
The manuscript record says yes.
Without textual evidence of a competing Qur’an, the corruption claim remains assertion not demonstrated history.

Did Uthman burn every manuscript of the Qur'an he could find other than his own?

cutecommend:
When a sinner accepts Jesus and genuinely repents from all sins, old things are passed away and all things are become new.

But lets look at these questions.
(1) If a man has stolen vehicles and now rides them, should he continue riding the vehicles after he gets born again or should he return them?

(2) If a man secretly takes his neighbour's children and kills them for rituals, and his neighbour keeps looking for these kids: now if the man gets born again, should he watch his neighbour look for the kids or should he confess the act?

(3) If a married woman has four children and she fully knows two of the kids are not for her husband, and her husband is boasting of the kids and spending millions on them. Now, if she gets born again, should she watch her husband "progress" in deception, continue boasting and spending millions?

When someone get's born again, their names are written in the Book of Life, but as time goes, if they have things they need to return, confess, restitute, the Holy Spirit begins to remind them of these things for them to restitute it. If they fail to do it, it becomes disobedience and their names will be removed from the Book of Life.

Restitution not done can hinder a Christian from entering heaven, and if you think you can take a secret worthy of confession to the grave, you may find yourself in hell fire after death.

The HolySpirit can help you to have a successful restitution without punishment.

I agree with most of what you said except the highlighted in yellow.

Not everything can be restituted.

A man who raped a virgin girl cannot restitute anything. Will his apology restore what has been destroyed biologically, emotionally and psychologically? How can restitution be made for a consensual sex?

This is why the punishment for sin is grievous (eternity in hell) because a sin against man is primarily a sin against God.

Rom 12:19:
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord."

The aftereffect of Not preaching the Gospel to our neighbour is grievous (eternity in lake of fire), how do you think you can restitute for this?

A man lost his job because you stole his N10,000 which he needed pay for his son's soon closing JAMB that caused him to be desperate to defraud his place of work of N50,000 for which he was caught and dismissed. how do you think you can restitute for this?

Let every Christian obey the Leading of the Holy Spirit with respect to restitution and not make it a doctrine

89green:
Irrespective of sect, they failed. No need beating around the bush

I am agreeing with you

USA failed because Iran is Shia Muslim: if Iran was Sunni, they would have been broken now

89green:
They failed in Iran because the Iranian regime was miles ahead of them.

No sir.

Then failed because Iran is Shia Muslim: if Iran was Sunni, they would have been broken now

I Challenge you to respond to each hadith and the questions here

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

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

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

honesttalk21:
Are there hadith of similar wording or context graded Sahih? There indeed is the point outside these 2 narrators are there chains without them?

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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

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

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

Evidence that Allah failed to collect the Qur'an



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

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

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



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


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


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

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



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


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

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



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




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

Sometimes, I wonder if you listen to yourself REGURGITATING the Standard Islamic Narrative without recourse to reason not logic nor to your historic documentation.

honesttalk21:
You attempted to slander the character of Aisha r.a despite relying on her statement that a sheep were responsible for destroying evidence. When that didn't hold, you argued that verses on adult breastfeeding, stoning, and lineage were originally part of the Quran but removed during its compilation.

Let's clarify your position: you're asserting that these verses were revealed by Gabriel, publicly recited during the Prophet's life, and then intentionally left out when the Quran was compiled.

If this were true, there would be significant evidence to support it.We would expect to find:

- Testimonies from companions stating these verses were part of public prayers
- Disagreements across regions regarding their inclusion during compilation
- Different versions of the Quran, with some including these verses and others not
- Mass transmission chains (tawatur) treating them as Quranic text
- Protests from companions about their exclusion

I assert that several hadiths showed that verses were REMOVED from the RECITATION of the Qur'an.

Three cases were used
1. Verse of Stoning
2. Verse of breastfeeding an adult 10 times, abrogated to 5 and unceremoniously removed.

honesttalk21:
However, none of this evidence exists. No companion's codex includes these as Quranic verses. This includes Ibn Masʿud's, known for his independent views, and Ubayy's, recognized for his extensive knowledge. No regional variant from any part of the Muslim world includes them either.

What we actually find is a unanimous agreement among companions, regions, and codices that these verses were never part of the Quran.

You referenced Ibn Majah 1944 and other hadiths as evidence. However, this mixes categories. The reports you mention are hadiths pertaining to legal discussions on rulings. They were never treated as Quranic verses. There's a crucial distinction between:

1. A legal ruling discussed in hadith literature
2. A Quranic verse transmitted through public recitation

Earlier, Ibn Majah 1042 hadith about praying with braided hair was accepted because it was a legal ruling supported by multiple independent chains, including stronger narrations in Sahih Muslim. Its acceptance is based on corroboration for legal purposes, not because it's scripture.

Now you're trying to equate one accepted hadith with another to claim these were Quranic verses that were allegedly removed. This is a category error.

A legal ruling can be accepted with supporting chains. Quranic verses require public recitation, widespread memorization, and inclusion in written manuscripts. If these were truly Quranic verses:

- They would have been recited in daily prayers
- Hundreds of companions would have memorized them
- Regional communities would have independently preserved them
- The compilation process would have recorded significant disputes over their exclusion

None of this occurred.

Sorry sir.
Do you logically think that a person who tries to remove EVIDENCES will go on celebrating his removed EVIDENCES?
Probably only in Islam.

honesttalk21:
Ibn Majah 1944 is a solitary report about a legal discussion. It reflects what some companions considered a ruling not what was publicly recited as Quran. The vast majority of companions never treated adult breastfeeding as Quranic text, which is why it appears nowhere in the manuscript tradition.

The Quran states: Mothers shall breastfeed their children for two complete years, for whoever wishes to complete the nursing term (Quran 2:233).

This verse was widely transmitted, recited in daily prayers, embedded in every manuscript, and universally recognized. Consequently, the overwhelming majority of companions and all four legal schools agreed that foster prohibition applies within infancy particularly so that it is clearly stated in Quran 4:23 (forbidden to you for marriage are your sisters through nursing)

The case of Salim was a singular specific prophetic concession,a legal dispensation for one household preserved in Sunnah, not a Quranic verse binding on all Muslims. If adult suckling had been revealed as Quran and recited publicly during the Prophet's life, its absence from the compiled Quran would have led to major controversy. Companions who memorized it would have protested, and regional communities would have preserved competing versions. Instead, we see universal manuscript agreement without any controversy.

I will repost the evidences and I challenge you to respond to each hadith.

honesttalk21:
You suggest that such rulings would be shameful and thus removed. Yet, your own scripture contains examples of progressive revelation involving significant changes:
- Dietary laws in Leviticus were later set aside (Mark 7:19; Acts 10)
- Circumcision, called an everlasting covenant in Genesis, was later declared unnecessary (Galatians 5:6)
- Temple sacrifice, mandated throughout Leviticus, was later rendered obsolete (Hebrews 10)
- Sabbath observance, enforced under a death penalty in Exodus, was later relativized (Colossians 2:16)

Are these examples of corruption or stages of revelation?

If you accept that God can provide temporary rulings later abrogated in the Bible, rejecting the same principle in Islam is inconsistent. I reckon you refuse to see Islam as a valid religion despite it being a terminal continuation of former religions.

Christianity retained earlier covenants as part of a layered canon spanning multiple books and centuries. Islam received a single prophetic corpus over 23 years, with refinements happening during the revelation period before final canonization.

When the Bible moved from the Old Covenant to the New, earlier laws remained textually present but were theologically superseded. That's post-canon abrogation. Islam refined rulings during the 23-year revelation period, with some recitations withdrawn before the Quran's final compilation. That's pre-canon refinement.

Both involve progressive revelation. The timing and method differ, not the principle. Your challenge produce the Quran of Muhammad pbuh, Abu Bakr, Ibn Masʿud, or Ubayy misses the point. You claim deletion during compilation. You must provide evidence that:

1. These verses were publicly recited as Quran during the Prophet's lifetime
2. Companions who memorized them protested their exclusion
3. Competing manuscript traditions preserved them
4. Regional disagreements erupted over their canonical status

What exists are:
- Universal manuscript agreement across all regions
- No companion protests about excluded verses
- No competing codices containing these as Quranic text
- No mass transmission chains treating them as Quran

What does not exist:

- A single manuscript containing these 'other abrogated verses' as Quranic verses
- A companion codex preserving them as Quran
- A transmission chain establishing them as publicly recited Quran
- Any evidence of controversy during compilation

Your analogy about a swallowed bank check fails. We have:
- Complete transaction records (the manuscript tradition)
- Security footage (mass transmission chains)
- Multiple witnesses (companion testimony)
- Regional branch confirmations (geographical manuscript agreement)

All indicating the check never existed. If these verses had been part of the Quran during the Prophet's lifetime and then excluded during compilation, the manuscript tradition would show:

- Competing versions (some with, some without)
- Regional variants
- Companion disputes
- Transmission chains preserving the "deleted" verses

None of this is present. The reports you cite appear only in hadith literature discussing legal opinions not in Quranic recitation chains.

Unfortunately for you, we don't have abrogation of the scriptures. The Bible does not teach or contain a formal doctrine of abrogation where later scriptures explicitly cancel or replace earlier ones, unlike the Islamic concept of naskh in the Quran. Christian theology views the Bible as a progressive revelation, where New Testament teachings fulfill or supersede Old Testament laws (e.g., ceremonial laws), but this is framed as completion rather than abrogation.

Some of the scriptures Jew specific.
Some depends on the Temple's existence.
Some were updated eg Law of forgiveness over Retribution.

Quran 3:50 Jesus says:
"And [I have come] confirming what came before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me."

Jesus states in Matthew 5:17 that he came "not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them," indicating continuity with transformation, not nullification.

You know the DIFFERENCE: Neither the Jews nor Christians DELETED the verses from their scripture unlike Muslims.

honesttalk21:
Direct answers to your questions:

1. Were abrogated verses dictated by Gabriel?
Some revelations were given during the 23-year period as temporary rulings or instructional guidance, then withdrawn before final canonization. They served their purpose and were not meant to remain in the permanent text.

Meaning that Jibril dictated things NOT in the eternal Qur'an to Mohammed.

honesttalk21:
2. Were they part of the eternal "Mother of the Book"?
No. The preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) contains the final revealed text that was meant to remain permanently. Temporary revelations for specific contexts were not part of this eternal record. However their revelation is in the record of all occurence.

Meaning that Jibril dictated his own words as Qur'an to Mohammed

honesttalk21:
3. Were they deleted from heaven?
No. They were never inscribed as permanent scripture. They were contextual revelations that fulfilled their purpose during the revelation period.

But they were RECITED as Qur'an even when they aren't the Qur'an

honesttalk21:
4. Why do some abrogated verses remain in the Quran?
Because there are two types of abrogation:
- Abrogation of ruling: The verse remains recited but its legal ruling changed (e.g., 73:2 and 73:20)
- Abrogation of recitation: The recitation was withdrawn before canonization and never appeared in the Quran

The verses you claim are missing fall into the second category but unlike actual cases of abrogation of recitation, these were never established as Quranic verses in the first place. They exist only as solitary hadith reports about legal discussions.

Here's the key difference: You're confusing a ruling some companions discussed with a verse that was publicly recited as Quran.

For something to be Quran:
- It must be transmitted by mass transmission
- Recited publicly in prayers
- Memorized by hundreds of companions
- Embedded in manuscript tradition
- Universally recognized as revealed text

For something to be a hadith about a legal opinion:
- It can be transmitted by individual narrators
- Discussed in private legal contexts
- Known to a few scholars
- Recorded in hadith literature
- Debated among jurists

Your "missing verses" fit the second description, not the first.

All of Islam is about solving problems created when earlier lies or errors are detected.
All these your methodologies came several hundred years after Islam. We are relying on evidences from the eyewitness who says
"we used to recite so so so and so verse in the Qur'an"

honesttalk21:
The stoning verse, the breastfeeding ruling, the lineage statement all appear in hadith literature as legal discussions. None appear in any Quranic manuscript, companion codex, or mass transmission chain.

The question is not: "Was anything removed after canonization?" The question you're actually asking is: "Were these verses part of the Quran during the Prophet's lifetime and then excluded during compilation?"

The answer is no and the evidence is universal manuscript agreement. If these had been revealed as Quran and publicly recited:
- Every companion who memorized them would have transmitted them
- Regional communities would have preserved them independently
- The compilation would have sparked massive disputes
- We would have competing manuscript families

We have none of this. What we have is:
- Universal manuscript consensus
- No companion disputes about excluded material
- No regional variants
- No competing transmission chains

This isn't the absence of evidence; this is evidence of absence. The compilation process involved gathering what had been revealed and preserved not selectively editing controversial material.

The Quran was:
- Written down during the Prophet's lifetime on various materials
- Memorized by hundreds of companions
- Recited publicly in daily prayers five times a day
- Verified through cross-checking written records with mass memorization
- Compiled into a unified codex preserving what had been universally transmitted

Standardization is not corruption. Abrogation during revelation is not deletion during compilation. A solitary hadith about a legal opinion is not a Quranic verse. Without manuscript evidence, companion protests, or regional variants, the claim remains an assertion not proof.

I hope this lengthier detailed explanation and answer to your questions are finally sufficient for you. 😅😄

Uthman is NOT a prophet of Islam is he?
Does he doesn't have any right to modify the Qur'an.

Every evidence before Uthman says that verses that used to be RECITED was deleted from the final Quran. Uthman himself accented to this about Rajam. He noticed that he remembered that they used to RECITE the verse BUT it can no longer be found in his own Qur'an. He was even tempted to reinsert it if not that people will accuse him of changing the Qur'an.

Ohyoudidnt:
Amen. Absolutely, bro. I sure enjoyed our conversation and your patience throughout the exchanges. May God bless Nigeria and grant us the wisdom and unity we seek. Thank you for engaging with me.

Amen!
Thanks a lot Bro!

May we witness the repair, restoration and greatness of our Nation!

Ohyoudidnt:
You’re correct that we both see the main issue which is a lack of political accountability that's causing dysfunction in generation, transmission, gas supply, and tariff structures. Our disagreement lies in the approach: you suggested hypothetical solutions, like hiring Siemens for a 20GW turnkey project. I noted that Siemens is already under contract. Then you brought up Ajaokuta as a counter-example, but I felt that mixed together different system failures. My main concern is that Nigeria's power infrastructure has many facets, and each one needs to be addressed without dragging in the historical issues of the others. That was my only point. If my tone came across as sharp, it’s something that happens in technical discussions. We both want reliable power for Nigeria, and that shared goal is what truly matters.

Its okay my friend.
Thanks for the clarifications.

Lets pray for a miracle of God's intervention in Nigeria that we might all prosper together in peace and unity.

Thanks a lot Bro!

Ohyoudidnt:
Can you reaccess your statement? Do you not notice the tone you use and what it says about you? A discussion looking around the challenges with power infrastructure and how it becomes an uphill you have turned into a boxing match.

See how you brought in Ajaokuta not functioning which is fairly outside the discussion being that power constraint is not the singular issue behind its not being functional. Power is essential but not the main issue there. Focus and clarity not everything all together. Don't you know about mutually exclusive processes in an integrated system?
Even if the 110 MW captive power plant in the Ajaokuta complex were fully operational, the mill still wouldn't be able to produce liquid steel without proper logistical integration of raw materials.

Step back and address issues one at a time through components before the functioning whole. Thinking holistically before you get started is quite awkward.

The discussion was straightforward: Siemens is already collaborating with Nigeria on power infrastructure, which speaks for itself. The real confusion arises from mixing this with the 45-year Soviet failure at Ajaokuta across various systems, rather than providing clarity.

Your claim was that
But Siemens have been here since 2006 and probably before.
There's a project worth €161.33 million since December 2024 too.

And I said:
I don't know the FG terms of agreement with Siemens and no one is showing any update of work accomplished.

Lets cross our hands and watch.

Then you spoilt ot by saying :
There exactly is where you have concern. I show that there has been such agreement in the past so move your desktop literary study using the FOI and relevant elements of investigation to inquire about what is going on rather than demanding a solution that is already in place. That is more honourable.

And my response was:
I do not deny that there was a negotiation with Siemens, I only don't know what was signed with them and the level it is.

The solution is only in place AFTER execution of the plans. Can you say that about Ajaokuta Steel that has guzzled up hundreds of billions in USD with nothing to show for it?

My point here was that in Nigeria UNTIL you SEE, you don't have ANYTHING yet.

You threw in another Jab by saying
Please focus and stop jumbling matters. With or without Ajaokuta Nigeria needs power. Siemens is a relatively recent inclusion for Ajaokuta who are already multi tens of billions in Power debt. You want to Nigerianise Siemens and kill it in debt?

Think! Other steel plants in Nigeria that employed German, Japanese, or Austrian contractors had successfully begun operations without Siemens at a time ,whereas Ajaokuta, the Soviet project, has been unsuccessful for 45 years. So without the importance you place on Siemens we can have power.

Why was this comment necessary in the first place?
This was the reason I said
Can we not talk without war of words?
Is is not islamic debates with emotions also involved






Interestingly, both of us want the same thing for Nigeria here: that we solve our electric power supply problem. Which is noble and good.
If we have any differences, it is about whether the major problem was the Generation or the Transmission limitations .

We agree on in adequate political will of our leaders.
We agree on corruption as a factor preventing this.


So, I don't understand where the fights erupted from.

TenQ:
Can we not talk without war of words?
Is is not islamic debates with emotions also involved

I think irrespective of the fact that we disagree on spiritual matters, it doesn't make us enemies of each other especially when we have an issue we both want our country to resolve.

Ohyoudidnt:
Appreciate sharing how complicated 'simple solutions' are in the Nigeria space. Enjoy your weekend.

I can understand!
When a person is beaten blue-black in the knowledge he prides himself in, he looks for every opportunity of a return match on a different terrain.

Sorry!

No be every thing be fight and quarrel.

honesttalk21:
Notice what just happened here. You started off by accusing Aisha of destroying evidence out of fear. But when that argument fell apart under scrutiny, you suddenly shifted your stance, claiming that wasn’t your point after all. That change is significant. When one argument crumbles, it seems you just switch to another. That’s not presenting evidence; it’s dodging the issue.

I didn't report that the tame sheep ate your Qur'an. I quoted Aisha. If you have a problem, bring her to Nairaland.

I told you that my objective was to show you that verse exist that were DELETED from your Qur'an .
You asked for other SIMILAR narrative (thinking Aisha's own was the only one and I provided them).
Did you forget so soon?

honesttalk21:
Now, let’s get to the main claim: that the ten and five adult sucklings were supposedly verses from the Quran that were removed because they were deemed shameful.

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

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

There’s nothing.

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

There’s a complete lack of textual evidence.

That single fact alone discredits the corruption claim.

I accept your challenge BUT on one condition
Bring me a copy of either
the Qur'an of Mohammed
the Quran of Abubakar
the Ibn Masud’s codex.
the Ubayy’s codex.
I promise to locate the missing verses from there.

Do you accept my challenge? Dont tell me that you cant even find a single copy of a full Quran before the Topkapi Manuscript which is also incomplete.

honesttalk21:
You’re trying to use one solitary hadith report to overshadow a body of scripture that’s been widely transmitted. The Quran is established through tawatur which means it’s been recited widely, memorized across regions, kept stable in manuscripts, and passed down unanimously within the community. A single narration from Ibn Majah simply can't measure up to that standard.

Are you blind? Solitary hadith report!?
Are you this dazed from me flogging out the lies i. the standard islamic narrative!?

I used two full pages to give you evidences from your hadiths
1. Breastfeeding adults
2. Stoning

I even quoted another verse you Muslims deleted from the Qur'an

You forgot that you skipped it totally?
SMH!

Go back there and read the several hadiths quoted by me.

honesttalk21:
Authenticating a hadith and transmitting the Quran aren't the same thing. Mixing them up is a serious methodological mistake. The Quran requires mass transmission. That report doesn’t meet that criterion, which means it was never part of the canonical Quran.

You argue that Muslims removed it because it was shameful.

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

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

You can’t, because none of that exists.

Boohoo!
A thief/419 went to a bank to fraudulently claim some money. He snatched the check and swallowed it. They showed him the CCTV with the testimony of the Cashier.

He 419 says: Show me the check!

Give us the complete copy of the Qur'an from Mohammad, Abubakar, Ibn Mas'ud or Uthman, then we shall find what you want for you!
SMH!

honesttalk21:
The compilation of texts after the Prophet’s death wasn’t about replacing anything. Revelation during his lifetime was recorded and memorized in various forms. After he passed away, those materials were compiled into a single codex. Collecting isn’t the same as disappearing. Standardization doesn’t equate to corruption.

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

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

The challenge is clear and straightforward:

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

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

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

The burden of proof remains unmet.

Please explain
1. Were abrogated verses part of the Qur'an dictated by Jibril to Mohammed ? YES or NO!
2. Were these abrogated verses part of the original Qur'an and mother of the book in paradise? YES or NO!
3. Were some of the abrogated verses ALSO deleted from the book of Allah in paradise? YES or NO!
4. Explain why abrogated verses still exist in written form in your Extant Qur'an?

nairalanda1:
In other words, you won't believe me if i told you that 'The Sun orbits the Galactic Center at a distance of 24,000 to 28,000 light-years'.

Good morning.

Oh, and the 68% of metered customers are part of the overall 40% that do not pay. But since you don't want to accept facts that don't suit you, you chose to misrepresent the statistics.(Note that most people aren't metered yet.)

So, 28% of those who bypass the meter still go on to pay for a non-existent reading?

Ohyoudidnt:
Please focus and stop jumbling matters. With or without Ajaokuta Nigeria needs power. Siemens is a relatively recent inclusion for Ajaokuta who are already multi tens of billions in Power debt. You want to Nigerianise Siemens and kill it in debt?

Think! Other steel plants in Nigeria that employed German, Japanese, or Austrian contractors had successfully begun operations without Siemens at a time ,whereas Ajaokuta, the Soviet project, has been unsuccessful for 45 years. So without the importance you place on Siemens we can have power.

Can we not talk without war of words?
Is is not islamic debates with emotions also involved

nairalanda1:
68% bypassing meters sauce

40% not paying sauce

Band A Users form only 20% of total users.

What you have shown is two statements just like yours. Who did the study and why are the culprits not being brought to book?

68% bypass + 40% not paying already exceed 100% of the available power.

If this data is correct, tell me why the electricity distribution companies are operating?

Ohyoudidnt:
There exactly is where you have concern. I show that there has been such agreement in the past so move your desktop literary study using the FOI and relevant elements of investigation to inquire about what is going on rather than demanding a solution that is already in place. That is more honourable.

I do not deny that there was a negotiation with Siemens, I only don't know what was signed with them and the level it is.

The solution is only in place AFTER execution of the plans. Can tou say that about Ajaokuta Steel that has guzzled up hundreds of billions in USD with nothing to show for it?

nairalanda1:
Erm....UK pays 0.401 USD per unit for residental
USA Pays..0.184 USD

Nigeria pays: 0.036 USD. Also Nigeria: 68% of metered customers bypass their meters and overall 40% don't even pay for the power they use. Not seen in the UK and USA at all.

SAUCE

Our Band A with 20 Hours per day of electricity is $0.13–0.14

Where also did you get the information that 68% of metered customers bypass their meters ?

I dont know where you gor your data.

honesttalk21:
I had stated before

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry!

Ohyoudidnt:
But Siemens have been here since 2006 and probably before.
There's a project worth €161.33 million since December 2024 too.

I don't know the FG terms of agreement with Siemens and no one is showing any update of work accomplished.

Lets cross our hands and watch.

Have a good night rest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RhemaJet7:
Some years back, I overheard someone, saying, Daddy G.O. said the person that will take over from him, is currently an unbeliever, drinking beer from one beer parlour to another.
Same way God revealed to him partially the person that will take over from him, same way God told me who will take over from me too, He just mentioned the State he or she will come from.

So, I think it is the job of God to replace him, when the time comes, God will ingeniously work it out

Whoever the person is need time to enter into the shoes of Baba.
It is wisdom.
Baba did not want infighting amongst his Pastors, hence his statement

RhemaJet7:
Ever since I had the dream, I have made it an habit to be praying and interceding for Daddy G.O.

Yesterday, in response to my prayers about him, I got a divine message about him, in dream, I heard, "PEACE FOR DADDY G.O."

Obviously,.Daddy G.O. has a lot of enemies even within RCCG, even among Senior Pastors in RCCG.

The attacks increase ever since some RCCG pastors told Daddy G.O. to resign, and Daddy G.O. said "no", God has not told him to resign

These are the reasons why Daddy G.O. does not trust anybody again even in the church RCCG.

In a bid to avoid being poisoned, he stopped receiving food from people except his wife.

He equally made his son Pastor Leke Adeboye his Personal Assistant, he doesn't trust anybody again even in the church.

Same reason he changed his place of residence, relocated to an estate you will hardly identify the particular house he resides, security is beaffed up.

Then, regarding, transportation, sometimes, he uses helicopter as against vehicle.

As the enemies try him spiritually, they are also trying him physically.

May God continue to protect him and his family and protect his followers, and admirers too

Pray that Baba will announce the name of the person who will take over from him soon. If he doesn't do that before God calls him, RCCG will implode

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

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

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



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


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



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

RhemaJet7:
I want someone to help me interpret this powerful dream about Daddy G.O.

Today, Wed., February 11, 2026, around 5 am, I had a dream about Daddy G.O..

I was in a place like Redemption Camp, I saw Daddy G.O. entering a building, went upstairs, I took interest to interact with him as I waited for him to come down, when he came down, I greeted him, we exchange hand shake, I wanted to use the opportunity to ask him to pray for me, but I suddenly developed another thought that I can ask him, can I pray for you sir?
We are in a living room with about 8 people men and women, Daddy G..O wanted to go to his personal room and rest, I was chosen to lead him to his room, suddenly, he wanted to collapse as he complained about back pain, I held him as I knelt down, he was resting on my hand, then, people there gave me a cup of water, they asked me to give him water, I gave him the water, and I said, this is not an ordinary pain, it is a witchcraft attack, and I prayed for Daddy G.O. saying "you shall not die but live", then, I summon the courage, I challenged the witch responsible for the attack to show up, I commanded everybody in the room to go out and leave the three of us alone, as I prepared to confront the attacker. Then, I woke up.

This is the third time I'm dreaming about Daddy G.O.

In all those dreams, we always interacted with each other.
In real life, we have never interacted with each other. Daddy G.O. doesn't know me.

I have also dreamt about Mummy G.O. once, and Pastor Leke Adeboye once.

I worship in RCCG, I was once a Worker in my previous RCCG Parish, but now just a Member at my current RCCG Parish.

I am a Prophet, I have my own ministry named New Nation Gospel Ministries International

Olaide Mudasiru

. Please take some time to intercede for Pastor Adeboye. As you pray, you will know exactly what to pray for about him.

Even Moses sometimes need a Joshua or an Aaron.

Shalom

Lukuluku69:
If it is the Will of Allah to turn me into a Blue Bird in His Jannah, so be it and since you have referenced a Green Bird, may His Will be done!

I am all for it.

Any other thing?

When there are too many spoken lies, the liar forgets his previous lies.

You seem not to realise that if it is true that you will become birds in paradise, then all the hoolabalu stories of what happens to a Muslim in his grave is a Funny Joke?



You forget that even Islamic prophets are in their Graves doing Salat!

SMH!

Come to Jesus, The truth will set you FREE

TenQ:
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.