₦airaland Forum

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

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.