₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
Of what use is a claimed study if it doesn't add to intelligence, understanding or true learning?

While Saim’s Qur’an knowledge was honored and trusted, he was not directly involved in the Abu Bakr compilation because he was martyred early in the Battle of Yamāmah, which was itself a trigger for the compilation process.

Then of what use was Prophet Muhammad pbuh having Zaid writing down the revelation when he was alive? Wasting time or having documented revelation for early Muslims to refer to and use in their memorization. Surely humans have different memorization capacities.

Take you refer to was in what context. Please tell if you know and understand?

You are the one trying to claim what is false where there isn't. You reference Bukhari 3810 and 4999 can you tell us which is false and why if you yourself are not a harbinger of falsehood that will never be accepted?

Please tell in honesty if Salim r.a was ever known as a scribe anywhere else rest your disingenuous talk about taking from him.

Salim is an oral recited not writter. You still marvel that the Quran was solely orally transmitted to the prophet pbuh. It seems unbelievable for this to be so you keep searching for ways to discredit it?

Was Salim directly asked to write anything in the lifetime of prophet Muhammad pbuh? Bring proof of this.

Was the death of those who had memorized the Quran at the battle of Yamamah not Yamaha bike please not what necessitated the compilation of the entire in a documented form? Salim r a led prayers and orally taught many the Quran before he died.

Salim was known for his reciting and memorization prowess but was now dead.

Zaid was known for his recording in writing and memorization prowess.

How could Abu Bakr have bypassed them when a majority of those who were taught by them made up the verification team? Can you not reason this correctly?

Differences between Ubay and Ibn Mashoods compilation were mainly due to their inclusion and removal of what they saw as supplications not the actual Quran.

honesttalk21:
I really ponder if your repeated arguments are sincerely for the establishment of truth or an obsession to win an argument based on irrational and primitive hatred for Islam.

honesttalk21:
Now you have referenced two hadiths of Bukhari with sole goal to create division where non exists.

You place emphasis on Salim may Allah be pleased with him who excellently memorized and recited the Quran. He was good at teaching the Quran without recourse to his writing ability or proficiency?

Salim may Allah be pleased with him is not mentioned in any authentic source as one of the scribes of revelation.

honesttalk21:
Zaid bin Thabbit may Allah be pleased with him had his strength in writing and compiling, but not public teaching.

AGAIN Zaid r.a was a scribe of revelation during the Prophet’s pbuh life, He compiled the Qur’an by verifying memorized verses and matching with written materials
Requiring two witnesses per verse

honesttalk21:
That you don't have specific hadith or literature stating these four key companions collectively had clearly defined roles in compiling the Qur'an doesn’t mean they weren’t involved in this crucial process. On the contrary, it’s only reasonable to think they had a significant indirect influence, drawing on their respected positions as memorizers and teachers of the Qur'an.

honesttalk21:
Zaid ibn Thabit, who was responsible for gathering the verses, took great care in comparing his remarkable memory with the written fragments and oral recitations from other companions. Additionally, while specific historical evidence showing Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Masʿūd’s direct participation in this compilation may not be readily available , it’s most likely they played an informal role in verifying and reaching consensus, given their deep understanding and experience with the text. So, the lack of clearly defined roles shouldn’t be seen as a diminishment of their impact and contributions to the transmission of the Qur'an.

CreativeOrbit:
Your reply is built on misinterpretation, selective citation, and deliberate theological distortion. Let’s address it point by point, clearly and honestly:

1. "According to Allah, who was given the land?"

Yes, the Qur’an acknowledges that Allah granted the Children of Israel the Holy Land in the past—as a conditional trust, not an eternal entitlement. That grant was contingent on righteousness, not ethnicity. Allah explicitly states:

> “And We said to the Children of Israel after him, ‘Dwell in the land, and when the final promise comes to pass, We will bring you forth in groups.’”
(Qur’an 17:104)

This verse is not an eternal land grant. It refers to a temporary dwelling followed by judgment. More importantly, the Qur’an never grants permanent possession of any land to any group unconditionally. Instead, Allah says:

> “That land is for those who fear standing before Me and fear My punishment.”
(Qur’an 26:63)

So to answer your question directly: Allah entrusts the land to the righteous, not to a race. And if those entrusted with it become corrupt, their claim is revoked—as happened repeatedly in the Qur’an itself with earlier nations, including the Children of Israel when they broke their covenants (Qur’an 5:13).

CreativeOrbit:
2. "Did Allah ever say He is withdrawing the land?"
Absolutely. The Qur’an mentions several times that the Children of Israel lost divine favor due to rebellion, arrogance, and corruption:
> “So for their breaking of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard…”
(Qur’an 5:13)
> “...and they were covered with humiliation and misery, and they drew upon themselves the wrath of Allah. That was because they disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly.”
(Qur’an 2:61)

So yes, divine favor and land grants were revoked—not by arbitrary decision, but by their own betrayal of divine commands. Just as other nations were destroyed or removed for injustice, so too were they. Islam teaches that no people are above divine law, not even Muslims.

CreativeOrbit:
3. "Should we not defend and protect the words of Allah?"
Exactly. Which is why we don’t distort Allah’s words into political slogans to justify apartheid and military occupation. Protecting the Qur’an means understanding it in full, not cherry-picking phrases to suit a geopolitical agenda.

CreativeOrbit:
4. "Your scholars call Jews pigs and monkeys."
This is a common misquote rooted in propaganda. The Qur’an never calls all Jews "pigs and monkeys"—that is a lie. It refers specifically to a particular transgressing group among the Children of Israel who violated the Sabbath. The verse says:
> “When they transgressed against the command of their Lord, We said to them: ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 7:166)
This was a punishment for a specific sinful act, not a racial or blanket condemnation. Islam does not teach hatred of Jews as a people. In fact, Jews lived safely for centuries under Islamic governance—in Medina under the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and later in Andalusian Spain and the Ottoman Empire, especially when Christian Europe was persecuting them.

You claim we should choose between “Allah and our scholars.” That’s a false dichotomy. Our scholars derive from the Qur’an and Sunnah. What we reject is fabricated narratives and hateful propaganda being disguised as religious inquiry.
In Conclusion:
According to Islam:
Land is not an eternal entitlement to any race.
The Qur’an condemns injustice and corruption, regardless of who commits it.
Jews are not cursed as a people—only specific wrongdoers were punished for specific sins.

Misrepresenting Qur’anic verses to promote Zionist occupation is not defending the words of Allah—it is betraying them.
Your attempt to use Islamic scripture as a defense for modern-day colonization and displacement is not only theologically shallow—it is intellectually dishonest. If you're serious about honoring Allah’s words, you must uphold justice, not political convenience.

honesttalk21:
Do you conveniently choose to forget or overlook that the meticulous method through which Zaid bin Thabbit collected and compiled the Quran into a mushaf included collecting written copies of parts of the Quran, confirmed by those who had memorized those portions of the Quran and publicly agreed to be true? Did these not include what was memorized and in documented form of the 4 ansars of which Zaid was one?

honesttalk21:
Prophet Muhammad pbuh had the Quran documented but did not keep these in one place. Perhaps if he did the enemies of Islam would have gone to destroy this as well as martyr those who had memorized the Quran.
Perhaps you can share evidence of this happening.

The compilations under Abu Bakr and Othman may Allah be pleased with them are based on these copies the prophet had documented.

honesttalk21:
Yes though I question your collected by Muhammad pbuh to understand it's full scope and meaning.

There is no sahih (authentic) narration from any Companion of the prophet Muhammad pbuh opposing the compilation or its content.

Even Ali ibn Abi Ṭalib, often misrepresented in weak or fabricated reports, never objected to the compiled Qur’an.

Classical scholars like ibn Hajar, Al Suyuti etc. confirm that consensus) was formed around the compilation of the Qur’an regarding its accuracy and authenticity.

honesttalk21:
Do you forget the hadith of Buhari you have severally quoted about the four to learn the Quran from? Please who headed the compilation and standardization committees under Abu Bakr and Uthman? What evidence do you have that the other 3 were not involved in verification?

Your remaining questions are tied to your rigid view of the non concise translation of Arabic to English.

I had responded to this earlier.

CreativeOrbit:
Your question assumes that the dispute over land between Jews and Arabs in Gaza has a purely theological resolution rooted in divine land grants. But this is a mischaracterization from both a historical and Islamic perspective.

In Islam, the concept of land ownership is not based on ethnic inheritance but on justice ('adl), stewardship (khilafah), and fulfillment of moral and legal responsibilities. The Qur'an does not endorse eternal political entitlement to any land based on race or lineage. Instead, land is entrusted to those who uphold justice, worship God, and do not spread corruption. Allah says:

> "The earth belongs to Allah; He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous."
(Qur’an 7:128)

This verse makes it clear that no group has a permanent, divine title deed to any land. It is not about being Jew, Arab, or otherwise—it is about moral and spiritual conduct. If any group violates justice and spreads oppression, their claim becomes void in the sight of God.

Furthermore, Islamic history records that Muslim rule over the Holy Land (including Gaza) came not through ethnic privilege but through the just governance of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), who was welcomed by many Christian and Jewish communities at the time due to the fairness of Islamic rule in contrast to previous Roman oppression.

The question also assumes that modern Israeli policies and occupation represent a continuation of biblical prophecy, which Islam categorically rejects. The Qur’an affirms that previous nations who broke their covenants with God lost their moral legitimacy:

> "And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land, and when the promise of the Hereafter comes to pass, We shall bring you forth in mixed crowds.’”
(Qur’an 17:104)

This verse does not grant an unconditional divine mandate. Rather, it is a temporary directive for a people under trial and subject to God's laws—much like other nations before them.

In conclusion, according to Islamic theology, no one has divine entitlement to land based on ethnicity. The land belongs to Allah and is a trust for those who uphold justice. The conflict in Gaza today is not about fulfilling divine prophecy but about confronting political oppression, illegal occupation, and humanitarian injustice—all of which Islam strongly condemns.

CreativeOrbit:
“Cry me a river”? That’s the depth of your argument? When you’re cornered by facts, you retreat into mockery and childish taunts, exposing exactly how bankrupt your position is. But let’s deal with your next laughable claim—the idea that “Allah gave the Holy Land to the children of Israel.” Let me educate you, since you clearly confuse divine scripture with colonial propaganda.

First, yes, Allah gave Bani Isra’il the land conditionally—when they were believers, when they obeyed, and when they upheld justice. The Qur’an is crystal clear:

> “And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land, but when the final promise comes, We will bring you forth in multitudes.’” [Qur’an 17:104]

That was then. Not a blank check for every oppressor with an Israeli flag in 2024. And when Bani Isra’il rebelled, murdered prophets, and corrupted the message, their favor was revoked. You ignore that because your theology is political—desperate to hijack Islam to justify apartheid.

Second, how dare you accuse a Muslim defending the oppressed of being “an enemy of Allah”? The real enemies of Allah are those who shed innocent blood, steal land, demolish homes, and claim it’s God's will. The Qur’an says:

> “Indeed, those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread corruption on Earth—their punishment is...” [Qur’an 5:33]
So remind me—who’s dropping bombs on refugee camps and justifying it with scripture? Not the Ummah.

Third, you Zionists love to cherry-pick scripture when it suits your theft. But the Qur’an never gave any divine right to occupiers who trample justice. You invoke Allah while supporting a regime that assassinates children and demolishes mosques? That’s not faith—it’s blasphemy wrapped in a stolen flag.

If defending Palestine and rejecting ethnic cleansing makes me an “enemy” in your eyes, then I wear it with honor—because I’d rather stand with the oppressed and die on truth than lick the boots of colonizers and call it scripture.

So go ahead, twist religion to justify your idol—the Zionist state. But remember: the land belongs to the righteous, not the tyrants. And history shows what Allah does to those who claim His name while committing crimes.

JimRohn:
First, your quoteentire approach reeks of willful ignorance mixed with a desperate attempt to rewrite history on your terms. You trot out selective hadiths and snippets without context, then act as if quoting them is some kind of knockout proof—when all you do is expose your shallow understanding.

Let me dismantle your weak assertions point-by-point:

1. Collection = assembly, yes. But assembly does NOT mean a final bound codex in the Prophet’s lifetime.
You are conflating the act of gathering revelations (memorized & written fragments) with the finished mushaf—something explicitly compiled after his death. Islamic sources confirm no single complete physical Quran existed under Muhammad ﷺ. Get that through your head.

JimRohn:
2. Yes, the Prophet ﷺ had scribes who wrote down verses on palm leaves, bones, parchments—but this was partial, scattered, and ongoing with revelation.
No official “book” existed. It was a patchwork, not a printed Bible-style codex.

JimRohn:
3. You claim Muhammad ﷺ rearranged the whole Quran? No reputable Islamic scholar supports this.
The hadith you cite (Sunan Abi Dawud 786) shows only that he instructed placement of verses as they came, not that he produced a final ordered book. Uthman’s statement refers to arranging surahs within a category, not a finished Quran manuscript.

JimRohn:
4. Regarding Aisha’s Quran “copy,” your evidence is laughably twisted.
Yes, she had portions memorized and written down, but nowhere does any authentic source say she had a complete, finalized physical mushaf. Your cited Bukhari 4993 shows her reciting and dictating, not possessing a “full, ordered book.” Stop reading what you want into texts.

JimRohn:
5. Your fantasy that Abu Bakr’s mushaf was an imperfect, error-ridden collection from faulty memories is a straw man.
The committee under Abu Bakr and later Uthman meticulously cross-checked memorization and written fragments—not guesswork or random copying from “thousands of minds.” Your ignorance of ijmāʿ and rigorous methods is glaring.

JimRohn:
6. You say “take the Quran from FOUR”—and then accuse Muslims of ignoring that?
The four canonical reciters (Qira’at) are variants accepted under scholarly supervision—not competitors vying for “one true text.” Your misunderstanding is obvious.

JimRohn:
7. Your insistence on a “perfect” identical physical mushaf under Muhammad ﷺ is historically false and dismisses overwhelming Muslim scholarly consensus.
There was no such codex. Your narrative reeks of Biblical projection and fails under scrutiny.

JimRohn:
Now, to your “questions”—answered in brutal brevity:

1. Aisha’s Quran incomplete?
Yes. Multiple reliable Islamic sources confirm she had fragments, memorized portions, not a final codex.

JimRohn:
2. Was Aisha’s Quran ordered as Muhammad’s?
No final order existed under Muhammad ﷺ. Order was standardized posthumously.

JimRohn:
3. Did Ubayy ibn Ka'b have a complete Quran?
No final codex. He was a respected reciter and scribe with memorized fragments.

JimRohn:
4. Was Abu Bakr’s Quran identical to Muhammad’s?
There was no “Muhammad’s Quran” codex to be identical with. Abu Bakr’s committee created the first official compilation.

JimRohn:
5. Was the Quran perfectly memorized by followers?
Memorization was exceptionally strong; thousands were hafiz. Any minor variant was corrected through rigorous verification.

JimRohn:
6. Why were the four reciters not used during Abu Bakr’s collection?
Because the official mushaf was based on collective memorization and written fragments, not dependent on any single individual reciter’s version.

If you want to debate Islamic history, come equipped with full context, not half-truths and your biased assumptions. Until then, keep parroting your broken narrative while the Islamic tradition stands tall—preserved, verified, and unmatched.

honesttalk21:
You should initially understand that in the context of Arabic language جَمْع القرآن jam‘ al-Qur’ān refers to either an oral gathering of all surahs in one’s memory and or textual compilation of the Qur’an into a single physical mushaf (codex).

Now different people including the companions of prophet Muhammad pbuh had memorized different portions of the Quran and or hard various parts in written form.

1. Prophet Muhammad pbuh recognised 4 persons for their various degrees of memorization, understanding and perhaps part documentation.

honesttalk21:
2. You obviously feign ignorance of the written mushaf publicly read to confirm its correctness amongst the public amongst those that had memorized it.

Zaid's compilation under Abu Bakr had to meet the criteria of
a) written evidence which necessitated that the verses had been written down during the Prophet’s lifetime.

honesttalk21:
b) Eyewitness testimony from at least two reliable witnesses to testify that each verse was recited by the Prophet pbuh and written in his presence during his lifetime.

This ensured both oral and written transmission authenticity.

honesttalk21:
c). Conformity with the recitation
The written verse had to match the recitation (ḥifẓ) of those known to have learned it from the Prophet.

Zayd himself was a memorizer, so he cross-verified with his own memorization as well as others.

honesttalk21:
d. No Verse was included solely by memory which was quite rigorous as there was no single written compilation of the entire Quran in just one book or place.

Even if Zayd or someone else had memorized a verse, he would not include it in the official Mushaf unless written evidence and two witnesses confirmed it.

honesttalk21:
3. Really now? However this is answered in my opening remarks here. Remember contextual translation of Arabic and other Semitic language.

honesttalk21:
4. Of course their memorization and whatever collections of the written Quran were validated and used. Was the compilation done in their absence or ignorance? Surely they were part of the committee though Zaid headed the team.

honesttalk21:
5. Did Prophet Muhammad pbuh keep a single all encompassing text of the Quran anywhere? Please validate this impression or claim of yours so it may best be answered.


Trust this precisely answers you? Regards.

JimRohn:
Now, to your “questions”—answered in brutal brevity:
1. Aisha’s Quran incomplete?
Yes. Multiple reliable Islamic sources confirm she had fragments, memorized portions, not a final codex.

JimRohn:
2. Was Aisha’s Quran ordered as Muhammad’s?
No final order existed under Muhammad ﷺ. Order was standardized posthumously.

JimRohn:
3. Did Ubayy ibn Ka'b have a complete Quran?
No final codex. He was a respected reciter and scribe with memorized fragments.

JimRohn:
4. Was Abu Bakr’s Quran identical to Muhammad’s?
There was no “Muhammad’s Quran” codex to be identical with. Abu Bakr’s committee created the first official compilation.

JimRohn:
5. Was the Quran perfectly memorized by followers?
Memorization was exceptionally strong; thousands were hafiz. Any minor variant was corrected through rigorous verification.

JimRohn:
6. Why were the four reciters not used during Abu Bakr’s collection?
Because the official mushaf was based on collective memorization and written fragments, not dependent on any single individual reciter’s version.

JimRohn:
If you want to debate Islamic history, come equipped with full context, not half-truths and your biased assumptions. Until then, keep parroting your broken narrative while the Islamic tradition stands tall—preserved, verified, and unmatched.

JimRohn:
First, your entire approach reeks of willful ignorance mixed with a desperate attempt to rewrite history on your terms. You trot out selective hadiths and snippets without context, then act as if quoting them is some kind of knockout proof—when all you do is expose your shallow understanding.

Let me dismantle your weak assertions point-by-point:

1. Collection = assembly, yes. But assembly does NOT mean a final bound codex in the Prophet’s lifetime.
You are conflating the act of gathering revelations (memorized & written fragments) with the finished mushaf—something explicitly compiled after his death. Islamic sources confirm no single complete physical Quran existed under Muhammad ﷺ. Get that through your head.

JimRohn:
2. Yes, the Prophet ﷺ had scribes who wrote down verses on palm leaves, bones, parchments—but this was partial, scattered, and ongoing with revelation.
No official “book” existed. It was a patchwork, not a printed Bible-style codex.

JimRohn:
3. You claim Muhammad ﷺ rearranged the whole Quran? No reputable Islamic scholar supports this.
The hadith you cite (Sunan Abi Dawud 786) shows only that he instructed placement of verses as they came, not that he produced a final ordered book. Uthman’s statement refers to arranging surahs within a category, not a finished Quran manuscript.

JimRohn:
4. Regarding Aisha’s Quran “copy,” your evidence is laughably twisted.
Yes, she had portions memorized and written down, but nowhere does any authentic source say she had a complete, finalized physical mushaf. Your cited Bukhari 4993 shows her reciting and dictating, not possessing a “full, ordered book.” Stop reading what you want into texts.

JimRohn:
5. Your fantasy that Abu Bakr’s mushaf was an imperfect, error-ridden collection from faulty memories is a straw man.
The committee under Abu Bakr and later Uthman meticulously cross-checked memorization and written fragments—not guesswork or random copying from “thousands of minds.” Your ignorance of ijmāʿ and rigorous methods is glaring.

JimRohn:
6. You say “take the Quran from FOUR”—and then accuse Muslims of ignoring that?
The four canonical reciters (Qira’at) are variants accepted under scholarly supervision—not competitors vying for “one true text.” Your misunderstanding is obvious.

JimRohn:
7. Your insistence on a “perfect” identical physical mushaf under Muhammad ﷺ is historically false and dismisses overwhelming Muslim scholarly consensus.
There was no such codex. Your narrative reeks of Biblical projection and fails under scrutiny.

CreativeOrbit:
Stop lying—your so-called ‘truth’ is just pathetic propaganda. You didn’t ‘show’ anything except your own delusions. ‘From the River to the Sea’ is nothing but a violent fantasy, and repeating it just proves you’re either a brainwashed soft touch or a malicious liar. Take your toxic rhetoric somewhere else—nobody’s buying it.

MaxInDHouse:
Pharisees also thought Jesus should support them after all they read the same set of books, worships in the same temple and calls the name of the same God but Jesus declared to them that they aren't worshiping his God.
Why?
Because they were doing what they feel like doing not what commanded them in the scriptures!

So Jesus didn't send us out to argue aimlessly rather we are to present the message of the good news of God's Kingdom! Matthew 10:7

This is like asking anyone who claims he or she is worshiping the true God to present the practical benefits of God's Kingdom among those doing God's will {Matthew 6:16-18} in absence of such fine works ọmọ such faith is dead! James 2:18-26

MaxInDHouse:
They are your brothers in ARGUMENTS!

Note that none of you is interested in the practical benefits of the words of your gods it's meaningless arguments of no use you're all worried about.

My own brothers don't believe in any religious books that's making no meaningful impact among the adherents of whatever we call the word of our God! Matthew 15:6

MaxInDHouse:
Because i told you the bitter truth shey?

Ọmọ whatever you call your book makes no sense to any neutral observer except adherents of your book prove what they are saying by ACTION! Matthew 7:21-23

Maximus692:
YES! Books are nothing but books it's only when it yields positive results which can't be found elsewhere except in the midst of it's adherents that we can all say God is the author.
As long as it doesn't yield any positivity in the midst of those adhering to it there is no reason to hold such a book with much seriousness.

Tell me what usefulness is the Bible if the book you call "God's word" can't be used to resolve disputes among those claiming they believe it's the word of their God?

Imagine Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and Ọ̀rúnmìlà are all alive today do you think they can all agree as messengers of the same God?
Let's say they disagree just as we know their books disagreed with one another do you think Muhammad can sit back and watch his followers fighting and killing themselves despite all what he taught them about LOVE and PEACE?

Ọmọ the same applies to all the others.

So it's the book that has successfully united it's adherents in LOVE and PEACE that i believe is the word of the true God whatever arguments you're having in the absence of such achievement is useless! 1Timothy 6:4

honesttalk21:
In the hadith you refer to collected means memorized

JimRohn:
Your entire post reeks of confusion, misplaced arrogance, and a desperate attempt to force your ignorance onto Islamic sources you neither understand nor respect. You hide behind demands for “direct answers” while failing to grasp the basic context of the questions you pose. You want short, direct answers? Fine. But don’t mistake brevity for weakness. Here’s your surgical dismantling:

1. Do I affirm that "collected" (جُمِعَ) means bound into one volume?
No. That’s your anachronistic fantasy, not Islamic reality. “Collected” meant memorized and compiled in hearts and fragments—not bound like a modern Bible.

JimRohn:
2a. Was it assembled in the Prophet’s ﷺ lifetime?
Yes, orally and partially in writing—not as a final bound volume.

JimRohn:
2b. Was there a written Qur'an of Muhammad ﷺ, partially assembled but not bound?
Yes. Written fragments existed under his supervision but were not yet finalized due to ongoing revelation.

JimRohn:
3. Who wrote the Qur'an—scribes or common Muslims?
Scribes. Official scribes like Zayd ibn Thabit—not random Muslims—wrote on the available materials under prophetic instruction.

JimRohn:
4. Did Aisha have a copy of the Qur’an?
Yes, fragments—not a fully compiled codex. Stop pretending one personal collection equals the official compilation.

JimRohn:
5a. Did the Prophet ﷺ do a full writing and rearrangement of the Qur’an?
No. He ordered the verses, not the final physical compilation.

JimRohn:
5b. Who completed the full writing and final arrangement?
Abu Bakr’s committee, headed by Zayd ibn Thabit, based on memorization and verified written records.

JimRohn:
6a. Why weren’t the four reciters used in Abu Bakr’s collection?
They were. The compilation was based on consensus, memory, and writing—any qualified Sahabi could contribute, including the reciters.

JimRohn:
6b. Why use materials and other sources if the reciters were alive?
To verify authenticity through multiple modes: memory, writing, and cross-confirmation. Unlike your Biblical chaos, we had a method.

JimRohn:
7. Why collect from memory, bark, and leaves if reciters were alive?
Because Islam isn’t built on blind trust in individuals. Verification was triple-sourced—unlike your fabricated canon from anonymous authors.
8. Why didn’t Abu Bakr just go to the three reciters?
Because Islam relies on community consensus and verification, not one man’s word. This is precisely why the Qur’an remains preserved.

JimRohn:
9. Does it make sense to re-collect if they had already collected?
Yes. Individual memorization ≠ official codex. The goal was unified, authenticated, preserved scripture—something you still lack.

JimRohn:
10a. Did the Prophet ﷺ complete the Qur’an and have a final copy?
No. He completed the revelation, not the posthumous codex.

JimRohn:
10b. Where is the Prophet’s final copy?
Nowhere—because it never existed as one bound volume under him. That task was done after his death, once revelation ceased.

JimRohn:
Now here’s what you don’t get:
You keep projecting your Biblical insecurities and your Church’s centuries of forged, lost, and mutilated manuscripts onto Islam. You think because your scripture was corrupted by scribes and councils, ours must have followed the same dysfunction. It didn’t.

Our Qur’an was memorized by thousands before it was bound.
Our compilation was systematic, peer-reviewed, and preserved through ijmāʿ (scholarly consensus)—not church politics.
And unlike your scattered manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.), every Muslim Qur’an today recites the exact same core text.
So next time, before demanding “yes or no” answers to questions rooted in faulty premises and historical ignorance, take a moment to study Islamic tradition through Islamic scholars—not anti-Islam blogs trying to win converts through distortion.
You said you’d give “more evidence”? Please do.

Just be ready to watch it collapse.

honesttalk21:
Well you may need to clarify what exactly you mean by the collected Quran of Muhammad pbuh. This is because it was revealed through him and memorized by many.


Then explain how what wasn't compiled into a single book could get lost.

CreativeOrbit:
Your attempt to shift the conversation from modern Israeli war crimes to cherry-picked eschatological hadiths reveals both desperation and ignorance. Let me respond to your deflection with the clarity and harshness it deserves.

1. Quoting Hadiths to Justify Zionist Colonialism? Pathetic.

You cite eschatological hadiths—about end-times scenarios—not normative Islamic commands for today. These hadiths are prophecies, not policies. They describe what will happen, not what Muslims are commanded to do now. There is a fundamental difference between descriptive prophecy and prescriptive ethics.

> Try again when you understand basic hermeneutics.

Meanwhile, what is prescriptive in Islam is the prohibition of oppression, the defense of the oppressed, and the right to resist tyranny. And if you’re seriously quoting hadith while supporting a regime that bombs hospitals and starves children, then congratulations—you’ve weaponized Islamic scripture to sanitize genocide.

2. “Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully before 1948”?

You're right—and that coexistence ended the moment Zionist militias began ethnically cleansing Palestine in 1947–48. It was Zionism, not Islam, that tore apart peaceful Jewish-Arab relations. The Nakba didn’t happen because of religion. It happened because armed settlers, backed by imperial powers, began forcibly displacing an indigenous population for the sake of creating an ethno-state.

> Nearly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled. Over 500 villages were destroyed. And you dare talk about “coexistence”?

3. Zionist Regime Expelled Jews from Gaza in 2005? Yes — Because It’s a Racist State.

The “ethnic Palestinian Jews” you claim were “forced out” of Gaza in 2005 were not natives. They were illegal settlers living on stolen land under military protection while Palestinians were caged in ghettos.

And who forced them out? The Israeli government—not Palestinians. Why? Because Israel wanted to consolidate control of the West Bank and maintain the siege on Gaza from the outside while pretending to "disengage."

> That wasn’t coexistence ending—it was Zionist strategy evolving.

If Israel expelled its own settlers, that’s not evidence of peace-loving Zionism—it’s evidence of manipulative statecraft using people as pawns in a larger colonial project.

4. Citing Hadith While Supporting an Apartheid State? Laughable.

If you're going to quote Islamic texts, then be consistent. Here’s a few principles you conveniently ignore:

“Do not kill women or children or the elderly or sick.”

“Do not destroy trees or crops or buildings.”

“Do not betray, mutilate, or act unjustly.”

These are prophetic commands to Muslims even in war. Yet Israel bombs entire families, flattens hospitals, blocks food and water, and then whines about resistance.

> Where’s your outrage for the babies burned alive in incubators because Israel cut electricity?

> Where’s your morality when white phosphorus rains down on UN shelters?

Your silence on those crimes makes your hadith quotes nothing but hollow hypocrisy.

5. Don’t Pretend You Care About Jews — You’re Just Using Them.

Let’s be clear: your concern isn’t for Jews. It’s for deflecting criticism from a colonial state that uses Jewish identity as a human shield. Israel doesn’t represent world Jewry—it represents a political ideology called Zionism. And many Jews—Orthodox, secular, even Holocaust survivors—oppose it.

You bring up hadiths as if Islam mandates genocide. Meanwhile, Israel is actually carrying out real-world genocide right now—live on camera, with American weapons, and your full-throated support.

6. Final Reality Check:

You think quoting hadiths will morally disarm Muslims?

You think we will ignore:

The starvation of 2 million people?

The slaughter of over 15,000 children in Gaza?

The theft of land, the bulldozing of homes, the arrests of teenagers, the shooting of journalists and medics?

> Islam does not teach pacifism in the face of oppression.
It teaches resistance, dignity, and justice.
And Palestine is the test of our moral clarity.

So no—we will not be distracted by your weak theological smokescreens.

Until Zionism ends, occupation ends, and the siege ends,

Resistance is not terrorism—it is the language of the besieged.

And quoting hadiths won’t save a regime whose hands drip with innocent blood.

Maximus692:
All these arguments about books or how books were collected or documented is useless.
There are different religions with their books and each will be ready to die for their books one thing all of us should be ready to pay rapt attention to is the outcome or result of the books.
Books can only make you people do the same thing and you will claim that is what your God who claimed to be the Creator says but how is your religion a blessing to adherents and mankind in general? Matthew 7:16-18

honesttalk21:
Keep recycling your fixations.

You should know that growth requires change, and change often requires unlearning.

You have learned improperly understood concepts in English language about Arabic word meaning despite the non exact translation. You choose a stiff unopen method like a scientist who goes to perform a test with a fixed product in mind. Tell, is this a truly scientific process?

You overblow what is the linguistic diversity in ahruf and qiraat without understanding the preservation of unity and minimising interpretation loss.

The variant reading you claim of Ibn Masud and perhaps Ubayy are dialectical not doctrinal. I bet you may waste time seeking to prove otherwise.

You often refer to the Quran as a document without appreciating the word really means recital/recitation who's beauty was only appreciated when recited.

CreativeOrbit:
Your selective outrage and loaded narrative betray either deep ignorance or willful dishonesty.

1. On October 7 – You refer to the events of that day without a shred of historical context. Israel has enforced a brutal, suffocating blockade on Gaza since 2007, turning it into the world’s largest open-air prison. It has subjected Palestinians to repeated massacres in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, and beyond—killing thousands of civilians, many of them women and children, long before October 7. If you're truly concerned about “innocent civilians,” start with decades of Israeli occupation, land theft, and war crimes.

2. Tunnels under mosques and hospitals? That’s the oldest Zionist propaganda trick in the book—accuse your victims of hiding among civilians, then bomb civilians anyway and shift blame to the resistance. Israel has bombed entire hospitals, UN schools, and refugee camps on live television—with or without tunnels. The “human shields” excuse is a coward’s justification for genocide. By your logic, any resistance against a technologically superior oppressor becomes illegitimate if it dares exist among the population it is trying to protect. That's immoral nonsense.

3. Hamas continues to fight from bunkers under civilian infrastructure—and Israel fights from F-16s, drones, and tanks provided by the U.S., killing tens of thousands, 70% of them women and children, leveling entire neighborhoods. Yet the burden of morality is placed only on the occupied, not the occupier. What moral code do you follow where the colonized must fight politely while the colonizer slaughters indiscriminately?

As for your question: "Please advise as Israel demands the dismantling of Hamas?"

Let’s be clear: Israel does not want just the dismantling of Hamas—it wants the erasure of all Palestinian resistance, political or militant, religious or secular. It demands silence and submission under occupation. If not Hamas, it would find another excuse. It bombed Gaza in 2008 before Hamas had full control, and it massacres Palestinians in the West Bank daily—where Hamas is not even present.

So here's the advice: stop preaching morality while defending apartheid. A state built on ethnic cleansing, expansionism, and collective punishment has no right to make moral demands. If Israel truly wants peace, let it start by ending its occupation, lifting the siege, and recognizing the humanity of the people it has brutalized for over 75 years.

Until then, resistance—armed or unarmed—is a right, not a crime.

Bigsam99:
Please name your sources for this long epistle.

The ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah that you mentioned, were they the first people on the land?

Prior to 1948, both Jews and Muslims in Palestine carried a Palestinian passport. That is the name of that country and it has a majority Muslim population. Prior to 1910, 95 percent of Jews in Palestine were Arab Jews. The demand for a Jewish state started with the influx of European Jews who had no business being on that land.

JimRohn:
Your entire reply rests on a foundation of shallow linguistic pedantry, selective hadith quoting, and a gross misreading of Islamic history, text transmission, and scholarly consensus. Let’s dissect your arguments clearly and expose the fatal flaws beneath your conclusions.

1. The Meaning of "Collected" (جُمِعَ)

You continue to obsess over the English word “collected” while completely ignoring Arabic semantics and context. In Sahih al-Bukhari 3810, the Arabic term جُمِعَ (jumiʿa) simply denotes memorization and recitation, as affirmed by virtually all major mufassirūn and muḥaddithūn — not the production of a finalized, official muṣḥaf (codex). This hadith does not claim that a fully bound, officially compiled, and universally verified Qur'an existed in book form during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. The companions memorized the Qur’an and wrote it on various materials under the Prophet’s supervision — but a state-issued muṣḥaf was not completed until after his death due to the ongoing nature of revelation.

Your forced interpretation is a textbook case of anachronism — importing modern concepts of “book publishing” into a 7th-century Arabian oral culture. You either do not understand the difference between ḥifẓ (memorization) and tadwīn (formal codification) or you are deliberately conflating them to create a false contradiction.

2. Did the Prophet ﷺ Oversee a Complete Rearrangement?

Yes, the Prophet ﷺ oversaw the order of verses and chapters, and he instructed scribes where to place revealed ayat — but he did not bind the Qur’an into one official volume. Why?

Because revelation was not complete until shortly before his death (Qur’an 5:3). Binding a complete Qur’an before the end of revelation would have been logically impossible. He could not finalize something that was still being revealed. That task — once revelation was complete — fell to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and then Uthman (رضي الله عنه), who standardized the dialectal readings (Qirāʾāt).

3. On Your Misuse of Bukhari 3810

This hadith simply states that four companions had memorized the Qur’an during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. It does not say they had written, verified, and compiled an official codex. You’re reading more into the hadith than the text allows. Again, the scholars of hadith — not Christian polemicists — determine how these texts are to be understood.

And your inconsistency is glaring: you quote Bukhari 3810 to prove that these four companions had “collected” the Qur’an, then shift to another narration to claim Ibn Mas‘ud was among them, when he isn't even mentioned in that hadith. You’re cherry-picking narrations and collapsing different reports to fit your predetermined conclusion. This is not serious scholarship, it’s agenda-driven distortion.

4. Why Zayd ibn Thabit and Not the Others?

Your entire argument collapses once we apply basic facts:

Zayd ibn Thabit was the Prophet’s personal scribe of revelation. He was young, literate, precise, and known for accuracy.

He was also present during the Prophet’s ﷺ final years, unlike Ibn Mas‘ud who was often on assignment outside Medina.

Abu Bakr’s committee did not exclude the others — the methodology required two written sources and confirmation by memory, not personal preference. Any companion could contribute, as long as the evidence was verified.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the entire Muslim community, including Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, later accepted Uthman’s standardized mushaf. If your conspiracy theory were true, why didn’t the Sahabah rebel or preserve a separate Qur'an? Simple: because the compilation was accurate and unanimously accepted.

5. Bark, Leaves, and Memories?

Again, you distort context. The Qur’an was preserved in writing, on available materials of the time: leather, bones, parchment. What you mock as "bark and leaves" were standard writing materials then — not signs of primitive error but evidence of rigorous preservation amid limited resources. And most importantly, the primary mode of preservation was oral, with thousands of memorizers ensuring redundancy and verification.

You act as though written records are the only reliable source, despite your own religion relying on oral traditions passed for decades before being written — many of which contain massive contradictions across manuscripts (see the Codex Sinaiticus vs. Vaticanus vs. Alexandrinus). So before you criticize the Islamic tradition, clean up the textual chaos in your own backyard.

6. Your Final “Dilemma” Is a False Dichotomy

> “If the Prophet compiled the Qur’an, where is it? If not, who completed it?”

The Prophet ﷺ did not bind the Qur’an into a single mushaf, because revelation was ongoing. After his death, the companions compiled it using a methodologically sound, verifiable, and peer-reviewed process, drawing from memorization, written fragments, and living witnesses.

There’s no dilemma — only your lack of understanding and forced misrepresentation.

Final Verdict

You’ve exposed not the flaws of the Qur’an’s compilation, but your own ignorance of Islamic scholarship, disregard for historical context, and selective dishonesty in quoting hadiths out of place.

Your claims:

Misdefine Arabic terms.

Ignore historical chronology.

Contradict the consensus of Islamic scholarship.

Rely on Christian-style suspicion and Western skepticism applied retroactively to early Muslim history.

Instead of making sarcastic jabs and mocking what you do not understand, try reading Islamic history through the lens of actual scholars, not polemical websites.

You can bring your “next claim” — just be warned: if it’s built on the same shoddy logic, selective hadith abuse, and historical anachronism, it’ll be dismantled just as easily.

Ready when you are.

FXtrader2025:
You are not trying to Establish any point you dont know what to say, Hypocrisy and double Standards is your Bread and Butter.

Can you tell me any Israel Leader Prio to 1948
Infact can you even point to anywhere on this Earth that bears the name Israel Prio to 1948?
Lets start from there

JimRohn:
Your entire reply is built on linguistic games, misrepresentation of Islamic history, and the assumption that disagreement equals contradiction. I will answer your questions directly and dismantle the faulty logic behind them.

1. On the Definition of “Collected” (جُمِعَ)

a. What historical evidence do you have for your definition?
The Arabic term jamaʿa has multiple contextual meanings: memorization, gathering scattered parts, and bringing together in recitation and writing. The hadith in Bukhari (3810) uses the term in reference to individuals who had memorized the Qur’an, not produced a physical, finalized book. This is confirmed by Imam al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and other classical scholars. You’re retrofitting modern Western assumptions about “books” onto 7th-century Arabia.

JimRohn:
b. Do you deny that memorizers could verify a written copy word-for-word?
No — I affirm it. That’s precisely what happened under Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه): memorizers verified what was written. Your error is assuming that the existence of memorizers means a complete, finalized codex existed in the Prophet’s ﷺ life. It didn’t — because revelation was ongoing until his death.

JimRohn:
2. The Argument About Rearrangement and Compilation

a. Why didn’t Abu Bakr reference a prior codex?
Because no official, finalized, bound codex existed during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. The Prophet oversaw writing and arrangement of verses — not a full, cover-to-cover codex. Abu Bakr’s compilation was the first to centralize scattered parchments and confirm them with multiple ḥuffāẓ after the Prophet’s passing. There was nothing “lost” — the effort was to preserve in one place what was already memorized and partially written.

JimRohn:
b. Why weren’t the Four Ansar mentioned in Abu Bakr’s compilation?
False premise. Zayd ibn Thabit was one of the four you just listed — and he was the lead compiler under Abu Bakr. Your question defeats itself. The other companions were not excluded; rather, the method of compilation relied on both memorization and written sources with verification — not arbitrary inclusion of names for show.

JimRohn:
c. Why recollect if the original collectors were alive?
Because a standardized, official codex had never been assembled. The Prophet’s ﷺ companions preserved the Qur’an in hearts and scattered materials. Abu Bakr ordered its formal compilation after the Prophet’s ﷺ death and major losses at Yamama. This was a necessary preservation step, not an act of “recovery” from loss.

JimRohn:
3. Your Original Questions

a. Was the Qur’an perfectly preserved if the Prophet’s codex was lost?
Strawman. There was no single finalized codex to be lost. Preservation occurred through memorization, scattered writing, and Prophetic supervision of order and recitation — all confirmed in the posthumous compilation. Therefore, nothing was lost.

JimRohn:
b. What happened to the “collected Qur’an” in the Prophet’s life?
You’re inventing something that didn’t exist. The Prophet ﷺ supervised verses, ordering, and recitation — not the binding of a final book. That was never his mission. Final compilation was unnecessary during ongoing revelation.

JimRohn:
c. Do you accept the Qur’an collected by the Prophet was lost?
False assumption again. There was no officially bound, state-sanctioned codex from the Prophet — only partial writings and total memorization. So there was no “book” to lose. Your entire argument crumbles because it’s based on an invented object.

JimRohn:
Final Word

You’ve built your argument on:
Linguistic manipulation of the word jamaʿa,
False assumptions about a "missing book" that never existed,
And complete ignorance of Islamic preservation methodology.
When you're ready to present your "second claim," make sure it doesn't rely on twisting Arabic, injecting fabricated histories, or projecting modern book publishing standards onto 7th-century Arabia.
I await your next claim — but bring evidence, not speculation.

FXtrader2025:
You are a Narcissist for Supporting Ukraine
Dont shift the Goalpost
If Ukraine is a Sovereign Nation and is free to Join NATO and do whatever it likes
Then Iran is a Sovereign Nation that can decide for itself whether to go Nuclear or not
Israel is an Apartheid State that promotes Jewish Supremacy.

Ukraine Can do whatever it likes right then why not Iran?

hamzeiy:
See question.....some pple just mumu sha.

FXtrader2025:
Is a an occupying Force
And the War didn’t start on Oct7 it started in 1948 when there was a Nakba,

Israel Displaced and Massacred the Palestinians from their Homes and moved them into an Open Air Prison in Gaza,

The same as the West Bank, Setller Mobs under the Protection of IOF set Fires to Palestinian Homes and Farms, The War started in 1948 not Oct 7.

The Palestinians Demands Freedom and Dignity they Demand their own Country according to the 1967 borders.

Israel cannot Demand anything as an Occupying Force.

Secondly You are a Narcissist because Ukraine Refused to stick to the Misnk Agreement with Russia
What is your Advice Since Ukraine is hell bent on Joining NATO and hosting its Military Machine right next to Russia’s door?
Yes Ukraine is a sovereign Nation and Russia has no Right to dictate right
Then why is Israel Dictating to Iran what to do?
If Nato is Good for Ukraine then Nuclear Weapons is a sovereign right of the Iranians isnt it?
If you check very well the Joke is on You

FXtrader2025:
Well you are also a narcissist and for supporting Israel killing Unarmed civilians and Bombing Hospitals on a Land smaller than Lagos state

JimRohn:
Your argument rests on a deliberate misrepresentation of Islamic sources, a misunderstanding of what “collection” meant in the historical context, and a false equivalence between oral preservation and the idea of a single “book” existing during the Prophet’s ﷺ lifetime. I will dismantle your claims point by point and challenge you to stop spreading misinformation cloaked in pseudo-scholarship.

1. Misuse of Hadith and Basic Terminological Confusion

You quote Sahih al-Bukhari 3810 and make the laughable leap to say: “The Qur’an was collected as a book in the Prophet’s lifetime and then mysteriously disappeared.”

Let me clarify what every educated Muslim and serious academic knows:

The term “collected” (جمَعَ) in this context refers to memorization and partial writing, not necessarily the compilation of an official single codex (muṣḥaf) like that of Abu Bakr or Uthman.

When Anas says the Qur’an was “collected by four,” it means they memorized it and wrote various parts, not that there was an official, unified physical book kept under lock and key and then “lost.”

If your entire argument hinges on twisting the Arabic term "jamʿa" to mean a bound book existed and then vanished, then you are engaging in pure linguistic dishonesty. Stop feigning textual expertise when you're clearly misrepresenting primary sources.

2. The Qur’an Was Never “Lost” — Stop Fabricating Lies

You ask:

> “If the original Qur’an collected in the Prophet’s time was lost, can we say the Qur’an was perfectly preserved?”

This is a false premise. There was no singular “book” officially compiled by the Prophet ﷺ himself as a final physical codex. Why? Because the revelation was ongoing until his death. How can you finalize a book when new verses were still being revealed?

What did exist during his life was:

Hundreds of ḥuffāẓ (memorizers) who knew the entire Qur’an by heart.

Written fragments under his supervision on parchment, bones, leaves, leather, and more — with scribes like Zayd ibn Thabit writing as he dictated.

Clear instruction from the Prophet ﷺ on the arrangement of verses and surahs.

So no, nothing was “lost.” The compilation under Abu Bakr was the first time the Qur’an was formally assembled into one codex, precisely because the Prophet had just passed away, and the need for a standardized volume became urgent. Uthman’s role was standardization, not recovery.

You are pushing a fabricated narrative that no reputable Islamic scholar or academic historian of early Islam accepts.

3. The Strawman You Construct Is Built on Ignorance

You imply:

> “Because a single book wasn’t carried forward from the Prophet’s time, the Qur’an is lost.”

That is a laughable standard. By that logic:

Can you produce a single book written and bound by Jesus himself?

Can you point to any New Testament manuscript written in Jesus’ time?

Can you prove that Jesus even instructed the writing of a scripture?

You can’t — because your religion is based on oral stories written decades after Jesus by anonymous authors. Meanwhile, the Qur’an is:

Mass-memorized from day one.

Written under prophetic supervision.

Codified within two years of the Prophet’s death.

Transmitted through thousands of parallel oral and manuscript chains with no break.

That’s preservation. Your texts don’t even meet that standard remotely.

4. Stop Spreading Falsehood

You’ve made three glaring errors:

1. Twisting the word “collected” to mean an official final book existed in the Prophet’s life — it didn’t.

2. Ignoring the fact that the entire Qur’an was memorized by hundreds during his lifetime and never lost.

3. Failing to show a single shred of credible evidence that any Qur’anic content was lost.

So here’s my counterchallenge:

Bring me a verifiable historical manuscript or documented oral tradition showing a Qur’anic verse or chapter that existed in the Prophet’s time but is missing today.

Demonstrate, from authentic Islamic sources, that the “book” supposedly compiled in the Prophet’s time was an official codex that was “lost.”

Until then, stop parroting missionary polemics and pretending they are evidence. You are not engaging in sincere inquiry — you are pushing falsehoods rooted in ignorance or willful distortion.

Final Thought:

Islamic scholarship is not threatened by scrutiny — but we do demand intellectual honesty and accurate use of sources. If your arguments require misquoting hadiths, twisting words, and hiding behind strawmen, then perhaps it's time to reflect on the weakness of your position.

I’m ready to continue this discussion — but on truth, not polemical fantasy.

a. If the Original Quran collected during the lifetime of Mohammed was LOST, can we say that the Quran was perfectly preserved?
Answer:
If the original quran collected during the lifetime of the prophet was lost, then there would be a problem to claim preservation BUT the Quran o Prophet Mohammed was NEVER lost because.......

b. Can you tell us what happened to this Quran collected in the Lifetime of Prophet Mohammed?
Answer:
The Quran of prophet Mohammed was with Aisha, evidence stated that it was under the bed of the prophet when he died.

c. Do you accept that this original Quran collected by Mohammed was lost?
Answer:
No, I do not accept that he original Quran collected by Mohammed is lost.