₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
Ehya, a lot of uninformed, misinformed mumbo jumbo?

What is the Quran? A recitation or printed book? Sorry its not the initial Torah handed down to Moses pbuh.

The root of the principle of the preservation of the Qur'an is not the written Mushaf, but rather oral transmission (hifz).

Do go figure and figure well.


I imagine this is your end post as your imaginary all compassing Quran you claim of prophet Muhammad pbuh never existed anywhere so you can never provide any proof of it.

Fable rouser

I knew that you would want to twist it by claiming that the Qur'an is a recitation.

Check my question again:
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

Let's say I know you Muslims better than you know yourselves!

Answer my Question Bro!

honesttalk21:
You will stop repeating or rephrasing your questions and seek out the answers yourself eventually.

Does Quran 2:106 not answer you?

You have been answered your second question before and are not blind to read it.

However the onus is on you to show a mushaf of the Quran compiled by prophet Muhammad pbuh in one unit existed.

It is you Muslims who says that the Quran is perfectly preserved word for word, letter for letter from Mohammed till now.

One way of verifying this is by asking the Question:
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?



If it is identical, then it becomes a major huddle crossed in verifying Muslim claims.

Islam hates scrutiny because a lot of what they claim is made-up!

honesttalk21:
Is there some coherence or cognitive dissonance problem somewhere that has missed appropriate attention?

It's shameful you first have a problem with prophet Muhammad pbuh a descendant of Abraham not from the Israelite line then now feign a problem with Zaid being the head of the compilation and standardization team?

You don't know that under Abu Bakr, Zayd ibn Thabit was the sole named compiler,with ʿUmar and Abu Bakr supervising and many companions verifying. that others were not named is your problem. That others were not named is your problem?

Can you please for the sake of similar scrutiny all the people that partook in the first and second council of Nicea meetings that directed the course of Christianity?

Under Uthman, a full committee of four is clearly documented in authentic hadith. Where did any of these people raise concerns about the compilation under Abu Bakr?

No early companion, whether of the Quraysh, the Ansar, or major Qur’an reciter criticized or pointed out any flaws in the compilation ordered by Abu Bakr ra. Please what qualifies you to question when you lack depth of understanding the actual arabic the Quran and hadith narratives were written in.

Sadly your colonialists who taught you English have boxed you in too tight for independent thinking outside the limits of some definition.

Then you misunderstand that the core of Quran preservation stems from oral reading, memorization and application of what is said in the Quran verses.

Ibn Mas'ud says when one of us learned ten verses, he did not go beyond them until he knew their meanings and acted upon them.”

Reported in Tafsir al‑Tabari 1:80; graded ṣaḥīḥ by Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir.

Please tell people that used Ubai's Quran in their prayers or you forgot to research that?

Was there no consensus involving Ubai himself on what were in his Mushaf?

Perhaps you should share what you have of Ubai's Mushaf to now be scrutinised to ascertain its true placement in the Quran.

Knowing that a lot of scholarship went into the collection of the Qur'an by Abubakar, Zaid, Umar etc.

1. Why was it that MUCH of what Ubayy recited was left out of the Qur'an?

Sahih al-Bukhari 5005
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
`Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Messenger and will not leave for anything whatever." But Allah said "None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar." Quran 2.106


So, I ask again:
2. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

AntiChristian:
There's no verse for Jesus or any of his disciples chasing their wives?

Everything erotic goes to Proverbs and Solomon!

And Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines!

At least, it is good that none of them went seducing the Wife of their Adopted son!

CreativeOrbit:
Your response reflects a selective reading of both the Qur’an and the Tafsir, mixed with the common mistake of projecting a modern political ideology onto ancient scripture. Let’s clarify the issues one by one:

1. “The Land was given to the Children of Israel!”

Yes, the Qur’an does acknowledge that the Children of Israel were granted a temporary possession of the land. But that grant was neither eternal nor unconditional. The Tafsirs you quoted—Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, and Ibn Abbas—are not saying what you're claiming.

Surah Al-Isra (17:104):

> “Dwell in the land, but when the final promise comes to pass, We will bring you forth in groups.”

The phrase “We will bring you forth” refers to the Day of Judgment, not to some political restoration or Zionist homeland. Even Ibn Kathir and Jalalayn affirm this refers to the Hereafter, not an earthly entitlement.

This verse is not a divine land deed, but part of a warning about resurrection and accountability.

And again, nowhere does the Qur’an say this land grant is forever or irrevocable. In fact, the opposite is true:

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

> “If you turn away, He will replace you with another people.”
(Qur’an 47:38)

So in Islamic theology, moral conduct, not lineage, is what determines divine favor—including land stewardship.

2. “Allah never said He withdrew the land!”

Wrong again. The Qur’an explicitly says Allah removed favor from the Children of Israel when they violated His covenant:

> “But because of their breach of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard…”
(Qur’an 5:13)

> “And humiliation and misery were stamped upon them, and they drew upon themselves the wrath of Allah.”
(Qur’an 2:61)

The Qur’an is clear: divine favor is revocable. Being the "Chosen People" is not a permanent status—it is conditional on obedience. This principle applies to all nations, including Muslims.

3. Tafsir of Surah Al-Fatiha (1:7) – “Those who earned Your anger are the Jews…”

This is a traditional interpretation found in Ibn Kathir and some Hadith, yes. But again, it refers to spiritual deviation, not a blanket curse on all Jews for all time.

Islam does not teach racial hatred. Jews lived safely under Muslim rule for centuries—in Medina, Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire—unlike in Christian Europe where they were persecuted and expelled.

Let’s also be honest: you’ve conveniently left out the many verses where Allah honors the Children of Israel:

> “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you over all nations.”
(Qur’an 2:47)

The Qur’an does not demonize Jews as a whole. It critiques specific behaviors, just like it critiques Muslim hypocrisy (see Qur’an 63:1–5).

4. “Monkeys and Pigs” – Who are they in the Qur’an?

This is another often-misused polemic.

Let’s clarify:

> “When they transgressed the Sabbath, We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 7:166)

> “And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the Sabbath, and We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 2:65)

> “Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry, and made of them apes and swine and slaves of false deities…”
(Qur’an 5:60)

These verses refer to specific historical groups who committed specific violations—in this case, Sabbath-breaking—and were punished symbolically or literally as a sign. Islamic scholars disagree whether this was a literal transformation or a metaphor for moral degeneration.

But here’s the key point: The Qur’an never says all Jews are monkeys or pigs. That is a slanderous misrepresentation.

Moreover, no verse in the Qur’an equates modern Jews with those transgressors. It is dishonest to stretch these verses into some racial or political blanket judgment.

5. Your Conclusion: “Allah gave the land forever to the Jews”

This is your theological projection, not the Qur’an's position.

Islam does not affirm eternal ethnic land grants. It affirms that:

Land belongs to Allah (Qur’an 7:128),

He gives it to whomever He wills, based on righteousness, not race,

And favor can be revoked.

To use these verses and Tafsirs as support for modern-day colonization, military occupation, and ethnic displacement is to twist divine scripture for political gain.

That is not faithfulness to Allah’s word. That is distortion.

In Summary:

The land grant to the Children of Israel was conditional and historical, not eternal.

Tafsir confirms the resurrection, not political return, is what is referenced in 17:104.

Punishments in the Qur’an target specific groups, not entire races.

Islam condemns injustice and corruption, regardless of the nation or people.

The Qur’an cannot be used as a Zionist manifesto—that’s an abuse of divine revelation.

If you sincerely want to understand the Qur’an, read it in full context—not just to score political points. Truth demands honesty, not selective citation.

Let’s engage with integrity, not propaganda.

Muslims and JWs are the only ones who elevate the words of their scholars above their God Allah and their prophet Mohammed.

It is amusing when presenting evidence from your own accepted sources is called propaganda!


Can you help out a friend of yours who says that the Quran is perfectly preserved word for word, letter for letter from Mohammed till now. He has been overwhelmed so much because what your scholars have told him is different from the EVIDENCES available.

https://www.nairaland.com/8448350/jimrohn-say-quran-perfectly-preserved

honesttalk21:
Oh! I now concentrated on him when you made serious reference to it not being taken from him ?

Reference not taken from HIM or references not taken from THEM?

See how Muslims tell lies to justify Islam?

honesttalk21:
Do you not have Salim in your response? Why include him obviously because you didn't consider he was dead at that time but forget yourself too often.

Ibn Mas'ud was most likely not in Madinah at the time as some reports place him in Iraq around the time. However, his personal codex not likely in written form was widely known and respected, and would have served as a reference.

You forgot so soon that I was the one who told you about the whereabouts of Salim and Ibn Mas'ud?
LOL!
Did you even know that the Quran was collected during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammed?
Did you even know that there was a difference between the four reciters and the four secretaries who collected the Quran for Mohammed?

You could have given an excuse for Salim who was dead at that time
BUT
There exist no conject excuse you can provide for Ubayy, Ibn Mas'ud and Mu'adh bin Jabal as they were all alive at the time


Unfortunately, Zaid worked alone in the collection of Abubakar's Quran!

honesttalk21:
Ubayy ibn Kab recognised among the top Qur’anic authorities was one of the Prophet’s scribes and reciters. He was not formally recognised as a committee member, he surely will have been consulted both directly and indirectly.

His compilation included supplications not agreed to be part of the Quran for failing to meet the thorough requirements in the compilation.

Muʿadh ibn Jabal known more for his juristic and Qur’anic knowledge, particularly in Yemen was not physically present in Madinah when the compilation began as he was a governor in Yemen.

Now you make reference to a complete mushaf of the Quran that Aisha ra wasn't aware of and didn't mention to her father Abu Bakr? Really now? What lengths will you go to to spew untruths?

If there was a single all encompassing Mushaf why then were all bits of written Quran sought out on different writing material? Don't ignore the recheck among those who had memorized those parts of the Quran?

How futile and false your argument prepositions?

You too have woken up and now confirmed that none of the FOUR best reciters recommended by Mohammed did not participate in the collection of the Quran of Abubakar.

Any two of them according to the law of witness in Islam would have been sufficient.

honesttalk21:
For the rest of your post did Zaid depend on solely the memory of the memorizers or had to have written back up?

He wasn't the sole scribe and surely could not have found all written bits by himself without people working with him? Were Abu Bakr and Umar not well versed in the Quran too?

Neither Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Abdullah ibn Masʿud, nor ʿAli ibn Abi Ṭalib rejected the compilation done by Zaid? It was also not rejected by the larger public.

Ubayy couldn't have accepted the compilation of Abubakar because much of what he recited was left out of the Quran.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5005
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
`Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Messenger and will not leave for anything whatever." But Allah said "None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar." Quran 2.106

1. Is it UNTRUE that even though, Ubayy was the BEST of the four reciters recommended by Mohammed yet MUCH of what he recited was EDITED out of the Quran of Abubakar!?

So, I ask again:
2. Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

JimRohn:
Your repeated comments reflect a pattern of provocation, relying on inflammatory rhetoric and intentional misrepresentation of facts.

Such an approach undermines the spirit of honest and respectful interfaith dialogue.

For this reason, I have chosen to disengage from further responses to your remarks until a more sincere and constructive tone is adopted.

Fleeing from scrutiny!?
Just tell me that you were overwhelmed by EVIDENCES contrary to your Standard Islamic Narrative! LOL!

No problem;
Islam CANNOT withstand scrutiny because like in a court of Law, things based on lies scatters with provided EVIDENCES and Questions which reveals LIES repeated over and over again!

By the way, I haven't even gone beyond my FIRST CLAIM that the Qur'an of Mohammed somehow magically disappeared


Too bad:
You are AFRAID that I will use your Islamic Literatures to puncture holes in the Standard Islamic Narrative!



And this is just the first point out of many!
SMH!

You probably were not told that the Qur'an was collected in the lifetime of your prophet!


I am waiting if you feel that I speak unjustified claims!


So, I ask again:
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

I can attest to it that the church is a good one. They are mostly in northern Nigeria.
1. Doctrinally safe and Balanced
2. Their mission into the interior villages is top notch.
3. Strong emphasis on Bible Studies
4. Disciplined on the average. Few reports of Pastors dating or impregnating church members and so with members

However, this I think is their problem.
1. They have left their emphasis on personal evangelism as they would rather do it with every other thing

Dear Mr JimRohn and Mr honesttalk21
I have two hadiths for you: Remember, we are scrutinising the claim of perfect preservation of the Qur'an AND the first evidence I browse that the Qur'an of Mohammed was LOST



1. Sahih al-Bukhari 5004
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

When the Prophet (ﷺ) died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons;: Abu Ad-Darda'. Mu`adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring.
What does the phrase underlined mean in the light of collection of the Qur'an: couldn't mean that these four had their own written Qur'an?


2. Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3954
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
"We were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) collecting the Qur'an on pieces of cloth, so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Tuba is for Ash-Sham.' So we said: 'Why is that O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'Because the angels of Ar-Rahman spread their wings over it.'"

It seems that the method by which these collectors of the Qur'an did their job was by writing the collected Qur'an on pieces of cloth:
Can you tell us why Zaid never mentioned clothes as part of the medium from which they collected the Qur'an from? They mentioned, leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men

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.

1. I don't know why you concentrated on Salim. He was dead anyways and thus couldn't have been part of Abubakar's collection of the Qur'an. Check again, I never said that Salim was a scribe ANYWHERE: he was one of the four from which you Muslims were supposed to take the Qur'an.

2. You asked:
Then of what use was Prophet Muhammad pbuh having Zaid writing down the revelation when he was alive?
I guess you should answer your question because, NOONE could locate the Qur'an COLLECTED by the four secretaries of Mohammed.
3. You said:
The 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.
So, you were aware of the differences of the Qur'an of Ubayy and Ibn Masud with the Qur'an of Abubakar. And are you aware that they refused to allow Abubakar destroy their own Qur'an!
Then, they were definitely NOT part of the committee. Except, you can proof with evidence that they were members of Zaid's committee. But I cannot find a single lame evidence of this. In fact, the evidence points to the fact that for the Qur'an of Abubakar, Zaid worked alone however, for the Qur'an of Uthman, Zaid had members of a committee working with him.


Evidence that Zaid worked alone in the collection of Zaid's Qur'an
Sahih al-Bukhari 7191
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me owing to the large number of casualties in the battle of Al-Yamama, while `Umar was sitting with him.......' I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) did not do?' `Umar said, By Allah, it is something beneficial.' `Umar kept on pressing me for that till Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chest of `Umar and I had in that matter, the same opinion as `Umar had." Abu Bakr then said to me (Zaid), "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). So you should search for the fragmentary scripts of the Qur'an and collect it (in one Book)." Zaid further said: ..... Zaid added: So he (Abu Bakr) kept on pressing me for that until Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I had in that matter, the same opinion as theirs. So I started compiling the Qur'an by collecting it from the leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men (who had memorized the Qur'an). I found the last verses of Sirat-at-Tauba: ("Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves--' (9.128-129) ) from Khuza`ima or Abi Khuza`ima and I added to it the rest of the Sura. The manuscripts of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him. Then it remained with `Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Hafsa bint `Umar.

The whole collection drama was between Abubakar, Umar and Zaid. By Uthmans time however, they had a team or committee!






I ask this question again!
Knowing that a tremendous amount of scholarship was given by Zaid in the collection of Abubakar's Qur'an,
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

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.

My objective is to show you that under scrutiny, the Standard Islamic Narrative is totally FALSE based on the evidences from Islamic Sources!

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.

Salim was one of the four reciters and NOT one of the four collectors/secretaries who collected the Qur'an for Mohammed.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4999
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.' "

He died at the Battle of Yamaha!

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

Did Mohammed ask you to take the Qur'an from Zaid Ibn Thabit?

If not, why did Muslim Abubakar bypass them for Zaid?

Any two of the four would have authenticated the Qur'an as per the requirements of Islam.

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.

Did I not give you my reasons why they couldn't be part of Zaid's collection!?

The Mushaf of both Ubayy and Ibn Masud were different from the Mushaf of Zaid AND they refused to allow Abubakar burn their Qur'an for Zaid's version. Salim died and Mu’adh was in Yemen during much of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and died shortly after.

What is your own evidence?

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.

So, I ask again:
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar (by recitation) IDENTICAL with the Qur'an (by recitation) COLLECTED by Mohammed?

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).

The Land was given to the Children of Israel!

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.

Let me help you with some Tafsirs to enlighten you . Interestingly, they seem to be unanimous about its relation to the end times. Allah never said that he is withdrawing the land!

Quran 17.104 Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
(And We said unto the Children of Israel after him) after his destruction: (Dwell in the land) the land of Jordan and Palestine; (but when the promise of the Hereafter) when resurrection after death; and it is also said that this means: when Jesus son of Mary descends (cometh to pass we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.)

Quran 17.104 Jalal - Al-Jalalayn
And after him We said to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter, namely, the Hour, comes to pass, We shall bring you [gathered] in mixed company’, all together, you and them .

Quran 17.101-104 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
(thus We caused the Children of Israel to inherit them. ) (26:59). Here Allah says:
(And We said to the Children of Israel after him: "Dwell in the land, then, when the final and the last promise comes near, We shall bring you altogether as mixed crowd.'') meaning, all of you, you and your enemies. Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak said, "It means all together.''

So, you can see that the promise of Allah for the Jews to dwell in the land is till the end time!

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.

Allah says he has given them the land and he would gather them together with their enemies at the last days!

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.

Tafsir Quran 1.7 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
....(Not (the way) of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray) meaning guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom you have bestowed Your grace, that is, the people of guidance, sincerity and obedience to Allah and His Messengers. They are the people who adhere to Allah's commandments and refrain from committing what He has prohibited. But, help us to avoid the path of those whom Allah is angry with, whose intentions are corrupt, who know the truth, yet deviate from it. Also, help us avoid the path of those who were led astray, who lost the true knowledge and, as a result, are wandering in misguidance, unable to find the correct path. Allah asserted that the two paths He described here are both misguided when He repeated the negation `not'. These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why `anger' descended upon the Jews, while being described as `led astray' is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from its proper resources.
This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews,
(Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60).
The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them,

(Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path) (5:77).
There are several Hadiths and reports from the Salaf on this subject. .....
(Those who have earned the anger are the Jews and those who are led astray are the Christians.)''
This Hadith was also collected by At-Tirmidhi who said that it is Hasan Gharib.
...... (The way of those upon whom you have bestowed Your grace), when He mentioned His favor. On mentioning anger, Allah said,
(Not (that) of those who earned Your anger), without mentioning the subject, although it is He Who has sent down the anger on them, just as Allah stated in another Ayah,

(Have you (O Muhammad ) not seen those (hypocrites) who take as friends a people upon whom is the wrath of Allah (i.e. Jews)) (58:14).
Also, Allah relates the misguidance of those who indulged in it, although they were justly misguided according to Allah's appointed destiny. For instance, Allah said, (He whom Allah guides, he is the rightly-guided; but he whom He sends astray, for him you will find no Wali (guiding friend) to lead him (to the right path)) (18:17)....
....... (The Jews have never envied you more than for your saying the Salam (Islamic greeting) and for saying Amin.)


I guess you can explain the Quran 7:166 , Quran 2:65, Quran 4:163–16 and Quran 5:60
Who are the Monkeys and Pigs according to the Quran?
Who were those enjoined to keep the Sabbath?

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?

List of the best four Reciters of the Quran
1. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud,
2. Ubayy bin Ka'b,
3. Mu'adh bin Jabal, and
4. Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah
List of Secretaries who collected the Quran for Mohammed
1. Ubai,
2. Mu`adh bin Jabal,
3. Abu Zaid and
4. Zaid bin Thabit

The problem is that
1. You Muslims were not asked to take your Quran from Zaid bin Thabit. Were you?
2. There is no shred of evidence that Zaid bin Thabit used anyone of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, and Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah in his collection for Abubakar.

Zaid bin Thabit was NOT one of the Reciters but a Secretary who was the only one among those who even collected the Quran for Mohammed!

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.

1. Can you give me any evidence to show that Mohammed did NOT keep the collected/assembled Quran in one place?
I suspect that he kept the Quran with Aisha!
2. Does it make sense that this same enemies couldn't destroy the Quran of Abubakar kept with Hafsa but they can get through to Mohammed and destroy the Quran?
3. You seem to forget that several people kept their own copy of the Quran? eg Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy bin Ka'b and even Aisha wife of Mohammed!

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.

So, Was the Qur'an of Abubakar IDENTICAL with the Qur'an COLLECTED by Mohammed?

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.

Evidences that the best reciters were not part of the committee of Zaid
1. Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah died during the Battle of Yamama
2. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had his own mushaf different from that of Zaid and he refused to give up his Quran for destruction by Abubakar (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3104)
3. Ubayy bin Ka'b had his own mushaf different from that of Zaid by having 116 chapters (Ibn Abi Shaybah 10:528)
4. Mu’adh was in Yemen during much of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and died shortly after (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 3:584)

So, now give me your own evidences that any of the best reciters was part of the collection of the Quran by Abubakar!

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.

I asked
According to Allah, who was given the disputed land between the Jews and the Arabs of Gaza?

Did Allah anytime say he is withdrawing the land from the children of Israel?

Should we not defend and protect the words of Allah? Unfortunately, the consensus of your scholars is that the Jews are the Cursed ones...the Pig...the Monkeys: every name Allah did not call the Jews.

Choose between Allah and your scholars!

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.

So, according to Allah, who was given the disputed land between the Jews and the Arabs of Gaza?

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.

You are not getting me. I am going with you, the Qur'an was NOT bounded as a BOOK!
However,
Do you DENY the fact that the Qur'an was ASSEMBLED during the lifetime of your prophet by four secretaries?

Even if we accept that part of the assembly ofnthe Quran involved some writing in parchments, leaves, bark of trees and memories of these four secretaries.

Where were these ASSEMBLED Quran during the second COLLECTION or ASSEMBLY by Abubakar and Uthman?

Why was Mohammed's Assemblage untrustworthy with both Abubakar and Uthman.

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.

Let me go with you.
However,
These "patchworks" were ASSEMBLED but not bound in a book during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad.

Is this untrue?

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.

You seem to be arguing within semantics!

Scholarly Consensus
Ibn Taymiyyah (Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā) states:
"The order of the surahs is from the Prophet (ﷺ), as he arranged them in the recited form."
Al-Zarkashi (Al-Burhān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān) writes
"The arrangement of the surahs was done by the Prophet (ﷺ) by the command of Allah."

Mohammed did that From the first verse of Qur'an chapter one to the last verse of Qur'an 114.


Conclusion
Yes, the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) **physically arranged the Qur'an’s surahs, but he did so only as instructed by Allah**, not by his own choice. This is why Muslims believe the Qur'an’s order is divinely preserved, not a later human compilation.

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.

I asked for EVIDENCE that she only had Partial copy of the Qur'an.

I presented you with my own evidence from Sahih al-Bukhari 4993
Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an"
She said, "Why?" He said,
"In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it

A. Can the orders of the verses of the Qur'an be made from an incomplete Qur'an?
B. Did Aisha bring out her copy of the Qur'an?
C. What verses and chapters were missing from Aisha's Qur'an with evidence?

Talk is cheap sir!

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.

I ask again,
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar IDENTICAL to the Qur'an ASSEMBLED by Mohammed?

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.

You should be more knowledgeable on this unfortunately, it seems you are not

A. Qira'at are styles of recitation and they do not change the Ahruf of the Qur'an.
B. How many Quran did Mohammed ASSEMBLE during his life time? Was it ONE or SEVEN or 36?

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.

Mohammed received the Qur'an in SEVEN dialects (Ahruf)
1. How many Qur'an did Mohammed assemble?
2. I guess you didn't understand my question:
Was the Final Copy of Abubakar's Qur'an identical in RECITATION with the Final RECITATION of the Assembled Qur'an of Mohammed or are they DIFFERENT?

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.

Until you show evidence that her Qur'an was missing specific verses or chapters.
I am waiting!

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

Are you saying that Mohammed did not arrange the verses differently from the order of recitation and Abubakar unilaterally did it?

If Aisha used her copy to correct the order of recitation of others, would you say Aisha's Qur'an was not in the order of Mohammed's final Qur'an recitals?

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

Why do islamic scholars say that Ubayy ibn Ka'b has his Qur'an which was 116 chapters instead of 114 chapters.

Why must you speak untruth to defend Islam?

Sunan Ibn Majah 154
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that:
The Messenger of Allah said: The most merciful of my Ummah towards my Ummah is Abu Bakr; the one who adheres most sternly to the religion of Allah is 'Umar; the most sincere of them in shyness and modesty is 'Uthman; the best judge is 'Ali bin Abu Talib; the best in reciting the Book of Allah is Ubayy bin Ka'b; the most knowledgeable of what is lawful and unlawful is Mu'adh bin Jabal; and the most knowledgeable of the rules of inheritance (Fara'id) is Zaid bin Thabit. And every nation has a trustworthy guardian, and the trustworthy guardian of this Ummah is Abu 'Ubaidah bin Jarrah."

If according to you, the best reciter of your Qur'an memorised fragments of the quran , woe betide what you consider as the Qur'an!

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.

It's a simple question.
Was the final assembly of the Qur'an of Mohammed by recitation identical with the Qur'an of Abubakar by recitation or they are slightly different?

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

You just said that even Ubayy ibn Ka'b the best of the reciters had a partial memorisation.
Do you change your mind?

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.

This is against your prophets injunction: take your Qur'an from FOUR, not take your Qur'an from EVERYONE!

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.

Mohammed said take the Qur'an from FOUR: but what you are saying is that these four memorised the Qur'an in degrees!?

I assume that these four each completely memorised the Qur'an and could accurately teach it to other.

I guess, In was wrong and you are correct .

My argument is WHY the COLLECTED Qur'an written and memorised were NOT used either by Abubakar and Uthman.

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.

My argument states:
Why were these collections of Mohammed not used by Abubakar and Uthman.

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.

We can easily test this by a single question:
Was the Qur'an of Abubakar IDENTICAL with the Qur'an COLLECTED by Mohammed?

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.

I agree that Zayd may have memorised a large chunk of the Qur'an But Zayd wasn't recommended nor recognised by the original recipient of the Qur'an prophet Mohammed.

Why were BOTH the four best reciters and the four collectors of the Qur'an rejected for a fresh collection of the Qur'an by Abubakar and Uthman?

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.

I am sure that the four reciters and the four collectors were more than enough evidence for the re-collection of the Qur'an.

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

My question was
Please check your dictionary for the arabic word collecte and tell me what it means?
If collection means memorised!

Can we apply the definition of collection according to Mohammed to collection according to Abubakar and collection according to Uthman.

If we do, then there is no conclusive proof that Abubakar or Uthman completely wrote the Qur'an. The rest may be in memory of others.

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.

But do you agree that they could simply have gone to the COLLECTED Qur'an of Mohammed instead of starting afresh pretending that the Qur'an was never collected during the lifetime of your prophet.

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.

Your prophet COLLECTED the Qur'an in his lifetime using four men!
Did they write down the Qur'an or not?

If they did, then Mohammed had a single copy of the Qur'an.

You will discover that you cannot define the word COLLECTED without it causing problems for you

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.

Give me EVIDENCE that Aisha's Qur'an was incomplete. I have shown you my own evidence from Sahih al-Bukhari 4993

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

Give me evidence as Sahih al-Bukhari 4993 says otherwise. Aisha's Qur'an was identical in order as that of Mohammed

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

Is it untrue that in addition to Aisha's Qur'an, that
-Ubayy Ibn Ka'b had his own complete Qur'an.
-Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, also had his own complete Qur'an

Is it untrue that among Muslim scholars, there is an argument that Ubayy's Qur'an had 116 chapters instead of 114 chapters?

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib was reportedly arranged according to the order of revelation, starting with “Iqra’”

If many people had their own Qur'an during the time of Mohammed, how much more Mohammed himself?

Sahih Muslim 1869 b
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to forbid that one should travel to the land of the enemy taking the Qur'an (with him) lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy.

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.

You are being evasive. I asked if Abubakar's Quran was IDENTICAL to the Qur'an COLLECTED by Mohammed. Except if your argument was that Mohammed never collected the Qur'an.

So, again:
Based on the scholarship exerted by Abubakar,
Was Abubakar's Quran IDENTICAL to the Qur'an COLLECTED by Mohammed?

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

Are you aware that
1. Mohammed forgot parts of the Qur'an
Sahih al-Bukhari 5038
Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Messenger heard a man reciting the Qur'an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget."

2. Allah caused the Muslims of Mohammed's time forget the Qur'an
Sahih al-Bukhari 5039
Narrated `Abdullah:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Why does anyone of the people say, 'I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur'an)?' He, in fact, is caused (by Allah) to forget."

There goes perfect memorisation when Allah himself caused Muslims to forget the Qur'an!

If the memorisation isn't perfect, tell me how the written piece can be perfect?

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.

Using your redefinition of COLLECTION these four plus what they wrote down on leaves, wood bark. Leather is the Qur'an of Mohammed!

Abubakar did NOT use this Qur'an:
The same Qur'an that was painstakingly collected by Mohammed was IGNORED by Abubakar. We can categorically say that the Qur'an of Mohammed was LOST as it was NEVER used even once either by Abubakar or Uthman!

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.

All you are saying is that ,
You want me to go along with your standard Islamic Narrative which is exactly the opposite I am doing. I am going along with your historical sources in the Hadith and earliest Sirah!

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.

I am agreeing with your definition that collection doesn't mean bound (as a book) but assembly of writings from palm fronts, bark of trees, parchments etc

My argument was that these assembled Qur'an of Mohammed was NOT used by Abubakar. He did not even use the memory of the four people recommended by Mohammed.

So, WHERE was this assembled Quran of Mohammed?

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.

The problem is that these ASSEMBLED but not bound Quran of Mohammed was nowhere to be found as of the time of Abubakar's Qur'an collection as he started afresh not relying on Mohammed's secretaries.

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.

You deny the fact that Mohammed rearranged the whole Qur'an!?
If he did NOT, tell us who completed the rearrangement of the Qur'an?

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.

You did NOT answer my question:
Furnish me with evidence that Aisha's Qur'an was a partial Qur'an because according to my own evidence, Aisha's Qur'an was complete as she used into correct the order of other people's Qur'an

Again:
Sahih al-Bukhari 4993
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:
While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" `Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." `Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: 'Do not drink alcoholic drinks.' people would have said, 'We will never leave alcoholic drinks,' and if there had been revealed, 'Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, 'they would have said, 'We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.' While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: 'Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.' (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him." Then `Aisha took out the copy of the Qur'an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order) .

It takes a complete Qur'an to arrange the Qur'an properly.

So, give me your evidence that Aisha's Qur'an was incomplete.

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.

This was why I said earlier that you Muslims believe more in the consensus of your scholars rather than Allah or Mohammed.

Mohammed said:
Take the Qur'an from FOUR
Your Scholars said:
No, don't take the Qur'an from the four. Take the Qur'an from EVERYONE.

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.

1. Muslims with fabrications! Can you give me EVIDENCE that the FOUR reciters had variant Qira'at
2. If your definition of Qira'at is correct, then it is an obvious proof of corruption of the Qur'an from inception.

Correct me if I am wrong.
A. Ahruf= Dialects of Arabic
B. Qira'at=Style of recitation.
My argument:
Styles of recitation must not change the dialect of transmission and the four reciters were Ansars guaranteeing that they have the same Ahruf.

I am sure Jibril revealed the Qur'an in 7 Ahruf and 1 Qira'at isn't it?

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.

The Muslim scholars consensus is faulty when compared with the EVIDENCES aground. This is the reason I go with the evidence and not the CONSENSUS of Muslim Scholars else, I would be a Muslim just like you.

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.

Cry me a river.

Are you denying that Allah gave the Holy land to the children of Israel


You are an enemy of Allah!

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

Same Deity: different shades!






Don't derail this thread!

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

Boo hoo!


Same Deity: different shades!

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

It's okay. Don't detail my thread. I have not come to your door step. Except, you want to defend your fellow brother in Allah on hot seat!

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

I hear you!
No Difference between you and them!

honesttalk21:
In the hadith you refer to collected means memorized

1. So, only four men memorise the Quran amongst the followers of Mohammed!?
2. DO you also agree, using your definition of collected that the Quran was also memorised (not written)during the time of Abubakar and Uthman!?
3,. Please check your dictionary for the arabic word collecte and tell me what it means?
If collection means memorised
4. Why was this Quran by these four men NOT used during the second collection of the Quran by Abubakar?
5. Who kept the collected version of this Mohammed's collected Quran or did Mohammed have a copy of the collected Quran?

Firstly, I see that the definition of the word COLLECTED has to change to fit the Standard Islamic narrative!
That you supply no evidence to negate my claim: all you did was to repeat the standard Islamic narrative as if that will erase the issues raised.

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.

Collection is memorisation and not bound as a single volume!?
Is collection an assembly of things even if the collection wasn't bound literally as a book?

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

So, the prophet of Islam did not have secretaries who wrote the Quran for him!?

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.

But Mohammed re-arranged the WHOLE Quran before his death: are you denying that?

Sunan Abi Dawud 786
Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:
Yazid al-Farisi said: I heard Ibn Abbas say: I asked Uthman ibn Affan: What moved you to put the (Surah) al-Bara'ah which belongs to the mi'in (surahs) (containing one hundred verses) and the (Surah) al-Anfal which belongs to the mathani (Surahs) in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal (the first long surah or chapters of the Qur'an), and you did not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" between them?
Uthman replied: When the verses of the Qur'an were revealed to the Prophet (ﷺ), he called someone to write them down for him and said to him: Put this verse in the surah in which such and such has been mentioned; and when one or two verses were revealed, he used to say similarly (regarding them). (Surah) al-Anfal is the first surah that was revealed at Medina, and (Surah) al-Bara'ah was revealed last in the Qur'an, and its contents were similar to those of al-Anfal. I, therefore, thought that it was a part of al-Anfal. Hence I put them in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal (the seven lengthy surahs), and I did not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" between them.

Is this not an evidence that ALL the Quran were written even before memorisation?
Where were the written verses as Mohammed did this till he completed the Quran!

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.

So, they wrote the Quran on leaves and palm fronts when they had writing materials!?

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.

Please provide ANY islamic evidence that says that Aisha's Quran were fragments and not the complete Quran!

Because, Aisha seem to have the whole Quran otherwise, explain how she could explain to others the correct sequence of the Quran.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4993
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:
While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" `Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." `Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: 'Do not drink alcoholic drinks.' people would have said, 'We will never leave alcoholic drinks,' and if there had been revealed, 'Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, 'they would have said, 'We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.' While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: 'Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.' (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him." Then `Aisha took out the copy of the Qur'an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order) .


Here above goes your partial Quran of Aisha!

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.

But he collected the Quran didn't he?
The Muslims of the Ancients must have gotten fantastic Memory! They can re-arrage the whole volume of Shakespeare in their heads in any order!

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.

Was Abubakar's Quran a perfect copy of the Quran of Mohammed?

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.

Unfortunately, your prophet gave a direct instruction to you Muslims: take the Quran from FOUR!
What did you Muslims scholars do?
They took the Quran from thousands of minds that couldn't even perfectly memorise a chapter correctly.

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.

So, the Quran of Abubakar must be letter for letter, dot for dot and verse for verse identical to the original Quran!
Is this true?

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.

Islam was built on the consensus of your scholars not even on Mohammed and Allah.
Mohammed said: Take the Quran from FOUR not take the Quran from Leaves!

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.

Are you saying that the Memorisations of the Quran were so imperfect that several different recitatons had to be distilled into ONE?

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

You mean, YES, Mohammed completed the Quran and re-arranged it to the last verse. Meaning that Mohammed had a copy of the re-ordered Quran!

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.

It disappeared!
And no one knew where it was again.

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.

Before, giving you new evidence, you will need to answer the following Questions.
Please make the answer short and to the point.

In addition to the direct questions at the top,
1. Give me any verifiable evidence that Aisha's Quran was incomplete?
2. Was Aisha's Quran ordered according to the ordering of Mohammed's Quran?
3. Did Ubayy ibn Ka'b, have his own complete Quran or it was partial?
4. Was Abubakar's Quran identical to Mohammed's Quran?
5. Do you think the Quran was perfectly memorised by the followers of Mohammed?
6. Let me accept that the Quran was collected as Memory by these four men, why were they not used during the collection of Abubakar
(These four according to you were the collected QUran of Mohammed's Quran)

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.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3810
Narrated Qatada:
Anas said, "The Qur'an was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet by four (men), all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai, Mu`adh bin Jabal, Abu Zaid and Zaid bin Thabit." I asked Anas, "Who is Abu Zaid?" He said, "One of my uncles."

1. Define the term collected here in this hadith?
2. Was this Quran partially collected or fully collected?
3. Was this Quran re-ordered as per the instruction of prophet Mohammed or not?
4. Why was this Quran by these four men used during the second collection of the Quran by Abubakar?
5. Who kept the collected version of this Mohammed's collected Quran or did Mohammed have a copy of the collected Quran?

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.

The truth is bitter: I just showed you the origin of this needless conflict.

From the River to the Sea......

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

Good for you!
Perhaps your book is just one of the other books like the Quran!

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.

Hello Dear,
I have not even spoken once of the claim that Ibn Masud or Ubayy's Qur'an are dialectical not doctrinal differences.

All I have spoken of now is that the COLLECTED Qur'an of Mohammed somehow got lost before the time of Abubakar's collection of the Qur'an!

If you disagree!
Define the term COLLECTION of the Qur'an like by Abubakar or Uthman!

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.

The Jews and the Arabs were coexisting before 1948 as stateless people until the words of the prophet was remembered.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2236
Ibn 'Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said:
"You shall fight the Jews. You will gain such control over them, that a rock will say: 'O Muslim! This Jew is behind me so kill him!'"

Mishkat al-Masabih 5414
He reported God's messenger as saying, "The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the stone and the tree will say, `O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.' The only exception will be the box-thorn, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2926
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


Can you please ask why the "ethnic Palestinian Jews" were forced out of Gaza strip by the Israeli Government in 2005?

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.

It is the internet age, verify by yourself the sources or the accuracy of the information given.

Israel took over the land from the Canaanites!

Did you read where I said:
To prevent further rebellion, the Romans renamed the land of Judea to Palestine which was to spite the Jews as the Philistines were the historic arch enemy of Israel

Is this true or false?