₦airaland Forum

lanrexlan:
The problem is that you think you know about Islam, whereas you are just stark ignorant. Lemme entertain your folly and enlighten you one more time.

I have looked at all your screenshots. They are laughable man. You failed to grab the examples I cited, I can't help you. Your problem is that you don't know but think you know and that's highest level of delusion. Firstly, there are certainly differences in reciting the Quran in Warsh, Hafs, Qaloon, et al but the meaning still REMAIN the same throughout these variants of reading.

The error you are committing is that you are doing layman translation of the styles of the Quran and that's where you are seeing your contractions. Lemme cite another example for you, perhaps your brain would comprehend this.
For example, if Ondo people were to ask for a book, they would say "Iwe na saa?" Ikare people would say "Iwe na Hanan? " Normal Oyo yourba is "Iwe na da? " which all translate to "Where is the book?" This is for someone who has knowledge of ALL THESE DIALECTS OF YORUBA.

But for someone who is used to Oyo Yoruba ONLY and has no knowledge of other dialects would fault Ondo Yoruba of "Iwe na saa". Because as a Yoruba man from Oyo, if I were to understand and translate the saying of "Iwe na saa", I would understand and translate to "The book is running!" and would make a whole mess of the whole stuff!

Also, Ikare people would say "Mofe lo hun" which means "I want to sleep (in their dialect)". But for someone who doesn't understand their dialect of Yoruba when making a direct layman translation of that would say it means "I want to weave!" Hun is weave in Oyo dialect of Yoruba. Bottomline is that, making a direct translation of dialect you have NO knowledge about would be calamitous.

Take that to Warsh and Hafs, some words are written differently in both styles but the meaning are the same. Where Hafs says "يعملون" which means "THEY are doing", Warsh would say "تعملون" which when translated by layman who has knowledge about ONE dialect of Arabic language would translate to "YOU are doing".

But people who are reciting Warsh do not mean "You are doing" when they are reciting their own style, they perfectly know it means "They are doing". But a layman like you who has zero knowledge of their dialect would say it is a contradiction and would translate it to "They are doing".

The same way a man with knowledge on ONE dialect of yourba (say Oyo yourba) would translate and understand "Mofe lo hun (of Ikare dialect)" to "I want to weave". But, is that what Ikare people meant when they say those words?! Absolutely NO!!!


Please, think and use your brain. Stop displaying your ignorance on a public forum.

You are committing a fallacy, you are just appealing to authority. Nobody denied that there aren't differences in the recitations and spellings, what we are telling you is that these differences of recitations and spellings NEVER connote different meanings. Get that into your skull!

Your argument does not make sense bro and you should, as well, be consistent in your argument. Are you saying that there are no places in the Hafs Quran where "THEY are doing" was equally rendered as "THEY are doing" in the warsh Quran?

Now let's localize our argument and let's say we want to render Nigeria's national pledge between 2 different demographics, A and B.

'They pledge to Nigeria my country', for demographic A.

'You pledge to Nigeria my country', for demographic B.

Using your own logic of interpretation both statement are the same because demographic B, although they recite the national pledge as 'You pledge to Nigeria my country' but their understanding is that 'They pledge to Nigeria my country'.

This explanation can only make sense to your fellow Muslims and not me or any other critical mind. You need to provide a more convincing argument bro.

Empiree:
There are various reports to the story. Read below. Two narrators mentioned about honey. One mentioned about a slave woman. But are telling us one thing in common as i highlighted in my previous post - not to make halal what God made haram and not to make haram what God has made halal for oneself. That's the moral of the story.


Now read below



According to Imam al-Qurtuby in his tafsir there are several narrations which are considered as the story behind these verses:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She ('A'isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): 'Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you... (up to). If you both ('A'isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah" up to:" And when the Prophet confided an information to one of his wives" (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey. (This is the hadith version of sahih Muslim)
An other version where Hafsa (May Allah be pleased with her) was the woman whom gave her husband the honey. And the "conspiracy" was between 'Aisha and Sawdah (May Allah be pleased with both of them) (here a link to the version of sahih Muslim). Note in a narration of ibn Abi Malykah on the authority of ibn 'Abbas (May Allah be pleased with both of them) it was Sawdah whom gave him the honey, others narrated that it was Um Salamah.


A different story, where the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has declared a slave (some say it's Maria al-Qibtiyah -the Coptic-) as prohibited to him. (Here a reference from sunan an-Nasa-i)

Al Qurtoby said the most sane or strongest of these narration is the first and the weakest the second and he quoted some narrations of Maliki scholars which seem to support the 3rd narration to some extent. (Here's a link to an English translation -apparently summarized- of tafsir ibn Kathir, where you may find the same narrations maybe with more details, as especially the 3rd narration quoted in tafsir al-Qurtoby is much longer than the version of sunan an-Nasa-i).

According to that either the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) declared honey as a prohibited food to him, or he has declared his slave girl as prohibited to him. Note that according the hadith he made an oath on that, and he asked the wife he was addressing when he made this oath to keep it a secrete, but she didn't keep the secrete and that is what is referred to in the verses (65:1-5).

The major meaning of the verse -you are asking about- is that one shouldn't prohibit to himself what is made lawful (halal) for him, just to get the approval of others -no matter who they are-. While the next verses are explaining what is to do if one made an oath and prohibited to himself something which is lawful to him for the same purpose (approval of others).

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/31259/explanation-of-at-tahrim-verse-1-661

Please note that the hadith is not only a story but the sunnah of the Islamic prophet. It is a standard, an example, for Muslims to follow. The issue is not merely what God made, or did not, halal but the gravity is the issue involved. If the issue is honey, as most Muslims want us to accept, this issue would have been closed since, but there are two contradictory hadith that tried to explain Quran 66:1. And we can only based our conclusion using 'the principle of embarrassment'.

Principle of Embarrassment: is a principle that is employed to validate the trustworthiness, authenticity, and truthfulness of any historical document. The principle is such that if there are 2 conflicting accounts of an event, the more embarrassing account is likely to be closer to the truth because the person narrating the incident has no reason to paint his hero in a bad light.

In a layman example, if a father goes to the public and say his son is a thief but his mum, almost at the same time, comes to counter his father by telling the public that he is not a thief, the more embarrassing account is usually closer to the truth.

Now back to the issue, the most and best explanation to Quran 66:1 is to follow the hadith below, and not the cook up by bukhari:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]


Remember, he made an oath to his wives, a promise, which he couldn't keep by going back to the same slave woman his wives had created issue on. What happened next? Allah revealed Quran 66:1,

"O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."


And don't forget, I told you that the Quran is nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed which the second incident rightly confirmed again.

Asalama lekum!

sagenaija:
You write "epistle" on every other matter apart from the ones you are confronted with.
You will claim you have no time but are ready to spend time on deflection of the line
of argument.

You gave NO EXAMPLE or response to answer this simple question:
Is it the same ARABIC word that is used in both Hafs and Warsh versions of the Koran in chapter 3:146 for “fought” [Hafs] and “killed” [Warsh]?

If you did then show us which page of this thread where you did so that all can see.
It appears you now know you have no answer so you are referring us to Adepoju.
You refer to extraneous matters link them with Hafs and Warsh and the shout:."I have refuted you!" when in reality you have done NOTHING.
You can simply throw in the towel and say 'Allah knows best!'. Why not do that?

Smart aleck!

'Allah knows best' is a coded Islamic response meaning 'I don't know'. They find it very difficult to simply say 'I don't know' or 'I am not sure' hence they simply invoke their their standard response 'Allah knows best' after telling lies or half-truth on religion-related matters.

lanrexlan:
I just have to address this. Your ignorance is pathetic. I personally felt reluctant to comment before but this display of ignorance and tomfoolery is getting out of hand. In this 21st century, if someone can be arguing that Hafs and Warsh styles of reading connote contradictions of the Quran, then such a person shouldn't be taken seriously.

It is akin to saying Oyo dialect of yourba and Ikare dialect of yourba are contradictions because pronunciation of words are different. That's plain stupidity of the highest peak. A word can be pronounced differently in various dialects of a language and they point to the same meaning. Please, this is an open forum, stop displaying your ignorance.
Read and learn.


S/N| Yoruba Oyo| Yoruba Ikale |Yoruba Ijesa| Yoruba Ondo| Yoruba Ekiti |Meanings in English
I |wa |bọ |be |karioran |bọ |be |Ia |Come
II |Isu |usu |Usu |Usu |usu |Yam
III |ile |ule |Ule |uli |ule |House
IV |ọmọ wa |ọmọ wa |ọmọria |ọmọ wa| ọmọ ra |Our child
V |Isalẹ |ẹri odo |Omi odo |Down/River
VI| Ijoko |otita |ujoko |akaaba |otita |Seat
VII| ewure I|kegbe |Ehevegbe |Ikegbe |ehure |Goat
VIII |adiyẹ |ẹdiye |ẹdiyẹ |adie |ẹdiẹ |Fowl
IX |ilẹkun |Ilẹkun| agandii| ilekun| aganrandi| Door


This is the same thing between Hafs, Warsh, Qaloon and other styles of reciting the Quran. Some words are pronounced differently but they NEVER signify new meanings. You are just making a mountain out of a hole. Grow up man.

@ Bold, people who are handsome don't go about bragging about it on public forum. Only folks with insecurity would be bragging about handsomeness that isn't there.

All these bragging self, you challenged Ustadh Yusuf Adepoju to a debate?! Bring proof, no proof. Your student asked him questions he can't answer, bring proof? No proof!
Only empty barrels make noise, empty korodom. With this reasoning of yours, you aren't even in the calibre of those people who can stand up to debate a person like Yusuf Adepoju.

You that you are unstable like NEPA light for rainy season on online wanna go offline debate?!

Baba goan sleep jare. Empiree stop wasting your time biko

Thanks for offering your support for 'empire'. He had been doing a great job lying for Allah and his messenger. Maybe you will be a little bit truthful.

You compare the Hafs and the warsh Quran as dialectic variants of the Quran, are you these serious or ignorant? The scholars never called it 'dialectic variant' but 'different readings of the Quran'. Have you taken time to look at the screenshots or do you follow empire's style of 'argue without analysing evidence'? What I had expected you to do is to pick up the screenshot I provided, pick the ayah one after the other and explain the reasons for the contradiction. What you however did was to 'school: me on variants in Yoruba dialects which you attempted to you as a standard to explain the apparent inconsistencies in various Quranic readings. This is strawman bro. You started aggressively but showed a lot of intellectual weakness.

I have watched various videos, by Arab-muslims speakers (one of them a Lebanese Muslim) who also pointed out this differences but you are here telling me that 'it is dialectic issue:. Stop being ignorant bro, a simple YouTube video will clear your doubt and we have hundreds that addressed this issue. Stop making a fool of yourself.

I said I am handsome because I am and I have to equally make my co-debator feel more relaxed to engage me hence I brought up as a humour in our conversation. Does Islam forbid feeling good about oneself or having a good sense of humour? If you have nothing to contribute, please allow me and empire to continue and play your 'lineman' role since you don't seem to have the intellectual energy to play on the open field.

Asalama lekum!

worlexy:
No but should we analyse the Quran too and show you evidence of inconsistencies in it?

One step at a time bro.

Empiree:
Honestly, i am tired of you. See, you are still doing what i accused you off i:e jump from one topic to another. I knew you have been posting hafs and warsh all week and I told you that the one that caught my attention the most was your last screenshot which i responded to. Since i replied to that directly you have shutup on the subject bcus you have no counterclaim. Now you embarked on surah 66:1. Yet you accused me of not being educated or professional?. But you keep jumping from one topic to another like monkey This is is very reason i was reluctant to respond to you guys.

I have given you example of hafs and warsh. I need not to go back to that since you can not prove me wrong. Hafs and Warsh were never problems for us muslims at all. But bcuz you have ulterior motives you found a way to confused yourself and created imaginary discrepancies in the Quran. So Hafs and Warsh drama has been put to rest now. Going back to that will culminate dishonest on your part. As for debate with Adepoju, i remembered you said you challenged him and i told to provide proof that you did but he turned you down?. You never proved it. Now you repeated the same thing. Who believes you?. As Adepoju rightly said, go live with him one on one debate in the presence of crowd. Stop using "security reason" to evade the debate. Adepoju has debated many people and no one was bombed or killed. He has debated your pastors, bishipss evangelists etc. He debated a pastor named Segun who in fact, credited adepoju for being cool despite pressures to provoke him by his christian opponents. This is the same reason ifean, malvisguy and you provided 5 yrs ago when I asked you to challenge Adepoju on one on one debate. Five years later you are still using the same old excuse and you want me to believe you?.

Sir, Adepoju had whatsapp and facebook accounts where you can easily contact him openly for the world to see. Facebook is much better. We will all see how it goes. Or better still you know his program schedules. Join him there. Stop being keyboard warrior. As for Quran 66:1, what exactly is your issues with this one?. Usually it is evangelical christians that brought this up. You copied nonsense from their websites to argue here. Jay Smith was one of those evangelical christians that always come up with this over and over again despite having been taught to them.

God knows what exactly you are thinking about this verse and i think i know what you're thinking. Whatever it is you are thinking you are dead wrong. Quran 66:1 is teaching lawful and unlawful (Law) are only the right of Allah. Not even the prophet had power to make lawful unlawful vis-a-vis. This verse is said to be talking about Honey. Hafiz Ibn Kathir says: The truth is that this verse was sent down about forbidding honey upon himself by the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is more to this story why the verse was revealed.

How am I jumping from one topic to another? You said that you never looked at my screenshot but finally admitted you looked at one despite the fact that I did 3 consecutive screenshots which will not take you 2mjns to glance through. That's to show that you don't even pay attention to what your opponents are saying.

You said I shut up on the issue of Hafs and Warsh inconsistencies, hope you are not responding to the wrong person. The issue of warsh and hafs have not gone away bro because you have not proved anything concerning the contradictions in the readings.

On you super heavy weight Adepoju, I will contact him again via his Facebook account and do a screenshot to you. No need of devoting much on a man who is not currently a major topic of discussion. I briefly talked about him to tell you that, despite his 'bashing for a living' (Nigerian Muslim version of David wood) activity which he lived on for over 25 years (highly experienced), he has no single experience in defending Islamic beliefs and practices, based on my last engagement with him.

On Quran 66:1, you brought it up because I told you, based on Aisha's own testimony that Mohammed's lord always 'hasten to fulfil his wishes and desires' hence my conclusion that the Quran was nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed. And I equally told you that I go with the Maliki school of thought which explained that this ayah got to do with a slave girl called Mariya (a Coptic slave who later gave birth to a son named Ibrahim) who Mohammed usually slept with in Hafsat house whenever she is away. She (Hasfa) found out and, together with Aisha, confronted Mohammed about it while Mohammed promised never to do that again until Allah revealed Quran 66:1. If you read Quran 66: 1-5, you will see that it has nothing to do with honey bro. No wife will disrespect her husband because co-wife is giving him honey to retain their attention. The hadith of bukahri and the tafsir of ibn kathir on this ayah is ridiculous and untenable.

This is the hadith that support above argument and rightfully explained by your famous scholar Jalalayn:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]

And if, for the benefit of the doubt, we are to give the tafsir of ibn kathir a thought and his supporting hadith, what does that make of the character of Aisha? A liar who deceived and lied to her husband out of jealousy but at the same time one of the largest contributor to the hadith collections? What authority can one grade an hadith by Aisha if she had been caught lying before? If hadith collected by Hafs can be rejected based on his personal integrity, why did Sunni Muslims accept Aisha's narrations in sahih bukhari (and sahih Muslim)? And this is the reason you wrote:

'There is more to this story why the verse was revealed'.

There is nothing more to any story bro, we fully understand. Whichever tafsir who chose to use, Ibn kathir or Jalalayn, it prove one fact, the Quran is contradictory based on the fact your own tafsir and hadith contradicted each other on the interpretations of a single ayah. As a matter of honesty and truthfulness, the tafsir of Jalalayn is more credible on this issue.

Asalama lekum!

IMAliyu:
Trying to resurrect dead threads are you?
From what I've read through of previous posts is that no one is denying that slave trade did have a hand in the spread of Islam in sub saharan African and what is now known as Nigeria, but the opponents are claiming that Islam only spread through slave trade exclusively or by Arabian military actions which is untrue and a very one dimensional view as to conform with their antagonistic impression of Islam.
Islam came to the Hausa lands through material and probably slave trade initially and the later jihad of Usman Dan Fodio and creation of the Sokoto caliphate which arguably caused the conversation of other groups or tribes to Islam either out of free will, social pressure, for social benefits, fear of prosecution, probable threat of death e.t.c.
Both Islam and Christianity have questionable history as to how they spread into the African continent. So let's curb our confirmation bias and we can't accurately confirm some of this stuff or change sh!t that happened hundreds of years ago.

Probably the most honest response I have seen from a Muslim on this issue.

Cheers01:
Lol.....some muslims like to ignore such about their prophet.

Sad.

Yes. The world belongs to Allah and his messenger; whoever he wills he gave Mohammed as a slave.

Allah is beneficent and merciful.

Empiree:
you are happy with all the trash you have been posting all weeks?. You think I had your time?. I might have it now since Ramadan is over. Isn't too late for you to call for a debate with the sheikh but when we asked you guys some 5yrs to debate acadip you were all forming local champions and keyboard warriors.

Now you are calling for a debate on Skype?. Seriously? You think this sheik have time for that?. You are still a joke like you were 5yrs ago. You feel like you have more confidence now isn't?

You have been quite since I schooled you on hafs/Warsh with example I have you. Why bro why. And now you jumped on Aisha said, Umar said

You have schooled me on Hafs and warsh, seriously? You are a clown bro, a mosque clown for that matter. Even your fellow Muslims reading this thread cannot comment because they are embarrassed and you said you have 'schooled' me when you admitted you never even looked at the Haf-warsh screenshots I sent you. It seems you live in a fantasy world oblivious of reality.

If you are educated, you will agree with me that most modern debates and interviews are conducted via Skype and at least you will also have the opportunity to see my handsome face. I have watched many Christian-muslim debates that are conducted via Skype, both for cost, distance and security reasons. Start thinking like a 21st century man bro! I told you I asked Ustaz Adepoju for a debate but he refused and told me 'I only do open air lectures', meaning thrashing Christianity without being challenged on his Islamic beliefs.

I still stand by my words and will happily provide my contact if you can arrange a debate between us.

Umar ibn kathab was also instrumental in some Quranic revelations, I need you to comment on their sir? I also responded to your claim on Quran 66:1, you can do me a big favour touching on that one too. Don't deflect!

Asalama lekum!

Empiree:
Say whatever you want. TWO PASTORS EMBRACED ISLAM THROUGH SHEIKH MUYIDEEN AJANI BELLO LECTURE.


Help yourself

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2756066551076312&id=1984023931613915&fs=0&focus_composer=0

Is your sheik comfortable with debate via Skype? I would like him to also convert me after our debate. I used to think you are a heavyweight but its clear you are another Anthony Joshua.

sagenaija:
Islam is all about the sensual.
Mohamed had this to fullest during his lifetime and expected a continuation in "paradise".

He scammed his fellow Arab tribes while his closest companion (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Kathab and Uthman ibn affan) waited around the corner for him to go and then build an empire from where he left. His companions, from the beginning, new he was a scam but have to play along so as not to disrupt the game plan. The started fighting among themselves as soon as Mohammed died. Aside from Abu Bakr, and umar ibn kathab, every other khalif entered through coup plots and assassination.

Take a look at this hadith below:

Sahih bukhari 1:8:53,
Narrated `Umar (bin Al-Khattab):
My Lord agreed with me in three things:

1. I said, "O Allah's Messenger ( ﷺ ), I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two rak`at of Tawaf of Ka`ba)". (2.125)

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger ( ﷺ )! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

3. Once the wives of the Prophet ( ﷺ ) made a united front against the Prophet ( ﷺ ) and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).

The 3rd request from umar is the continuation of quran 66:1 as i stated in my last post. Quran 66:1-5 is a full ayah with respect to Mohammed and his rebellious wives, especially Aisha and Hafsa.

As you can see from the hadith above, the suggestions umar jbn kathab made are what Allah revealed to Mohammed. Can you imagine and Muslims will call these revelations from Allah? This scenario is so many bro, so many. I wonder why Muslims can't read their books but will deny anytime you point it out.

I also gave an example of one of his companions who left when he realised that the so-called revelations was a scam, his name is Abdullah ibn saad ibn abi Saar, the foster brother of Othman ibn affan.

Empiree:
if it is "purely wishes and desires of muhammad, why then muhammad cautioned himself in the Qur'an that he wishes and desires?.

Example Q 66:1


O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.


Did he forget to removed that from Qur'an?



How about this Q73:1


O you who have wrapped up in your garments!



It was his wishes too?. Be sensible, man.

Do you bother to read the tafsir of the ayah (Quran 66:1) you posted above? Do you understand the scenario that led to that ayah? It still boils down on the wishes and desires of Mohammed.

According to the Maliki school of thought, which I go with in this scenario, Mohammed had a slave girl called :Mary the copt', probably an Egyptian slave girl. Mohammed used to secretly sleep with this girl and when his wives got to find out about this scandal, the confronted the greatest man (the apostle of Allah). Mohammed promised never to sleep with her again. After sometime, and predictably, Allah came with this revelation:

Quran 66:1,
O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

The above incident is well documented in your Islamic source documents, the tafsir and the authentic hadith narration.

Here's Tafsir Jalalayn commenting on this verse:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition.

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]

As you can see, Allah's apostle was still lusting after Mary the Copts, perhaps the sexx style the slave girl used to give him. To settle the matter 'once and for all', Allah gave Mohammed another of his wishes and desires in Quran 66:1.

Empiree:
that he speaks Arabic, that he's Arab by birth, that arabic is his first language, and that he has read Quran are NOT PROOFS. Hear what Qur'an says


“And We send down of the Qur’aan that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe (in Islamic Monotheism and act on it), and it increases the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) nothing but loss”.


[al-Isra’ 17:82]

You guys created the standard that 'you have to read the Quran in pure Arabic to understand the quran', 'you have to attend Islamic university to speak about Islam', 'you have to learn the Arabian culture for you to know the "sweetness" of Islam', and some other ridiculous conditions, and this dude (Christian Prince) has met all the criteria and even surpassed it. What other criteria do you want? We must start growing beards, wearing trousers not below our ankles? Abegi stop being ridiculous and address the issues relating to the contradictions in your Quran.

Empiree:
you think I watched any of those video?. I didn't for your information. Why?. Because he's just exactly like David Wood, Michael Licona, Tommy Robbison etc

Christian Prince was born and raised in Egypt; an Arab by birth. He speaks Arabic as his first language and he had read the Quran from chapter 1 to chapter 116. He speaks, writes and understood Arabic better than you. He has a scholarship in Islamic theology hence makes him an authority in Islam. What's your qualification in Islamic theology? What scholarship do you have in Arabic language?

Muslims always make a demand that 'show me the Arabic Quran' and 'Islam can only be understood in its original Arabic'. Well, Christian prince obviously meet your stiff criteria, why didn't you bother watch the video? Will it shake your faith? Of course that's the greatest fear of any Muslim hence Allah, in the Quran, asked you guys never to ask questions so that you won't lose your faith. Why did Allah ask Muslims never to question their beliefs if he (Allah) is so sure of himself? That's to tell you that Allah has a very weak argument to defend Islam hence his admonition in Quran 5:101:

O you who believe! (Do) not ask about things if made clear to you, it may distress you and if you ask about it when the Quran is being revealed it would be made clear to you. Allah has pardoned [about] it, and Allah (is) Oft-Forgiving, All-Forbearing..

The Quran is very clear here, if Muslims are too inquisitive (on Islamic-related matters) it may cause them distress and eventually make them lose their faith in Islam. I fully understand your fear. Your guys, 'Tintinz' and 'usermane' have opened their mind, questioned Islam and have decided to leave for good. These are same people that I have debated, here on Nairaland, for more than 5 years.

Asalama lekum!

Empiree:
And?. you dont have wishes and desires?. Your point exactly?.




smh..do you understand anything at all? whats wishes and desires of companions to write down what prophet dictated for them?

Do you understand simple grammar at all? I said, based on Madam Aisha's testimony, that the Qur'an is purely the wishes and desires of Mohammed. Whatever was on Mohammed's mind, that was the revelation he received. It is a simple sentence that even a kindergarten pupil will understand and it baffles me that you are struggling with this reality. Do you think it will shake your faith? No wonder you have to build a 'firewall' around your thought to ensure that no any evidence penetrates.

Don't put words into my mouth, I know you are smart. I never said the Quran is the wishes and desires of his companions (who wrote down the Quran) but the wishes and desires of Mohammed himself. It is Mohammed's personal wishes and desires that made up the Quran while Allah is just a means to an end.

Asalama lekum!

sagenaija:
Can you see what caught your attention in all that I wrote?
Virgins! Only that!

I am 100% certain that you're pained that you've not been able find anything to refute Christian Prince.

Sorry ehn! Pęlę!

'72 virgkns' caught his attention immediately but he didn't see, or bother to look at, screenshots. That's to tell where his interest lies the most. Maybe I will have to include '72 virgins' in any screenshot I do so that he will pay more attention to it.

Empiree:
you see why you dont even make sense?. Because you knew the truth but chose to go left. You keep saying MUhammad is saying things in the Quran as if he wrote it. I understand christian evangelists line of thought and I am not even going back n forth with you on this.

Second, let's assume muhammad was the one speaking in Quran 12:2 to his arab audience, then you gonna have lots of trouble bcus there are many places where Quran addresses nabi MUhammad(saw) like Quran 112 v 1 "say" or Suran Imran 85 "say". Snnce nabi muhammad is no longer here and Quran is still present affirming it was sent to the whole world [al-Anbiya’ 21:107] means that Quran 12:2 is addressing you and I and the rest of mankind. This is why i like some white people. They research than you lazy Nigerians. This is why they speak Arabic bcuz they strive to understand what the message is saying. You can take your irrational thinking back to garbage bin. For the fact that you said muhammad is the one speaking in the Quran truly says a lot about you.

I still maintain my points, based on what Aisha (not you because Mohammed did not know you):

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet),
"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

The key words I want you to pick are: YOUR WISHES AND DESIRES.

Now back to the argument and based on Aisha's testimony, most ayah of the Quran are wishes and desires of Mohammed. If that's the case, it was Muhammad's wishes and desires for his scribes to write down the Quran in Arabic, unless you can prove to me that there was another major languages people spoke in the Arabian peninsula, at the time of Mohammed, aside Arabic. You don't need any God to tell you that Mohammed's Quran will be written in Arabic; it is just a commonsense for any rational mind to grasp.

And when you bought up ayah where Mohammed was asked to 'say' and 'say", it does still change the fact that virtually all what we have in the Quran are Mohammed's wishes and desires. I didn't say so, Madam Aisha bint Abu Bakr did after much observation on the pattern of Mohammed's alleged revelations.

Empiree:
smh..you actually think Hafs and Warsh are new to us?. Common bro... you even tried to make sense with you last screenshot. I have not actually taken my time to see at your screenshots except the last one but i sensed all along what you are saying and it is old thats why you bored me. The style of writings you brought up arent new. They are methods recitations. Different readings are consisting of diacritical differences. You can't have different readings without different diacritical marks. And the meanings of these words are very similar to each other. For example there is the reading style of Hafs and Warsh. In Sura al Fatiha we say in the narration of Hafs: Maaliki yawmiddin. The "a" is recited longer because of the diacritical sign. In warsh it is pronounced: Maliki yawmiddin. The "a" won't be recited longer any more. This doesn't change the meaning of the verse. Because Allah is both, He is Maalik and Malik. The variant readings are so minimal they make no difference to the message of the Qur'an unlike your bible which has significant variations to the point that it affects and distorts the message.

So whether it is Maalik or Malik, Qattala or Qatala it means same thing. I grew up with this as a child man. You remembered when we learn Alif Ba Ta Tha and then write them in a sentence etc So Hafs Warsh you are bringing up is not gonna be solved here on NL bcus you will not agree and neither will I. The only way you can help yourself and learn is to enrol in standard islamic university and learn. We will not solve this alleged problems of your here...njo today man.


Let me give you another example, in 1998 when my elder brother returned from Saudi, one day we were joking and he said who can write michael jackson in arabic?. Everyone wrote it down differently i arabic letters. Mine was slightly different from this مايكل جاكسون in the sense that the first word (detached) was the same but "jackson", with 'ja' in arabic, instead of writing 'Ja' in standalone format as you seen above, I joined 'ja' with 'kaf'. Trust me, i can't help you if you dont understand what i just said here which will prove that you dont understand anything to begin with and I will never stress myself trying to piece together everything for you. Since you claimed to have knowledge of Hafs and Warsh, you should figure out this example I gave you. This example is similar to differences btw Hafs and Warsh writings but the bottom line is it makes no changes to the meaning. Thats one beauty of arabic language.

I know that everything i said will not make sense to you since you "know better". Thats why i said this is not gonna be solved here.

It is very ridiculous for you to say you never looked at the screenshots. This is to say that your response so far had been based on blind argument, without looking at the evidences presented to you whether they are true of false. I think you need to apologize if you are not an arrogant man.

The different diacritical marks you talked about, does it have effect on the meanings of the ayah where there are different marks in the Hafs and Warsh Quran? Look at surah alfathiha (1:4), Hafs used 'owner' while Warsh used 'king', do they mean the same?

Look at surah albaqra ayah 10 (ayah 9 in Warsh), do they have the same meaning?

What I see you do now is clowning and feigning ignorance of what we are talking about. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are confused and you didn't get what we are passing across (though I seriously doubt this). The screenshots I provided above are in ARABIC (emphatic stress) for both the Hats and the Warsh Qur'an. Forget about the English translation, concentrate ONLY on the Arabic text, and tell me if there are no variant in the two readings.

Open your mind and be honest a bit, no one wants to convert you; just want to clear the old myth that 'all qurans are 100% the same', word for word and dot for dot. We are dealing with only two readings, we never even touched about 7 other readings which also have slight variants in readings and meanings.

It is possible that this information are new to you, please do your independent findings.

.

Empiree:
You know the reason christianity is messed up today?. It is bcuz it has lost its original manuscripts in which the message was delivered to Jesus. This is why it is impossible for christians to return to monotheism. But if you have original copy today, all these differences about identity of Jesus would have been put to rest. But bcus it is written in other languages, and original is no longer to be available, several christian factions follow their own books...all under christianity.

But with islam, no matter how misguided a muslim is, he will always refer to original arabic text which Quran was revealed. If he doesnt understand arabic he goes to those who have mastered it. Therefore, when Quran was speaking in Quran 12:2, it is talking to entire universe. "....that you might understand" was not limited to prophet muhammad or Arabs. WHy?. bcuz Quran is still here with us today. It is for the past, present and future.

This is the reason I said you lack critical thinking skills when you cannot even provide a logical thought for your ayah (Qur'an 12:2). The audience Mohammed was dealing with are not Chinese or Americans but his fellow Arab men hence he asked his scribes to write down his so-called revelation in Arabic. He can't ask them to write it in Mandarin or English. We are not even talking about what Mohammed asked his sahabas to write down (because it never existed after the time of Othman ibn affan) but the current Qur'an which Muslims, by themselves, have categorised into about 30 different readings and among the major ones are Hafs, Warsh and doori readings of the Qur'an.

All these three readings have variants which I have done a screenshot on. However as a dishonest person you are, you pretended as if you didn't see the variant Arab screenshot I did, since you insisted it must be Arabic or else. What else do you want, we should start typing out the Arabic, since the screenshot is not acceptable to you? It's good to defend ones beliefs but when one becomes dishonest in his quest to defend his belief, that's a big issue.

The unfortunate part of these is that most Muslims seem to be very dishonest, especially when a point is raised against their standard beliefs. Islam is the only religion that make it rule that 'it must be Arabic or never', this is a stone age mindset and equally used in deceiving non-muslims. More than 80% of Muslims worldwide do not understand Arabic and so what must be their fate?

You also make a claim, a typical Islamic claim, that a message was 'delivered' to Jesus. This is an ignorant claim. Unlike Mohammed, Jesus didn't lie that an angel was giving him a revelation rather he came to teach people the word of God and the gospel of the kingdom. There is no any fake angel jibril that gave Jesus any injil (this is a claim by ignorant Muslims). The 4 gospels, which Mohammed called the injil are 'eyewitness account' of the life and time of Jesus Christ; his biography, and allah recognised these accounts as his words as the injil.

Empiree:
you based your confusion on a verse and you are looking for ways to further confuse yourself. Yet you didn't actually provide alleged contradictions. Whose fault is that?. I wouldn't skip if you didn't post irrelevant long winded posts to try to skillfully overwhelm me with copy paste from all these anti Islam websites. So now I have seen your screenshoted English translation. How many times will I tell you that Quran is only in Arabic?. Translations are never Quran. You have to refute Arabic Quran not English. So this alone refuted your argument






refer up there. Again Quran is in arabic. If you can't screenshot Quran Arabic text with varying contradictions then you have no claim.


Quran 12:2

Sahih International: Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.



Pickthall: Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.



Yusuf Ali: We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.



Shakir: Surely We have revealed it-- an Arabic Quran-- that you may understand.




See, I can't help you. My responses would not be any different from consensus.

If you have already made up your mind why should I waste my time?. My post explained to you why most recitation today are hafs but you still talking about contradictions. Are you here to reason or deliberate attempt to antigonize facts presented?.

Once again, Quran is in Arabic. You need to stop doing yourself disservice by quoting English translation. This is not Bible, sir. If we have problems with translations, we simply refer to original Arabic text where nothing goes wrong.

Translators used different choice of words. Please stop using translated text to proof your point. And if you don't understand Arabic then, you are not in position to determine contradictions.

Quran was revealed in be Arabic not English

Standard Islamic escape route: 'you have to provide your proof in Arabic'. This is the major reasons almost all non-muslims view Islam as a comedy, a joke. Thousands of linguist translated the Quran into English language, in Saudi Arabia, and named it 'sahih international' and an unknown Yoruba man, in a remote part of Nigeria, said 'no, you cannot translate Quran from Arabic to English and have the exact literal meaning'. I have heard this excuses over and over again, an I'm sorry to say, it is a very daft and unreasonable argument. In order words, for us to understand Islam in its pure form, we all have to study Arabic and understand it very well. That's a crazy demand, especially when we have thousands of linguists who had painstakingly translated the quran from Arabic to english language.

The screenshot I did, on warsh and Hafs quran, have both the Arabic and the english translations side by side. Do you mean you can't see/read it? What scholarship do you even have in Arabic language compared to the people that translated the quran? I have seen/heard many Muslims boast that the quran can be studied in english but anytime we point out the inconsistencies in the quran Muslims 'switched' back to 'you cannot trust the translations of the quran'. Bros, you guys should act like adults and stop disgracing yourself, especially when dealing with a highly informed people.

To buttress my point, you quoted the ayah below;

Quran 12:2
Sahih International: Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand

Ask yourself a simple questions, which audience is the ayah above talking to? French audience, english audience or Arabic audience?

What's the language of communication during the time of Mohammed and his sahabas in the Arabian peninsula? French, Arabic, or English?

If that's the case, what language will Mohammed ask his scribes to write down the quran? Arabic, english or French language?

This is a simple logic and you don't need any allah to tell you that the quran will be written in a language spoken by the people and culture where Islam started. If Mohammed was a Chinese, do you think the quran will be written in Arabic or Mandarin? Stop making Muslims look stupid on nairaland, since you are one of their 'heavyweights' and start thinking critically.

No language, in this modern time and era, that cannot be translated, to another language, with a 99.9% accuracy, the quran inclusive. Muslims should stop making it look as if the Arabic quran is a mystical language that can never be accurately translated, that's a lie and you have been deceived to believe that lie.

Back to your discussion, i did three screenshots, in page 14, of Arabic contradictions in both the warsh and the hafs quran, you refused to touch any of it but rather, in your usual characteristics, deflected to 'Arabic quran'. Are both the Hafs and the warsh no longer Arabic Qur'ans? Stop this back and fact and educate us on the contradictions that's are common in different Qur'anic readings.

Asalama lekum!

That's AFONJA's nature. I won't be surprised if Pastor E. A. Adeboye of Celestian church of Christ becomes a Muslims. A 'chameleonic" race should never be trusted because I have fallen victims of chameleons many time and, God helping me, I won't again.

VillagePipu:
Of course, only an Igbo Proverb would say that kind of nonsense. No other sensible people have such depraved mentality.

Is it not the same Igbos who collect roofing sheet for ancestors as part of a bride's dowry?

Nonsense.

I am an Igbo guy but you really finished me here.

Empiree:
Sometimes i just feel bad for you bcuz this is the least you should argue about. It is very sad but i know you are arguing this bcuz your Bible is messed up. Yes, messed up. How could you consider ahrûf (Hafs, warsh,) in which the Qur'an was revealed contradictions?. It seems to me you guys have new meaning of the word "contradiction". It is a well-known fact that there are seven different ahrûf in which the Qur'an was revealed. In the Islamic tradition, this basis can be traced back to a number of hadîths concerning the revelation of the Qur'an in seven ahrûf (singular harf). Some of the examples of these hadîths are as follows:


Abû Hurairah said:

The Messenger of God(SAW) said: "The Qur'an was sent down in seven ahruf. Disputation concerning the Qur'an is unbelief" - he said this three times - "and you should put into practice what you know of it, and leave what you do not know of it to someone who does."


Abû Hurairah said:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "An All-knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'an in seven ahruf."



Abdullâh Ibn Masud said:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "The Qur'an was sent down in seven ahruf. Each of these ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn); each of the ahruf has a border, and each border has a lookout."



The meaning of this hadîth is explained as:

As for the Prophet's(P) words concerning the Qur'an, each of the ahruf has a border, it means that each of the seven aspects has a border which God has marked off and which no one may overstep. And as for his words Each of the ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn), its outward aspect is the ostensive meaning of the recitation, and its inward aspect is its interpretation, which is concealed. And by his words each border ...... has a lookout he means that for each of the borders which God marked off in the Qur'an - of the lawful and unlawful, and its other legal injunctions - there is a measure of God's reward and punishment which surveys it in the Hereafter, and inspects it ...... at the Resurrection ......



And in another hadîth Abdullâh Ibn Masud said:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "The first Book came down from one gate according to one harf, but the Qur'an came down from seven gates according to seven ahruf: prohibiting and commanding, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables. So, allow what it makes lawful, proscribe what it makes unlawful, do what it commands you to do, forbid what it prohibits, be warned by its parables, act on its clear passages, trust in its ambiguous passages." And they said: "We believe in it; it is all from our Lord."




And Abû Qilaba narrated:

It has reached me that the Prophet(P) said: "The Qur'an was sent down according to seven ahruf: command and prohibition, encouragement of good and discouragement of evil, dialectic, narrative, and parable."

These above hadîths serve as evidence that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. The definition of the term ahruf has been the subject of much scholarly discussion and is included in the general works of the Qur'an. The forms matched the dialects of following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen. The revelation of the Qur'an in seven different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the various tribes.


For example, the phrase 'alayhim' (on them) was read by some 'alayhumoo' and the word siraat (path, bridge) was read as ziraat and mu'min (believer) as moomin. So ahruf is more about ascent/dialect not contradictions








to be continued......

You are the one going from poles to pillar trying to clear up the mess in the Quran. If the Quran is 100% contradiction-free we won't be here going back and forth but the opposite is true, which the Quran itself acknowledged (Quran 4:82, emphasises on the word MUCH CONTRADICTION). I even did a screenshot on the irregularities between the Hafs and the warsh Quran but you intentionally ignored it (check page 14 of this thread). Your attempt to ignore the screenshots won't make my points go away, I will always refer you back to them for your comments and clarification.

You asked for the meaning of contradictions; in a layman understanding it is the combination of ideas opposed to one another. And the screenshot I did, which you deliberately ignored, contained these 'opposing ideas'.

The scholarly response, obviously a 'copy and paste' response, does not address the issue at hand, rather it makes your argument more complicated because you want to dig and dig to get a possible explanation which rather proved elusive. Instead of you to address the inconsistencies between the warsh and the hafs Quran, what you are doing is trying to deflect as much as you can, and fortunately, I will keep bringing it up for you to clarify the obvious contradictions. In case you have forgotten, I will paste the screenshot again, on this page, for you to address them.

Asalama lekum!

Empiree:
reas on your claim is so daft is that you are quoting source from outside Quran to show "inconsistencies" in the Quran but you didnt actually point out alleged inconsistencies from Quran itself. When when we claim there are inconsistencies in your bible we quoted directly from the bible not your cardinals. Honestly i just don't have time for you guys right now. Maybe after ramadan especially on Hafs etc. You and the proCP dude understand nothing

What difference does it make if you respond to the 'Hafs and warsh' questions now or after ramadan? Do you need enough time to do your research and equally ask your sheik? That's OK by me as long as you come up with something reasonable, which I doubt you can.

The contradictions we are dealing with now is the 'phase 1', that is, among different readings (like Hafs, warsh, duri, etc). After that we come to the 'phase 2', that is, inside the Quran itself. Allah was so 'honest' that he confessed that we will not see MUCH CONTRADICTIONS (Quran 4:82) but Muslims, like you, want to correct Allah that he actually tried to say NO CONTRADICTION. This is a very great 'shirk', you need to ask Allah to forgive you.

I will wait till after ramadan in case you don't respond on time.