Didn't the revelations stop at the death of the prophet?
when exactly do you think the companions and followers of the prophet were reciting the whole koran when the koran was revealed for 23 yrs right up till the death of Mohammed?
Have you ever wondered why they are numerous repetitions in it?
Do you know precisely when the koranic revelations stopped?
Sure, the final verse revealed was in the year of the Prophet's death, in his final sermon:
This day the disbelievers despair of prevailing against your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me (Allah)! This day have I perfected for you your religion and fulfilled My favor unto you, and it hath been My good pleasure to choose Islam for you as your religion (Qur'an Surah 5, Ayah 3).
Not true islamic scholars agree that sura 5 was the third to the last revealed, they were still 2 more chapters to reveal, how can allah have perfected the religion in sura 5 when sura 9 and 110 had not yet been revealed. You can verify for yourself on the chronology of the koran.
Why does the hadiths of Abu Uaid al qasim Sallam and other scholars have:
'Umar is recorded as saying that much of the Koran has disappeared.
Ai'sha ways that sura 33 used to have 200 verses, but much of it has been lost, are you going to tell me this is a lie?
I'd like to get a reference on that please, no offense, and not to accuse you of relying on sectarian sources.
Gladly:
"It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: 'Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an". How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say "I have acquired what has survived."'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524)
"According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad's wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab [33] had 200 verses in Muhammad's time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses." This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay Kabb. (1
.61, citing As-Suyuti's al-Itqan fii ulum al-Quran on nasikh wa mansukh; Darwaza's al-Quran Al-Majid)
"During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two
hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73). (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an)
'Uthman also refers to the missing verses on the stoning of adulterers (several different Hadith all report this).
Except there isn't a verse on the stoning of adulterers, the stoning of adulterers comes from the Prophetic tradition, and is not found in the QUr'an.
Not quite true it says stoning is in the book of God here is the hadith:
"
"God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, 'We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of
stoning in God's book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery."
This is what Umar says with the stoning verse included in the book above:
""As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in." Umar al-Khattab stated, "But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning." (p.61)"
This is the same verse that was
abrogated by a goat, would you like the sahih hadith for that too?
' Adi b. 'Adi comment on the existence an other missing verses, the previous existence of which was confirmed by Zaid ibn Thabit.
'Umar questioned the loss of another verse, and was informed by 'Abd ar-Rahman b. 'Auf that "It dropped out among what dropped from the Koran."
So all these stories have no foundation whatsoever and have been purported by islamophobes instead of reknowned islamic scholars?
Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably copied this chunk of material from the uk Qur'an debate forum. If in fact you claim that all these incidents are reported by "reknowned Islamic scholars" I'd like references to the texts themselves, not just "so and so reported and so and so said". Otherwise, you're repeating back to me the same accusations that the Kharijites made, who were the main fabricators of hadith. Would you call them Muslims? Probably.
No but since you mention it I shall have a look, the kharijites accused Uthmann of 'innovation' and yes I would call them muslims fundamentalist muslims, if they invented hadiths or not I do not know why would they invent hadiths and have a problem with Uthmann for 'innovation', isn't "allah the best of deceivers"?
Uthmann told Zaid to collect the koran because he feared "much of the koran will be lost" in light of what I have posted above what type of apologetic acrobatics do you need to do to shift focus on what the word in bold means?
Yes, when the memorizers of the Qur'an were fighting in battles this would be a justifiable fear. The fear that it WILL be lost, not that it HAD been lost.
If someone gave a narration to a group of people who died a year later and I go to a scribe and tell them make a book out of what the narrator said or
"much of it will be lost" does it not imply some of it has already been lost? focus on the quantifying adjective.
I think I should let you know now I will no longer read any of your links, you need no more than 3 lines to say why Abu Bakr and the uthman event are alledgedly seen as two different collections, the reasons why I ask you these questions are very simple if you were to answer them instead of referring to a link your logical fallacies would be exposed so instead of answering a straight forward question you try to be evasive and refer to a homepage of an islamic apologetic website and say 'go read',
The links were a direct response to yours. And besides, instead of linking me, you copy and paste large chunks from websites, if you prefer, I can do that for the links I posted.
Go ahead it is a much more cordial form of debate than pasting a tafsir and saying "go read", but don't forget relevance, in order to show relevance you would have to read what you paste, no point copying and pasting a 20 page tafsir when I ask you a simple question about a sura verse.
Do you have a logical reason why God would tell the jews 5,000 years ago not to eat the flesh of swine? compare that to a logical reason why God would ask his followers to fast during the month of ramadan? or throw stones at the devil or circumnavigate the ka'ba or bow down towards it.
Do you need a logical reason for why God would command you to do something? The only reason you exist is to worship God.
Well the christian and jews see God as doing things that are logical to His creation, not eating pigs 5,000 years ago makes logical sense considering the bacteria they carry no pressure cookers or fridges to store cooked meats 5,000 yrs ago so simply do not eat it makes logical sense, what is the logical sense of bowing down to a black stone? and circumnavigating it?
Read my first post, the more you keep parrotting this the more I realise you need to to believe it.
It's true, if you don't believe it that's up to you. I don't understand how you trust debates.org.uk as fact, but when I post a website you don't read it because you want to hear MY point of view. There is only one correct version when it comes to history.
I find it unelievable you would chose to believe the prophet had read the copy of the koran uthmann made, when your INTERNAL evidence contradicts this and all logic.
Th first quote in bold is christianity summed up in a nutshell, what you said after that about disbelief equalling the antithesis of good works does not make any sense if you are saying good works will not guarantee you getting into heaven (christianity) but disbelief will make sure you don't get into heaven (islam) surely you can do good works with belief and still not get into heaven (islam) then what good is it to you.
Also, good deeds are useful to the person in that they are all accounted for
Apply some logic to what you say good deeds are accountable and the bad deeds are also accountable by default, then what is the point of asking for forgiveness from allah since allah will still hold your bad deeds in his scale against you when you walk across that zoroastrian bridge into eternal fornication and wine in jannah.
, nobody's good deeds will not be in their favor. However, the act of belief is worth much more than a lifetime of good deeds,
Did you come to this from a sura, a hadith or a tafsir, or you just thought it out yourself?
Remember that there are stages in Hell and stages in Heaven and deeds raise you in ranks.
I believe your prophet or whoever wrote the koran was confused about the stages of heaven and the stages of hell, I take it you came to the conclusion that they are 7 heavens from sura 17:1? or maybe it was a journey from mecca to a mosque in Jerusalem that hadn't been created yet. I am curious what kind of pearly boys, and houris and type of wine do you get in each of the 7 stages of heaven?
Suppose this scripture is true what are you doing bowing down to the ka'ba?
People don't bow down TO the kaa'ba, they bow down in its direction. Even when announcing one's intention to pray, one declares that he is about to pray so and so number of prostrations for so and so obligatory prayer in the direction of the Kaa'ba. The idea is that when one prays, one's going to be pointed in a direction, and the Qiblah was chosen to be towards Meccah by God. You misunderstand the verse, of course, because even Jews prostrate themselves to the "stone" wailing wall, but not to pray TO the stone.
Have you had a look at the wailing wall recently? is it adorned with a decoration of any kind?, if anything it is treated more like how christians would treat a church, it is full of prayer requests in holes in the wall, compare that with the ka'ba you see infidels or people of other faiths walking around the ka'ba taking holiday photos?
You are ofcourse equating associating God having a Son with hate for God?
what if the christian scripture is true couldn't the other be said about islam that it is actually hating God by claiming God doesn't love us to the extent of dying for us?
I think a Trinitarian Christian breaches Islam much more seriously than a Muslim breaches Trinitarian Christianity
I don't think so we believe islam is demonic inspired while you believe we have corrupted our religion, in other words your religion is spurned from satan himself while you think we have simply altered our text, who breaches who the most?
If it is in your holy books and it is in your koran thats enough evidence for me.
Raping and torturing people?
And I stand by my comments
[font color=red] And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (Q. 4:24 ) [/font]
What do you think this verse means?
Are you aware of how Mohammed had sex with safiyah one of his jewish wives within hours of killing her husband her father her uncle several relatives when the muslims attacked khaiber?
Why have you tried to be deceptive with this hadith why did you omit the beginning of it, it is very clear this hadith is about internal muslim fighting and no way implies they were under persecution if anything it colludes the hadiths of tabari that the muslims were the instigators this is the beginning of it you omitted:
This is in mecca where Mohammed alledgedly had less than 50 followers, listen carefully to the words he says "give up their religion" were they being killed?,
Yes, and tortured.
The hadith that shows they were being killed in mecca pls
what was the nature of the persecution did it involve mass killings or was it draconian laws the muslims simply imposed on those same pagans when they grew in number such as not allowing non muslims to come to the ka'ba,
Mass killings and starvation.
Hadith that shows they were being killed en mass and starved pls
And there's a difference between not letting Muslims worship God at the Kaaba and not letting pagans desecrate it with their idolatry. I can't even imagine the type of mentality it takes to complain that the idolaters weren't being allowed to worship their gods after a command of God had been given against it and after they had nearly decimated Muslims.
I believe it's the same time of mentality that forbids jews and christians from praying on the site of the temple mount aka dome of the rock but we are worshipping the same God right?, when the christians especially believe the muslims are worshipping the 'best of deceivers'
Compare this to the christians who were rounded up to be killed.
Rounded up and killed? Unless they had committed an act that warranted capital punishment no one was killed for their faith alone, especially not Christians.
Hadith 84:9/84/57 (Dealing With Apostates) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).'
I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's apostle, 'Whoever changed his islamic religion, then kill him.'"" Notice the inability to distinguish between those of another religion and those who have none.
What was their crime?, their faith was non belief in any god, so Ali 4th caliph and Shia saint burnt them
Are you sure? what does wa salem mean is this the same as salam?
we can agree that alayhee salam means peace upon him or upon him be peace, but what does sala and wa salem mean?
"Salam" is a noun, and "sal-lam" or what you call (salem) is the verb. Sala Allah aleihi wa sal-lam doesn't mean that God prayed, Sala ALEIHI, in classical Arabic this means that God bestowed his peace and blessings upon him.
Why did you think it meant pray, why use the term classical arabic? isn't it true in westernised islam the term is translated peace be upon him, when in fact it means
" allah prays for mohammed and greets him"
why does your answering-christianity interpret salem as 'safety'?
sala allah aleihi wa salem = God bestowed his peace and blessings upon him
alayhee salam = peace be upon him
so sala = bestowed?
wa salem = blessings/safety/peace?
why not just alayhee salam as all the other prophets since they are all equal why the extra greetings for the prophet?
For a sec look at the implications of such a statement stripped of all religious significance this is like allegiance to a mafia don
So you ARE jealous of the Prophet of God. To be quite frank with you, I'd also obey any Prophet of God in anything they said. Anyone who wouldn't is arrogant. It's not at all a woman's rights issue, because it had to do with the Prophet. I can't even imagine some Jews arguing with Moses about petty things.
No I am certainly not jealous of your prophet, he was a sick individual mentally and physically and was being spiritually deceived, topple that with obsessive compulsive disorders such as not facing the ka'a when urinating why on earth would I be jealous of someone like that?
[The next time a cleric tells you the reason why Mohammed wanted to divorce his wives is because he didn't have any money at least you know the real reason].
Haha, right. What is it with people in this forum and their sexualized depictions of the Prophets' lives? Orientalism doing what it does best.
A sexually obsessed individual who has his god 'inspire' eternal and alledgedly divine orders to bless his adultery and fornication has a vetted interest in his carnal well being and so does his alledged god.
Here, once again, is the tafsir of what you're talking about, as disappointing and anti-climactic as it might be:
I suggest you go read it, I already have, it in no way addresses any of my points, honey smells bad and the prophet was going to divorce all his wives because he ate honey, give your audience some credit!
It would be foolish to accept the excuse of drinking honey to justify those Ayat. First of all honey does not smell bad. But above all it is inconceivable that a trivial incident like drinking honey could cause such an upheaval in the household of the prophet to the extent that he decides to divorce all of his wives or to punish them for one month by not sleeping with them. Could such an insignificant incident like drinking honey provoke so much uproar that the creator of this universe had to intervene with a warning to Muhammad’s wives that Muhammad would divorce all of them and He (Allah) would give him virgin and faithful wives? This explanation is absurd unless honey is the code for something else that the prophet (peace be upon his immaculate soul found with Maryah)
Except that the breath you get from eating honey isn’t the big deal, the big deal was that the wives of the Prophet were becoming jealous of each other.
The wives of the prophet were getting jealous of each other (why?) and so he was going to divorce them all? where on earth do you get such a conclusion from that sura?