Powered by
UI
Techs
Home
>
Forums
>
>
General Discussion
>
The Qur'an and the Sunnah
Post Reply
Username
Invalid Username or Password
Password
Format
Andale Mono
Arial
Arial Black
Book Antiqua
Century Gothic
Comic Sans MS
Courier New
Georgia
Impact
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Script MT Bold
Stencil
Verdana
Lucida Console
1
2
3
4
5
6
Message Icon
Message
- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF
Smilies
[quote][size=2]Salam, Quote:- I can give you simple logical proof that Rashad Khalifah's followers' statements that Quran is corrupted with 2 extra verses is contradictory. >>> I have said enough that two verses i.e. 9:128-129 were added in the Qur’an and mathematical miracle of the Qur’an proved this. So brother, there is no contradiction. Please look once again; Please note the emphasize on "We" in verse 15.9: “Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it”. The verse refers to God Almighty in regard of preserving His book. What does that mean? It is not you (people) who will preserve the Zikr, it is God who will preserve it. Is it possible that the revelation contains an automatic protection? If yes, then God Almighty did not say that He will preserve the reminder. Now how does God preserve the Zikr? Obviously, with its own revelation. How do we know, or what is the proof? We know this through the Zikra (74.31), which is "Nineteen" (74.30) and "One of the greatest" (74.37). Zikra (74.31) is the virus protection of the Zikr and it is encoded in it in a miraculous way. You can see many ancient documents, tablets and books in museums and special sections of libraries. They are preserved by human effort and technology for hundreds and even thousands of years. If the preservation of the Quran was similar to this "normal" and "ordinary" human affair, then, why should God emphasize Himself and give the impression that the preservation of the Quran is a "divine" and "unique" feature? It is not necessarily a divine merit for a book to be pre-served by its zealot followers. For instance, Bukhari is a document, which has been well preserved for approximately 12 centuries. Now there are thousands of copies of the original Quran that do not contain 9.128-129 are circulated and read all around the world. Does this version of the Quran refute the divine promise in verse 15.9? If your answer will start, "No, the distortion made by a community of diverted people does not refute the verse, be-cause. . . . ", then our answer will also start, "No, the distortion made by idol worshipers after prophet Muhammad centuries ago does not refute the verse, be-cause. . . . " What is the difference between these two cases? The validity of a negative statement or challenge (such as in verse 41.42) cannot be proved unless we witness the failure of attempts against it. It is a circular argument to say that it is preserved be-cause it claims so, since the claim of preservation also is under question. Similarly we cannot say that it is preserved because it is preserved. For instance, if I claim that no one can climb the walls of my castle, my challenge will not make sense until some people try and fail to do so. If the trials and failures of some people demonstrate that my castle’s walls have been protected by an impenetrable surface with virtually zero friction supported by high volt-age electricity and an automatic alarm system, then my challenge is proven. An example of such proof is the word "Bastatan" in 7.69. The code 19, demonstrated that falsehood can never enter the Quran). If you look at the Quran in your hand you will see that the word "Bastatan" in verse 7.69 is misspelled with "Sad." We detected this minor printing error through the Quran’s mathematical code. When we studied the oldest available versions, for instance, the Tashkent Copy, we found that it is exactly the way that we had predicted according to the mathematical structure. Besides, how can you answer the question regarding the authenticity of the very verse that claims the preservation. What if, after the dangerous arguments started soon after the death of prophet Muhammad, some zealots constructed or fabricated the verses 15.9 and 41.42, and it was well ac-accepted by pragmatist leaders to heal the social discord in their land? After all, there were no shortage of people who could produce Arabic statements in the name of God or the prophet e.g. 9:128-129. Besides, how can you prove that two false verses were not inserted into the Qur’an by the Sunni Muslim? Quote:- Rashad Khalifah's followers' believe in the rest of Quran besides the two verses they reject. >>> Wrong. Verses 9:128-129 were added in the Qur’an and were not the part of original Qur’an. Also read all my replies (above) regarding the subject. Quote:- If they say two verses were added, then that contradicts the claim in the other parts of the Quran they believe in that Quran cannot be changed! >>> Reply above. Also I said earlier that the word “Raheem” of verses 9:128-129 is used for Muhammad. This is an exception and wrong, because this word ‘Raheem’ is used in the Qur’an exclusively as a name of GOD. According to 7:188, 10:49, 72:21 the Prophet did not posses any power of mercy. Moreover, I have a copy of R.K’s English translation of Qur’an and I read it. Thousands of copies of R.K’s English translation of Qur’an and also Arabic Qur’an were red all over the world. In these Qur’an(Arabic & Translation) the two false verses 9:128-129 were not included but the verse of preserving the Qur’an i.e. 15:9 remained with these Qur’an (Arabic & Translation). So brother we are not contradicting rather you. [6:4] No matter what kind of proof comes to them from their Lord, they turn away from it, in aversion. Salam Samsher[/size=2] Edited by: ibrahim on Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:42 AM[/quote]
Mode
Prompt
Help
Basic
Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic
Show Preview
Share
|
Copyright
Studying-Islam
© 2003-7 |
Privacy Policy
|
Code of Conduct
|
An Affiliate of
Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top