Yes, and I threw back your "challange" (sic) because of its ridiculous foundation.  I still have no idea which "four Qur'ans" you are talking about, since there is only one Qur'an and always has been, even in the different mushafs of the Companions.  If you are referring to the different mushafs, then you need to say so.  By saying "four Qur'ans" you are exposing the bias and ignorance in your reasoning as there are no such "four Qur'ans".  So, if you are indeed asking about the different mushafs (of which there were many, not just four as you so ignorantly claimed ), then I can say that your pathetic "challange" (sic) has already been answered several times!  I have even provided an example of the differences.  I mentioned to Larry that Von Denffer said that the mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud contained, for example, 101 differences, which were all due to spelling or grammar changes.  As an example, Ibn Mas'ud spelled "Al-Baqara" (which is the standard) as "Al-Baqira".  This would be like spelling "donut" as "doughnut" in English (both of which are acceptable) or in your case, spelling "challenge" as "challange" (the latter of which is incorrect ).

As an added example, take the manuscript DAM 01.27.1, which as I pointed out in the other thread, contained as the "scriptio inferior" the mushaf of a Companion of the Prophet and as the "scriptio superior" as the Uthmanic standard.  According to Sadeghi and Bergmann:

"...textual criticism suggests that the standard version [of Uthman ] is the most faithful representation, among the known codices, of the Qurʾān as recited by the Prophet. [...] The remarkably few and minor skeletal-morphemic differences among the codices ʿUtm̠ ān sent to the cities is another indication of the care that was put into the process of standardization" ("The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Quran of the Prophet", Arabica, p. 414).  

They also provide examples of the differences between the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior (all of which are due either to spelling or grammar), such as:

2:217 -

Scriptio superior - qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month—fighting in it.”

Scriptio inferior - (wa)-ʿan qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month and about fighting in it.” (Ibid., p. 361).

As you can, the difference is negligible. 



More nonsense as I have already pointed out numerous times that the contents of those personal codices have been preserved in the writings of the scholars of Islam.  The above examples serve as direct proof of the absurdity of your claim.  What else can one expect from the blind? 

Your pathetic conspiracy theory is what is unprovable and neither you nor your pseudoscholars have been able to provide any support for your hearsay claims.  Therefore, your "critique" (ha ha, hee hee) of myself and the scholars that I have quoted is laughable.  Pardon me while I laugh......there, that was nice.

And once again I ask: why did you not question the credentials of the "Harvard House" guy but you did for Dr. Al-Imam?  Why the double standards?  What "credentials" (if any) does HH have that made you blindly accept everything he claimed?  And most importantly, which side do you think carries more weight?  This is not a trick question!



If you say so, papa bear.  Actually, the only ones I am not "convincing" are people like you and Larry, the biased boneheads who feign objectivity but who lack it completely.  But this was expected.  I did not expect the two of you to accept the strong evidence from the beginning because I know you two all too well.  As it happens, I sent my article to two friends of mine, one a Catholic convert to Islam and the other an Evangelical Christian.  I asked both for their opinions.  Both felt that I supported my arguments well using authentic sources.  So, you see, I am indeed convincing some people!  Praise be to Allah!

Of course, as I have said many times already, I could care less if I can't convince your kind.  That is not my goal in life nor does my "failure" to convince you keep me up at night, so don't flatter yourself!  



What is in the article from HH was refuted using the same sources he selectively used.  And he did not provide any scholarly references, only his own claims and conspiracy theories.  Your argument that "what is in the article is also included in many other sources, such as a book I have at home, and in many other articles on the internet, as well as many encyclopedias" is a childish one.  First of all, you once again resort to vague references.  Which book are you talking about?  What encyclopedias?  Care to give any references?  Second, are these "sources" written by scholars in their fields or self-professed scholars such as our anonymous friend HH? 

Just because HH makes the same claims as other as of yet unnamed sources does not clear him/her of academic fraud.  I even gave examples of how he selectively used Al-Masahif and Al-Tamhid to try to prove his conspiracy theory.  This is what nutcases like him/her with no credentials do.  They cherry-pick from their sources, which is why their "articles" are not peer-reviews (because if they were, they would be rejected as inaccurate).









Edited by islamispeace - 08 October 2011 at 6:06pm

islamispeace,

   Why did I say your post was ludicrous? Because you say, "The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and EVEN non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

   How ELSE would a "scholar of Islam" view the Qur'an? And you neglected to say that SOME non-Muslim scholars feel the same way.

   There are many non-Muslim scholars who find a lot of faults and discrepancies in the Qur'an. Especially in the case of how the "People of the Book" are to be viewed and treated. The Qur'an is all over the map on that subject.

   You are a little too fast and easy with your so-called "facts."

   And your last statement shows just how thin your skin really is. If it didn't bother you I doubt you would go to such lengths to say why it doesn't.

   Do you think that you can give it a rest now?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 09 October 2011 at 4:35am

Jazakallah,

More papa bear lecturing and no rebuttal to the solid facts given in response to your so-called "solid challanges (sic)".  Didn't I provide two examples of the differences between the personal codices and the Uthamic standard?  Whose back is against the wall?  And common sense?  I didn't think you two had it?