Concerning my discussions and questions about the Quran.  I believe that based on the facts that:

1.  No original "first edition" manuscript is publicly known;

2.  The accepted version was written 100-200 years after the death of Muhammad;

3.  It was compiled by a committtee that decided what would go into it.

4.  It has been edited, rewritten, translated, and clarified and;

5.  The current version has Arabic in it that was not in use during the time of Muhammad. (I haven't personally verified this, but am researching it).

There is "reasonable suspicion" that the Quran POSSIBLY is not be the same as what Muhammad said.

Now what would the affect be of the acknowledgement that the written Quran is not perfectly in line with what Muhammad actually said?

I think it would tend to eliminate the worship of the Book and the Messenger and return Muslims to the sole worship of God.

Would that be a problem?

StephenC wrote: Concerning my discussions and questions about the Quran.  I believe that based on the facts that: 1.  No original "first edition" manuscript is publicly known; 2.  The accepted version was written 100-200 years after the death of Muhammad; 3.  It was compiled by a committtee that decided what would go into it. 4.  It has been edited, rewritten, translated, and clarified and; 5.  The current version has Arabic in it that was not in use during the time of Muhammad. (I haven't personally verified this, but am researching it). There is "reasonable suspicion" that the Quran POSSIBLY is not be the same as what Muhammad said. Now what would the affect be of the acknowledgement that the written Quran is not perfectly in line with what Muhammad actually said? I think it would tend to eliminate the worship of the Book and the Messenger and return Muslims to the sole worship of God. Would that be a problem?

The problem is of your ignorance.

For 1, 2, 3, and 4 you have already been answered regarding the transmission of the Quran and the nature of the Quran. Your failure to directly engage the specific details of the replies is the nature of your really bad "attempted criticism". In fact, your ideas are extremely "novel", even in mainstream scholarly circles, not including a handful of fringe "revision" theories that have never recieved any serious backing due to the lack of evidence.

For 5, you once again show just how ignorant you are about the history of Islam. Please, no one is disputing some of the quotes you use, only your misuse of them, and the dramatic sweeping generalizations you make, and the serious handwaving you do to try and draw conclsuions from them.

You have been warned over and over, and even after your account has come under review, you still attempt the same bad sophistry, working against the nature of the forum.

Your claims do not bother Muslims, what concerns us, and some non-Muslims here, is your complete and absolute ignorance about a topic, which you feel you are able to "damage". This kind of deluded and convoluted dribble is a sad legacy for your claims, and it speaks volumes about who you are and your lack of honesty.

You were answered concerning your "points", and you chose to ignore them and resort to replying with trivial rubbish in previouse threads where you brought these up in the past.

It does not matter what or how many times someone replies to you, you will simply bring the same points up, throw out those things which do not suit you, ignore those things which are not convenient, obfuscate, and deny you were replied to.

You are not the Luther of Islam, you are a very ignorant, and misguided soul who has convinced themself of some kind of importance, where in reality only a shallow mind lays rest.  

There is no further benefit in having any kind of discussion with you, whether by me, or anyone else in the forum, which is why people who used to reply to you have been dwindeling, though I am sure you have convinced yourself it is due to some intellectual prowess, when in reality, your intellectual prowess is impotent, but as long as you are convinced otherwise, then I am happy that you are happy.

StephenC wrote: 5.  The current version has Arabic in it that was not in use during the time of Muhammad. (I haven't personally verified this, but am researching it).

I can say the same thing for the bible, silly  "the current version has english in it that was not in use during the time of Jesus (or any other prophets for that matter)".

You know you started a thread on and about the quran, why couldn't you stay there instead of repeating a new one?

This is another one of them thar trolls I talked about!

StephenC wrote: Angel wrote: StephenC wrote: 5.  The current version has Arabic in it that was not in use during the time of Muhammad. (I haven't personally verified this, but am researching it). I can say the same thing for the bible, silly  "the current version has english in it that was not in use during the time of Jesus (or any other prophets for that matter)". You know you started a thread on and about the quran, why couldn't you stay there instead of repeating a new one? I DID say the same thing about the Bible silly! The problem is that when I post the truth that hurts, Andulas or others close the thread!  How is that for fair and honest discussion! Now are my 5 points in error or are they correct?  If they are correct we can contine on!

Someone already said your points are all wrong. So why don't you shut up now?

StephenC:

You are warned again. Comply with guidelines. You are creating new threads on the same topic. That is spamming. Also that when a thread is closed, don't start another thread with any reference to the closed thread.