/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

>>19123

If the suras are lost, how would we know?

>>19124

Because of hadith. Most prominently the breast-feeding sura but at least one other as well

>>19123

There are no lost surahs, but I would like to see your evidence.

Wilaya and Nurayn, if that's what you're talking about, are proven forgeries.

>>19126

>>19128

… that's your evidence?

>>19129

Yes

>>19127

this, now gtfo acts17 fa.ggots

>>19132

It's not about Wilaya and Nurayn.

>>19130

Do you also believe everything Satanists say about Christianity? No? Then why believe what evangelical Christians say about Islam?

What you've posted isn't evidence. It's not even remotely close to evidence. Evidence is neutral, unbiased.

>>19135

Well… that's the point of this thread to disprove the video. And he did give source so if his sources are wrong or weak or whatever jump in. YOU're the one not providing evidence

>>19137

That's not what this board is about. We're not here to prove or disprove anything.

>>19137

Our evidence is Qur'an and al-Sunnah and the scholars. That's what we bring to the table. You bring a youtube video.

We win.

>>19138

So you leave the claim that the modern koran is incomplete untackled?

>>19139

What do you win? What difference does it make that it is a youtube video since he recites the sunnah? You neither brought the koran or the sunnah or any scholar to the table?

>>19143

Frankly, I don't really care what you believe to be true. Go read Qur'an and decide for yourself.

>>19148

How would reading the Quran answer my question about textual criticism of the Quran? Did you even bother to read my question?

>>19151

Doesn't matter. If you've never read Qur'an, then your opinion of it is meaningless. It's like writing a review of a movie you've never seen.

Go read Qur'an, then we'll talk.

>>11001

/islam/ is a place for Muslims to gather and discuss Islam and not intended as a place where Muslims must defend themselves or their religion from outsiders.

>>19153

I have read the Quran. Are you mentally ill? How can you not see how these two subjects are unrelated?

>>19155

I didn't attack anyone. I heard about 2 missing Quransuras from an anti-muslim source so I came to ask muslims for the other side of the view on it.

Of course you don't NEED to defend the quran but why then are you in the thread instead of leaving it to muslims who are both willing and able to?

Seems to me like you antagonise me to hide the fact that you have no answer to the question.

And with you I mean you not muslims in general. So if anyone can answer or give me some sources to research the subject for myself I'd gladly stop bothering you

>>19161

>Are you mentally ill?

Nope.

>I didn't attack anyone.

No, but you're getting mighty upset that nobody is answering your demands.

>leaving it to muslims who are both willing and able

We're all able, but I've yet to see anyone willing.

>give me some sources to research the subject for myself

www.google.com

>>19137

>that's the point of this thread to disprove the video

No. We don't do that. We'd never be able to discuss anything else if we stopped to disprove every idiotic thing thrown at us. If you have a specific question, we'll answer. "Disprove this idiotic video" is not a question.

>>19163

>If you have a specific question, we'll answer

what do you make of the at least 2 lost suras and other textual variants in the koran?

>>19162

>We're all able, but I've yet to see anyone willing

>www.google.com

;)

>>19164

you gotta understand bro. we have spent the last 16 years having everything we do scrutinized. It gets tiresome. we grow apathetic. even when we get media representation or someone asking us questions, its turned against us.

>hey akhmed do you like my hat

>um… not really

>is it because you are muslim?

>no, how is that even relat-

>BREAKING NEWS, MUSLIMS UNIVERSALLY DECLARE FATWA ON HATS!

Imagine that interaction taking place is some form or another, and you can see why people are reluctant to do your googling for you. those surahs are forged. like really obviously too.

It would be like filming a kids school play and calling it the latest hobbit movie. thats how stark the contrast apparently is. again, you can google it yourself.

>>19165

>those surahs are forged

Still not about Wilaya and Nurayn

>you gotta understand bro

I do. That's why I didn't post the video initially to not make it seem like a MUSLIMS BTFO XDD thread but when asked about my source I have to provide it.

>do your googling for you

As I said I tried really hard to get any info on textual criticism of the quran. I didn't find one. So I came here figuring internet prone people would be more open and able to discuss this issue.

>>19166

"The Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are two surahs (chapters) that are considered forgeries by both Sunni and Shi'ite Scholars. The fake chapters first appeared in a mid 17th century book called "Dabistan-i Madhahib" by anonymous writer(s) in India. These chapters are not to be found in the Qur'an and there is no record of them in earlier sources." –Wikipedia article on the forged surahs. And I know wikipedia is bad but it's a decent starting place.

As for the surahs themselves the top results containing them are from a Christian missionary site about telling people how wrong Islam is. The same source refers to them as "Shia" surahs, because if they were true they'd prove that Shias were right in assuming the first caliphs were usurpers. I'd conclude that the two surahs are forged, and were made by a small group of Shias going against their religion because they wanted to be "right", at the cost of the Quran's integrity. For the record, that's a really stupid thing to do, and doesn't reflect the opinions of the vast majority of Muslims.

As for a textual analysis, I don't know Arabic so I can't do that. What I do know is that the Quran has loads of tricks to it. This mentions a lot of the math: http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/05/the-numbers-in-the-quran/ and this describes the type of grammer used: http://corpus.quran.com/documentation/grammar.jsp If I knew Arabic I'd be able to pull the two surahs apart and see how they compare, but I can't do that.

>>19167

Still not about Wilaya and Nurayn. It's about parts of the quran that according to Aisha got lost.

Textual criticism not textual analysis. Manuscripts and such.

>>19168

>"The Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn"

>Still not about Wilaya and Nurayn

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.html

>Still not about Wilaya and Nurayn

I tried.

>>19168

If you google "lost parts of Qur'an", 90% of the results are "answeringislam" or "jihadwatch" or "ireallycannotstandmuslims.org". All you have to do is consider the source. If the source is an obvious bias against Muslims, then it is not a valid source and can be ignored.

>what do you make of the at least 2 lost suras and other textual variants in the koran?

Since there are no missing parts of Qur'an, you may as well be asking what we think of Unicorns or Aliens. I'm going to say this one more time so that maybe it sinks in:

There are no missing parts of Qur'an.

No matter how many "wehateislam.com" sites claim it to be so, it is a non-issue because:

There are no missing parts of Qur'an.

Also, here:

https://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2008/07/missing-quran-verses-on-stoning-and.html

If you're not going to bother reading that, then don't bother replying to this thread.

>>19171

>If the source is an obvious bias against Muslims, then it is not a valid source and can be ignored.

No it can't. Facts are true regardless of who gives them. Of course biased sources will misrepresent or lie about claims which is why it is clever to proofcheck their claims with an unbiased source wink wink

>There are no missing parts of Qur'an.

>because:

>There are no missing parts of Qur'an.

This sounds more like denial than an argument. So what would you do if there were missing parts of the Quran?

Since you won't watch the video I extrapolated it for you

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9

English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944

Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

The website rates it as Hasan.

>>19174

its a false hadith

>>19174

READ: >>19172

THERE ARE NO MISSING PARTS OF QU'RAN

>>19172

>>19177

Sorry but that website is really poor. For one it claims it refers only to children which is clearly false and second it says the verse was put up for dispute and then rejected. Divine revelation can neither be discussed nor rejected

>>19176

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html rates Hasan as good

>>19178

And here shows the true problem.

You don't actually want an answer. You already believe there are missing surat about breastfeeding and stoning. So, that's it. No answer will be good enough for you. I suspect you're one or two posts away from screaming "taqiyya" at us.

You've been answered. You don't like the answer, but you've been answered. We're done here.