Poll

Please vote

I agree
1 (20%)
I disagree
2 (40%)
I am confused
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Author Topic: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::  (Read 1268 times)

Makaveli

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Gender: Male
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2018, 02:07:23 PM »
yes it relates contains same words style of script already shown...
بسم bis'mi الله l-lahi الرحمن l-raḥmāni الرحىم l-raḥīmi

Yes and if you read my post you will see that I've addressed the basmallah issue. Basmallah did not originate as a religious formula in 600 A.D., is probably earlier.   

شهر shahru
الاولى l-ula/the first
من min سنه sanatin اثنىن ithnayni
وكتبه wakutubihi/and written his (i.e. author) ابن ib'na

receipt for sheep in Egypt in year 643 CE which is obvious reading perf 555, 556, 558

muharram 28, 22 AH / 26th december, 642 CE / choiak 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 555)
safar, 22 AH / 6th january, 643 CE / tybi 13, the 1st indiction (Perf 556)
jumada al-ula 30, 22 AH / april 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 558)

Please elaborate on your reasoning. So they did not have words for son or did not use lunar calendar before 650 A.D.? Shahr is btw a semantic loan from Aramaic סהרא

yes it matters that you lied! 12 missing letters, wrong century, no dots etc.
now you admit there are dots -- grey/red dots, small dots, all sorts of dots.

I lied? Are you accusing me of a lie? If that is the case, then please explain what was the point of me pointing out:

1. The scholarly hypothesis of the bad/horrible copy, which which is acknowledge not by myself alone but by several scholars who hypothesized on the issue of washing down the lower text and writing down a new text?

2. The red dot issue, which is acknowledge not by myself alone but by the commission working on the palimpsest as quoted in English and German?

3. The scholarly hypothesis which is also consistent with a lack of dots whatsoever on many pages OR the dots which look more likely tentative so as to show to the scholar and conclude whether or not the word requires a vowel?

I do not see any of the twelve additional letters of the modern Arabic script in Quranic palimpsest, I do see vowels for some common ABJD letters, I never denied it, but I see them either as red dots, which were probably added letter or I do not see them on a lot of pages, or I see but a small tentative dots barely seen by the eye, which look more like as if someone was trying to understand the text and was slightly pressing the pen over palimpsest.

And yes, I doo see letter Dhal for instance in PERF558, so what? A.D. 650 is about the time they've added them in the script according to official linguistic version.

Who's slandering now?
براتىشكا و فايحوشى

To contact me use kasnew1 [at] gee-mail (dot) com.

Noon waalqalami

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2018, 04:47:10 PM »
I lied? Are you accusing me of a lie?

yes, yes knowingly!

1. was practice some new skins others reused skins
2. they used red dots end 10 verses marker as well
3. numerous black dots too, no need to dot obvious

And yes, I doo see letter Dhal for instance in PERF558, so what?

Who's slandering now?

you knowingly and/or blind and/or ignorant possibly all three!
perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".



imrankhawaja

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3491
  • Gender: Male
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2018, 06:01:32 PM »

perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".

peace Noon,

i just want to ask something,
what i understand from your post you said "dots" were always there ?

so is it a false claim by people who said dots were added later same like vocal marks ?
SO which of the MIRACLES/MARVELS of your Lord you will deny
55:55.

Noon waalqalami

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2018, 09:08:15 PM »
peace Noon,

i just want to ask something,
what i understand from your post you said "dots" were always there ?

so is it a false claim by people who said dots were added later same like vocal marks ?

Peace, depends on the time-frame since all scripts evolve with basic dots then vocal marks, etc.

The issue is below ignorant claim that "the language" was forged sometime from 701 to 900 CE.

Quote from: Makaveli
the language forged in 8-9th centuries with 12 additional letters which were never part of original


The language was always there obvious history script with some dots time of perf 558 643 CE.

imrankhawaja

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3491
  • Gender: Male
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2018, 09:48:14 PM »
thanks brother noon exactly thats what i had in my mind .. thanks for confirmation  :handshake:
SO which of the MIRACLES/MARVELS of your Lord you will deny
55:55.

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6089
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2018, 01:04:05 AM »
Seems logical that with time any written text would become less distinct, just as it happens with any material with time. And the smaller the mark the easier it is that it goes away earlier or becomes less noticiable.

In this case some people do not cling to straws but cling to less than straws to uphold their Qur'an hate. How dare anybody believe the Qur'an and not those clever know-alls that tell you that if you  believe in Qur'an instead of believing in them you have blind faith?

The pages of Qur'an, by the way, depict that kind of know-all attitude and narcissistic personality to the dot. Thus, dots or no dots, shows that the Qur'an knows people much better than people know themselves, as they were thousands of years ago and as they still are, some of them a bunch of deluded ignorants who, like the flies, enjoy their instant under the sun, to die in heaps when the season is past. The Qur'an nails them in their vanity and pride. fir3auna, all of them. Away with those who do not believe in the knowitalls, they have blind faith!


Salaam
 




Makaveli

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Gender: Male
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2018, 03:50:11 AM »

1. was practice some new skins others reused skins
2. they used red dots end 10 verses marker as well
3. numerous black dots too, no need to dot obvious

1. If you could re-connect your brain and unplug it out of the place it currently is connected to and then re-read my posts, you would see that I have already explained why the text was washed off and written again. Because it is a bad schooling copy and was used when the language was not even developed, that is why not all pages have dots and the language itself they could not decide at the time, which tradition does it refer to, the North or the South.
2. So?
3. Oh really? There are none in 20:1-2, but you can deny all you want.

you knowingly and/or blind and/or ignorant possibly all three!
perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".

Do you have problems with basic logic and reason? I am not gonna repeat about PERF558, it has no use and is already written by the end of the first half of 7th century, which I said numerous time, already is believed was time when additional letters were introduced. How is it related to the Quran which has none of them except the "later added red dots"? 
براتىشكا و فايحوشى

To contact me use kasnew1 [at] gee-mail (dot) com.

Makaveli

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Gender: Male
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2018, 03:57:26 AM »
Peace, depends on the time-frame since all scripts evolve with basic dots then vocal marks, etc.

1. The grammar and diacritics were added by :

Ibn Abi Ishaq - died AD 735 / AH 117 - how many years after the supposed revelation of the Quran?

This means early Quranic palimsets were not even diacritized in accordance with modern grammar rules, which emerged in 8th century. but were simply vowelized as they saw fit by that time.

2. Birmingham and Saan'a manuscripts were radiocarbonnaly dated to 585-633, which is a high probabily Quran was available LONG before any Arabic language even existed.

3. PERF588 has nothing to do with the Qur'an and belongs to the end of the first half of the 7th century, when according to common history these letters were added in the so called Arabic calligraphy, taken from Old South Arabic, in which PERF588 takes its written tradition.

4. There is no indication and instead quite a varity of factors which tell Quran originated in Petrea region, where Nabbatean language was dominating, i..e pure abjad with 22 letters;

5. Again, The schools of Basra and Kufa further developed grammatical rules in the late 8th century with the rapid rise of Islam.

6. There are no dots in the Bigmingham copy. Black dots are seen unnaturally small, which looks more like a scholarly test, rather than a decicive vowelization, and red dots were obviously added later, something both me and people stuyding the palimset agree with;

7. Quran mentions Allat and AlUzza, the goddesses which were worshipped in Assyria and Petrea, but not the Southern Arabia;

8. Quran itself is a vast body of religious literature which is unlikely to pop out of the bedouin hellhole called South Arabia;

9. 6 additional letters were added to modern Arabic calligraphy as far as the first half of the 7th century, yet they were available before in Old South Arabic, however,

10. Arabic alphabet evolved either from the Nabataean,[1][2] or (less widely believed) directly from the Syriac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet#Origins

That means that the 22 letters of the ABJAD order did not include 6-7 additional of the Old South Arabic, and were added as close as the first half of the 7th century, which is already past the point when Quran was available.
براتىشكا و فايحوشى

To contact me use kasnew1 [at] gee-mail (dot) com.

good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4249
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2018, 04:09:11 AM »
Peace huruf.
Many have taken on the "sword( In the name of Science, false history and  doctrined research -What I want to find out_)" to fight Qoran.  Like here:
http://www.apologetics-central.com/leaderjaysmith.htm
The Missionaries and the Christian Zionists have set up an agenda fuelled by hadiths nonsense that they can easily tear Qoran apart by their so called analysis of history and the false translations of Qoran verses.

They have set up many theories claiming it is proper Scientific research . Like Mosques were facing Petra, Qoran dates back to the 1 st/2nd Century, original language of Qoran was not Arabic, Stories of Qoran have been copied from various old sources...etc

Not realising that GOD has already beaten their argument by setting up a "counter attack" in Qoran:
1- To warn the sincere believers of such plot.
2- To lead them on so they can be humiliated and humbled by future revelations /real meanings of what Qoran verses really say about them and their plot.
3- Qoran contains the truth that is hitting their falsehood slowly but surely as its verses are being manifested to new generation with the increase of technology and knowledge.

There is no need for history or Mohammed s sayings or anybody else s sayings since we have Qoran intact( I say that with the highest confidence). Qoran s words are judging them already. Qoran s words will take all the criticism thrown at them. Qoran will stand the test of time of all generations.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  -Qoran s words cannot be "Kawlu Al-Bashar" words of a human, impossible!!!_
They will eat their words.
Watch, the future belongs to GOD. We are waiting sister.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST

38:65″ Say: I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.

 http://www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/good-logic/

hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: :: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2018, 04:16:34 AM »
Peace Noon waalqalami, could you give your translations/interpretations
of ayats 10:47, 16:36, 57:21 I would appreciate you taking time to do so.

                                    :handshake:
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden