Why Remove 9:127&129?

[grandopolis]

Dear Jonny,

I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong on a number of issues.

- Warsh has the same `Allah` count as Hafs (I have both copies).

- The Tashkant Quran you refer to is a distorted copy with countless errors (it is neither Warsh nor Hafs).

- Rashad`s argument for removing 128 & 129 is bogus. Not only does he use the satanic hadith to make his case, but he forces his conclusions for a Hafs count (whereas Warsh would have given his what he was looking for without removing any verses).

In all cases, the count of `Allah` will never be a 19 divisible number even with Rashad`s distorted Hafs.

You see, the Quran was revealed as a series of verses including the Basmallas. There was never any verse numbering until a few centuries later (all early Quran`s simply had marks to seperate the verses).

Now, the count of `Allah` for the whole revealed Quran will be 2811 (Hafs & Warsh) - and it will be 2810 for RK`s distorted Quran- Note: neither if these numbers is a 19 divisible count.

This is why I say that people who remove 128 & 129 lack basic arithmetic. They play a game of `pick & chose` to get the desired results rather than presenting all the evidence as it is.

May the Peace be with you,

How can the warsh version provide the interlocking of code 19? And why doesn't the hafs version?

May my Lord protect me and guide me.

Peace.

[grandopolis]

Dear Jonny,

I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong on a number of issues.

- Warsh has the same `Allah` count as Hafs (I have both copies).

- The Tashkant Quran you refer to is a distorted copy with countless errors (it is neither Warsh nor Hafs).

- Rashad`s argument for removing 128 & 129 is bogus. Not only does he use the satanic hadith to make his case, but he forces his conclusions for a Hafs count (whereas Warsh would have given his what he was looking for without removing any verses).

In all cases, the count of `Allah` will never be a 19 divisible number even with Rashad`s distorted Hafs.

You see, the Quran was revealed as a series of verses including the Basmallas. There was never any verse numbering until a few centuries later (all early Quran`s simply had marks to seperate the verses).

Now, the count of `Allah` for the whole revealed Quran will be 2811 (Hafs & Warsh) - and it will be 2810 for RK`s distorted Quran- Note: neither if these numbers is a 19 divisible count.

This is why I say that people who remove 128 & 129 lack basic arithmetic. They play a game of `pick & chose` to get the desired results rather than presenting all the evidence as it is.

[Bahman]

WHAT IS A GV?

Peace and welcome
http://submission.org/what_is_a_numeral.html
I recommend this too
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603452.msg292537#msg292537
Peace

[Bahman]

May the Peace be with you,

How can the warsh version provide the interlocking of code 19? And why doesn't the hafs version?

May my Lord protect me and guide me.

Peace.

https://sites.google.com/site/purifiedscripture/

[Bahman]

Shalom halaichem,

Are you from Israel?

Shalom,

Peace
No he was not,  is not active more

But. He was
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140830225308/http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16065.msg157599#msg157599
And he did this verfication
https://web.archive.org/web/20140904003739/http://creatorsignature.com/awesome1.htm

Johny K. Life story. Hewas forced by his envoirnment to quit this forum,  God bless him.
https://sites.google.com/site/lifestoryofabeliever/

Peace 

[Man of Faith]

How can the warsh version provide the interlocking of code 19? And why doesn't the hafs version

A reason is because one of the versions write out alef's that are not part of the original compilation. One example is with the word Ya Rabb which is written YeRabb in the correct version, e.g. يرب rather than يا رب. Another example is al-ketab which is written as الكتاب in one version and الكتب in another. الكتب is the correct form. The alef is not necessary to properly pronounce the word and just displays the inability of ancient scholars. First of all, ketab is not an object here but just an attribute much like "knowledge", know-how as in having the proper directive, decree. You can refer to a classical Arabic lexicon to verify this.

People in general have a misconception regarding the prefix AL which word works more like making a word an attribute. It morphologically means "Be/Is Such" and together would like to say "(who) is + attribute", e.g. al-rahman "is - completely".

So if to return to your question, the version with added alef's will not yield a proper count of the letter alef, and which are not native to the original.

You will have additional problems though since recent research has shown more versions of Quran than previously known have been altered as they found older manuscripts in Yemen anomalous compared to those available yet they have shown they are older than the present ones by carbon dating. I have a big wish of getting my own hands on one of those manuscripts in order to deliver a perfect rendition in my project I am devoted to.

Be well
Amenuel