:: Muhammad is NOT our Rasool ::

[huruf]

Bloated egos are jealous of a man of the sixth or seventh century who was a prophet and can't stand that he be praised instead of them.

How dare anabody direct praise to others that are not the bloated egos?


If this kind of amusement was on on TV it would make record audiences.


Salaam

[Makaveli]

Bloated egos

Is this the most potent conclusion you could possibly extract from the above discussion? Are you incapable of seeing a greater picture? Praising someone who was a self-proclaimed deluded imposter and who's name can be translated as "Praised One" is alike of giving up common sense and healthy self-identity altogether. It reminds me of people praising Stalin and crying when he died despite mass killings and deportations during his regime. I reminds me of people praising Hitler.

who was a prophet

A definition of prophet (nabya) please. Does your small limited miserable deluded world of an angry muslim feminist include such definition? If yes, please share it. I want to know who a prophet is. Please enlighten me. Please use your intellectual capacity to its maximum potential, because that is the hint.

Is God a printing press to you?

Or do you want me to present the root definition for you?

[good logic]

Peace Makaveli.
Mohammed and his generation lived, worked for what they will earn and died. We in turn are doing the same. That is why your questions will serve no purpose.
Qoran has reached us intact. Mohammed passed on the message  to us, We have the message, we live, work for what we will earn and die. Mohammed did his job as messenger which is all we really need to know about him.

If you already know the book and understand it your way, why are you asking questions ?
Are you testing people ?
Do you see why it is a waste of time talking to you about a book you seem to understand so well according to you and your secret roots?
If other people ask me, with good intent, I will give them my view adding that it needs checking as per 17:36.
Like I said each one of us searches and proves their own truth.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace

[Makaveli]

That is why your questions will serve no purpose.

They do serve a purpose, much more valuable than blind acceptance. Just because you do not see the purpose in it, it does not mean the questions lack purpose. If you could grasp what I am trying to deliver no plain explanation would be needed. But since you do not try I guess it's your choice. 

[Noon waalqalami]

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

which 12 did the scribe ibn hadid leave out in perf 558 ~200 years prior early 7th century?

jumada al-ula 30 / apr 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi, 30 the 1st indiction (Perf 558)
http://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/viewer.faces?doc=DOD_%2BZ120228707&order=1&view=SINGLE

likewise which 12 letters are missing in oldest manuscripts dated 568-645 CE?
https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281

[Makaveli]

which 12 did the scribe ibn hadid leave out in perf 558 ~200 years prior early 7th century?

You know which 12 letters I am talking about, do not ask silly questions. There are no 12 additional letters in any of these examples. Birmingham manuscript is pure abjad, lacks any dots whatsoever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript#/media/File:Birmingham_Quran_manuscript.jpg

What it says in the beggining of chapter 20? Maa anzalna alqurana litashkah. It should have:

1. A dot over nun - nothing

2. A dot over Zay - nothing

3. Two dots over Ta - nothing

4. Three dots over Shiin - nothing

5. Two dots over Qaf - nothing

These are all letters that are present in abjad nonetheless. But even if they were un-dotted, what is the point of taking the additional 12 letters seriously, which were officially addeted by the end of the first half of the 7th century, whereas Quran was available since at least 6th century. Officially by the end of the first half of the 7th century, however in relity probably later, during 8-9th centuries, when a so called Arabic grammar was being forged.

Anyways, I am tired of presenting the evidence to the profane who hold their castrated beliefs so tightly they will go great lengths justifying them. One evidence everyone with sound mind would agree with is that Arabic is a bad way in understanding the Quran - this is by far the greatest examples how forged language prevents from understanding the text, which most of you do not understand anyway.

Also, in PERF558 the letter Nun looks quite different from modern script, looks more like a dagger pointing backwards. In modern inscriptions nun may often resemble Ba or Ta, but with one dot over it. It proves even the Script was in developement in several stages, and became less effective, since modern Nun can be easily mistaken with Ba or Ta especially in the beggining and the middle of a word.

Additional letters themselves are justified by the need to add more sounds for the loan words. Now here is the question. If you claim the Quran is written in Arabic, what is the point of adding additional sounds for foreign words, such as Greek or Persian?

[Makaveli]

There is also a contradiction in the history of development of modern Arabic script, which claims to have originated from both the Nabbatean script and the so called Old South Arabic/musnad. So which of these two played a role in development of the modern Arabic script? OSA has 29 letters, whereas Nabbatean is classical ABJAD, meaning 22.

If anything something we call the Quran is unlikely to spring out of the villages and camps of barbarians, Persian mercenaries and bedouins of the South. It is more likely to come out of the culturally richest region of that time, which is Petrea and the Jordan region, the Nabbatean kingdom. Even upon these days there is nothing archeologically interesting in Mecca, unlike Petrea and the overall Northern region where upon these days they find valuable archeological material all over the place.

Not to mention the Al-Lat and Al-Uzza cults were mostly worshipped in the North and seldom in South Arabia. Now let us see how all the so called proponents of the Petra vs Mecca theory will renounce this and go back to the pro-Mecca bandwagon once they hear arguments contradicting their "Arabic" language dogma.

P.S. PERF588 seems in fact to be written in South Arabia, which does not in any way prove anything, since by the 7th century the "Saracenes" were most likely cooperating with Byzantine when the latter was offically at war with the Persian Sassanid Empire. It does not however show anything "Islamic" in relation to the PERF588 as the Basmallah was the formula already established before the emerge of Islam. Saying Basmallah originated with Islam is like saying the AUM originated with Hinduism.

[Noon waalqalami]

There are no 12 additional letters in any of these examples. Birmingham manuscript is pure abjad, lacks any dots whatsoever.

What it says in the beggining of chapter 20?

Also, in PERF558 the letter Nun looks quite different from modern script, looks more like a dagger pointing backwards. 

3:119... قل say موتوا perish ye of بغىظكم in rage yours ان indeed الله the god علىم knower بذات in what الصدور the breasts

kills missionaries to see old manuscripts ن back then written j no need to dot obvious e.g. الرحمن the almighty -- use magnifier see that numerous letters were dotted.

20:0 بسم in name الله the god الرحمن the almighty الرحىم the merciful
20:1-2 طه ta ha ما not انزلنا descends we of علىك upon you القران the recitation لتشقى to thou agonize

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281



https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=107



https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1/handschrift/163




Perf 558 dated 643 CE dots on letters ج  خ  ذ  ز  ش  ن destroys missing letters nonsense
muharram 28, 22 AH / 26th december, 642 CE / choiak 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 555)
jumada al-ula 30, 22 AH / april 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 558)

[Makaveli]

Do you sincerely believe these obviously artificial red dots on some pages (most pages do not even have them) which are obviously an addition to the original text as a part of Biblical Hebrew scholarly expertize are convincing evidence? No dots above Shiin, Zay, Ta or Qaf at 20:1-2 and the rest of the page either, not just Nun.

The dots at https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281 while few in numbers are very blurred, and in majority of the cases look more like a test to see what others will say whether or not these sheets require dots or not. Seems like the language was still developing and these are obviously scholarly copies, which were washed and re-washed as a part of scribe schooling. This is why these copies contain upper and lower texts.

The dots at https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=107 look more like an addition. Even the commentary below the photo says:

The transliteration considers only the oldest layer of the text, ie the consonant signs as they appear in the manuscript, with or without diacritical marks. Vowel notes that are likely to be written by red dots later are not included.

Text in german (original page)

Die Transliteration ber?cksichtigt nur die ?lteste Schicht des Textes, d.h. die Konsonantenzeichen, so wie sie in der Handschrift erscheinen, mit oder ohne diakritische Zeichen. Vokalzeichen, die wahrscheinlich zu einem sp?teren Zeitpunkt durch rote Punkte geschrieben werden, sind nicht ber?cksichtigt.

Also do you somehow believe that ignoring 90% of my arguments and clinging to just one issue is somehow sufficient to keep your beliefs intact? For yourself, perhaps, for myself that's not enough. I have already expressed my views, backed by commonly accepted evience, about the development of South Arabian script, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I have problem with is the lack of innate dots in those Quranic copies. 

Also I have expressed my opinion on PER588 already, I said it probably belongs to the South Arabia region, yet does not in any way relate to the Quran and its script.

use magnifier see that numerous letters were dotted.

Majority pages in old copies are either without dots or the dots are so unnaturally small and tentative that it looks more of a schooling copy rather than a complete inscription. Some pages which have dots, have red dots probably as a later addition of the linguistic expertize were probably not a part of original re-writing process.

It does not matter in the end. Please respond to my question

Additional letters themselves are justified by the need to add more sounds for the loan words. Now here is the question. If you claim the Quran is written in Arabic, what is the point of adding additional sounds for foreign words, such as Greek or Persian?

[Noon waalqalami]

Also I have expressed my opinion on PER588 already, I said it probably belongs to the South Arabia region, yet does not in any way relate to the Quran and its script.

yes it relates contains same words style of script already shown...

بسم bis'mi الله l-lahi الرحمن l-raḥmāni الرحىم l-raḥīmi
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)

Majority pages in old copies are either without dots or the dots are so unnaturally small ...

It does not matter in the end.

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.