The Conversation between Allah SWT and Prophet Isa (Jesus) (Peace be upon him)

[LordJames]

That's more applicable to the posters blindly supporting you on this thread.

Touched a raw nerve, did I?

As I have said many times ... I do not have the time to dig thru excruciatingly lengthy posts. So therefore this is my way of speeding up the progress on the topic of dots and vowels in Arabic text.

the Question is simple... are they necessary Or not according to you. Its a simple yes/no type of question.

Already answered, you keep saying that you don't have time but keep asking the same question again and again and again

Hmm...I wonder why?

 

[LordJames]

And one more thing @uppercut...

I am not someone you can bully and abuse.

1. You keep asking me to be succinct
2. You keep asking me to repeat what I have already written (in detail and summary)

I won't listen to your demands and will continue to write in the manner and method of my choosing.

This is what you claimed

This is not entirely true but please let me know if you are interested in a serious facts and logic based discussion.

And then backed off and trying to divert attention by posting multiple times without spending the time to actually addressing your contradictions and that's fine. Finer and more capable men have failed when trying to argue against Islam, I am afraid that you are not in that company but keep trying

 

[uppercut]

And one more thing @uppercut...

I am not someone you can bully and abuse.

1. You keep asking me to be succinct
2. You keep asking me to repeat what I have already written (in detail and summary)

I won't listen to your demands and will continue to write in the manner and method of my choosing.

Then you will wait patiently till I get around to your posts

This is what you claimed

A serious discussion doesn't mean you write pages upon pages of irrelevant convoluted nonsense and expect people to wade thru it.

It also doesn't mean that you doggedly refuse to answer very simple questions.

And then backed off and trying to divert attention by posting multiple times without spending the time to actually addressing your contradictions and that's fine.

Where ?

Finer and more capable men have failed when trying to argue against Islam, I am afraid that you are not in that company but keep trying

says you that is doggedly refusing to answer a simple question ?

 

[uppercut]

Touched a raw nerve, did I?


Already answered, you keep saying that you don't have time but keep asking the same question again and again and again

Hmm...I wonder why?

Where ?

 

[LordJames]

Where ?

An overview of @uppercut Tactics
I was approached by @uppercut where he expressed his desire to have a dialogue, his exact words are as follows:

This is not entirely true but please let me know if you are interested in a serious facts and logic based discussion.

Here is a summary of my attempts with no fruitful response to inconsistencies posted by @uppercut

1. Attempt 1: answering your "Jay Smith" arguments and providing contradictions.
2. Attempt 2: breaking down a singular argument into a singular post to make you focus
3. Attempt 3: Drawing your attention attention again to the Arabic dots and vowels
4. Attempt 4: breaking down another inconsistency into a singular post
5. Attempt 5: Again explaining myself about the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith"
6. Attempt 6: Another attempt at clarifying the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith" and trying to focus on content
7. Attempt 7: @uppercut ran away and did not address anything, pivoted so I addressed his second set of arguments
8. Attempt 8: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues
9. Attempt 9: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and directly addressing him
10. Attempt 10: @uppercut continues to hide and run away so reiterated that I will answer his last post
11. Attempt 11: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
12. Attempt 12: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the links
13. Attempt 13: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies

Even if all of the above is not sufficient, here it is in black and white

1. My First Response
2. My Second Response
3. The Arabic broken down a singular argument into a singular post to make him focus
4. The issue of Hadeeth timelines broken down into a singular post

Why?

If you are not familiar with Hindutva or Islamophobe tactics then you must be wondering why @uppercut @Farhan The Man and others behave like this? This is consistent and inline with trying to have discussions with this group:

1. They are not knowledgeable about the topic at all and its largely down to copying/pasting the material from Christian Missionaries.
2. They have no original arguments, either.
3. They know that this material has been refuted because when they google (the responses are also available)
4. But with no shame and no remorse they continue to post it hoping that it will add to the confusion and noise while the real issue gets buried
5. When responded to, ChatGpt cannot help them because the responses are accurate so the only tactic is to divert attention (your posts are too long,where is it, I didn't see it etc etc etc
6. Useful idiots like @Farhan The Man serve a specific puprose of flooding the thread with gibberish & garbage because once a thread goes beyond a few pages, the value is lost and people cannot read through pages and pages
   1. Take a look at every thread and it is flooded with disinformation and irrelevant posts which make the thread grow longer and longer.
   2. In an actual debate a moderator is necessary to focus the particpants on the subject. @uppercut @Farhan The Man and others know this weakness and exploit it in their view but serves no purpose as their hyprocrisy stands clear as daylight.
7. On YouTube or other sessions where they are invited to discuss these matters, at this point it will be "Your Mother..", "Your Sister..." and then they leave and make a YouTube video that they have been kicked out.

Nothing they can do except this because they can't produce any arguments which are of any value.

 

[Farhan The Man]

I am not someone you can bully and abuse.

You are projecting self onto others.

Others have a right to ask pinpointed questions. It's on you if you fail to address these queries in a straightforward manner. You can simply plead ignorance if you don't know.

Rather than hurling insults, let's get the discussion back on track. Shall we.

 

[LordJames]

You are projecting self onto others.

Others have a right to ask pinpointed questions. It's on you if you fail to address these queries in a straightforward manner. You can simply plead ignorance if you don't know.

Rather than hurling insults, let's get the discussion back on track. Shall we.

 

[Farhan The Man]

Memes and not substance.

It's evident why muslims prefer segregationist societies.

Preaching to the uninitiated choir is easier than debating the learned.

 

[uppercut]

An overview of @uppercut Tactics
I was approached by @uppercut where he expressed his desire to have a dialogue, his exact words are as follows:


Here is a summary of my attempts with no fruitful response to inconsistencies posted by @uppercut

1. Attempt 1: answering your "Jay Smith" arguments and providing contradictions.
2. Attempt 2: breaking down a singular argument into a singular post to make you focus
3. Attempt 3: Drawing your attention attention again to the Arabic dots and vowels
4. Attempt 4: breaking down another inconsistency into a singular post
5. Attempt 5: Again explaining myself about the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith"
6. Attempt 6: Another attempt at clarifying the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith" and trying to focus on content
7. Attempt 7: @uppercut ran away and did not address anything, pivoted so I addressed his second set of arguments
8. Attempt 8: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues
9. Attempt 9: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and directly addressing him
10. Attempt 10: @uppercut continues to hide and run away so reiterated that I will answer his last post
11. Attempt 11: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
12. Attempt 12: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the links
13. Attempt 13: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies

Even if all of the above is not sufficient, here it is in black and white

1. My First Response
2. My Second Response
3. The Arabic broken down a singular argument into a singular post to make him focus
4. The issue of Hadeeth timelines broken down into a singular post

Seriously ... what is the point of all that book keeping of past posts ?

Why?

If you are not familiar with Hindutva or Islamophobe tactics then you must be wondering why @uppercut @Farhan The Man and others behave like this? This is consistent and inline with trying to have discussions with this group:

1. They are not knowledgeable about the topic at all and its largely down to copying/pasting the material from Christian Missionaries.
2. They have no original arguments, either.
3. They know that this material has been refuted because when they google (the responses are also available)
4. But with no shame and no remorse they continue to post it hoping that it will add to the confusion and noise while the real issue gets buried
5. When responded to, ChatGpt cannot help them because the responses are accurate so the only tactic is to divert attention (your posts are too long,where is it, I didn't see it etc etc etc
6. Useful idiots like @Farhan The Man serve a specific puprose of flooding the thread with gibberish & garbage because once a thread goes beyond a few pages, the value is lost and people cannot read through pages and pages
   1. Take a look at every thread and it is flooded with disinformation and irrelevant posts which make the thread grow longer and longer.
   2. In an actual debate a moderator is necessary to focus the particpants on the subject. @uppercut @Farhan The Man and others know this weakness and exploit it in their view but serves no purpose as their hyprocrisy stands clear as daylight.
7. On YouTube or other sessions where they are invited to discuss these matters, at this point it will be "Your Mother..", "Your Sister..." and then they leave and make a YouTube video that they have been kicked out.

Nothing they can do except this because they can't produce any arguments which are of any value.

Instead of making personal/ad-hominem remarks ... please address these core points that directly pertain to the topic of Quran preservation:

1. Why did it take over 23 years to complete the Quran if it was from an all-knowing God? Gradual revelation with edits and replacements looks like human legislation, not divine foresight.​
2. How is abrogation (2:106 and 16:101) compatible with the claim that the Quran is eternal, unchanged, and perfect?​
3. Why is there no definitive, preserved list of all abrogated verses — meaning people today rely on later human juristic opinions rather than a clear record from the Prophet's time?​
4. Why was it necessary for Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran and burn other materials if the original compilation under Abu Bakr was complete and preserved? Note: Even the first edition was not certified by the Prophet. Infact there is no such certified version at all​
5. Sahih Bukhari (4987–4989) shows critical verses being missed during the first compilation, only found with single individuals, and then added. How is this compatible with claims of perfect preservation?​
6. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?​
7. Early manuscripts like the Sana'a palimpsest show textual variations, corrections, and erased layers. How do you explain these if the Quran was perfectly preserved from the beginning?​

None of the above depends on whether Jay Smith included it in his video or not. None of it disappears just because you dislike who pointed it out and when. If these problems listed above are real ( which they are ) then it doesn’t matter who highlights them.

Truth stands by itself. Focus on the facts and not on who delivers them and what their agenda is or other inane technicalities. Infact me and Jay smith could be the most biased people out there but it does not change the facts we are presenting.

As for your comments about ChatGPT:

Tools do not change facts. You are attacking the messenger instead of answering the message. Every point I have raised is independently verifiable from various Islamic primary sources i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, early Tafsirs, and manuscript studies. No AI tool invents historical records.

If you are confident in your position, address the issues one by one, cleanly and honestly. Instead resorting to personal attacks only show weakness, not strength.

(And in the spirit of honest pointed discussion ... In the next post i will present a very short succinct summary of my position on the topic of Quranic preservation to make it easier for you to respond )​

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Seriously ... what is the point of all that book keeping of past posts ?




Instead of making personal/ad-hominem remarks ... please address these core points that directly pertain to the topic of Quran preservation:

1. Why did it take over 23 years to complete the Quran if it was from an all-knowing God? Gradual revelation with edits and replacements looks like human legislation, not divine foresight.​
2. How is abrogation (2:106 and 16:101) compatible with the claim that the Quran is eternal, unchanged, and perfect?​
3. Why is there no definitive, preserved list of all abrogated verses — meaning people today rely on later human juristic opinions rather than a clear record from the Prophet's time?​
4. Why was it necessary for Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran and burn other materials if the original compilation under Abu Bakr was complete and preserved? Note: Even the first edition was not certified by the Prophet. Infact there is no such certified version at all​
5. Sahih Bukhari (4987–4989) shows critical verses being missed during the first compilation, only found with single individuals, and then added. How is this compatible with claims of perfect preservation?​
6. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?​
7. Early manuscripts like the Sana'a palimpsest show textual variations, corrections, and erased layers. How do you explain these if the Quran was perfectly preserved from the beginning?​

None of the above depends on whether Jay Smith included it in his video or not. None of it disappears just because you dislike who pointed it out and when. If these problems listed above are real ( which they are ) then it doesn’t matter who highlights them.

Truth stands by itself. Focus on the facts and not on who delivers them and what their agenda is or other inane technicalities. Infact me and Jay smith could be the most biased people out there but it does not change the facts we are presenting.

As for your comments about ChatGPT:

Tools do not change facts. You are attacking the messenger instead of answering the message. Every point I have raised is independently verifiable from various Islamic primary sources i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, early Tafsirs, and manuscript studies. No AI tool invents historical records.

If you are confident in your position, address the issues one by one, cleanly and honestly. Instead resorting to personal attacks only show weakness, not strength.

(And in the spirit of honest pointed discussion ... In the next post i will present a very short succinct summary of my position on the topic of Quranic preservation to make it easier for you to respond )​

Lol sorry @LordJames but I am answering his point one.

ALLAH (SWT) didn't revealed it in one go...as the purpose was not to put it down someone's throats but Holy Quran to be a practical guide for the Muslims.

God Almighty keep revealing verses from time to time that infact directly answered or resolved the enigma or issues that emerged over this time and for you to understand it more succinctly. ALLAH (SWT) didn't ask Muslims to abstain from all evils overnight but through teachings of Quran first encouraged them to shun particular evils and then made them forbidden (Haram) eventually.
For example the issue of alcohol consumption, gambling that were too entrenched in that society get forbidden eventually after initial condemnation.

 

[uppercut]

@LordJames

Bottom line:
Under a strict, literal standard of what constitutes change, the traditional claim that "the Quran today is exactly what was given to the Prophet, letter-for-letter" becomes theologically asserted, but historically problematic.

• Muslims argue the process was divinely guided — but that’s a faith-based belief, not a historical fact.
• Historically, editing, selection, standardization, and loss are unavoidable realities, even from Islamic sources themselves.

The historical reality based on Sahih Bukhari, the Sanaa palimpsest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript ) and the Quran itself is this:

1. The Prophet never personally compiled a final version of the Qur'an and infact admitted to abrogating verses
2. After his passing, different companions had varying fragments and memories.
3. The first compilation happened under Abu Bakr, based on recollection and gathered materials.
4. Years later, Uthman edited, standardized, and burned alternate versions to enforce a single text. ( Therefore implying that this was a very human process not a divine one )

Thus, the Quran we have today was shaped by human collection, selection, and standardization and not a personally finalized or approved by the Prophet.

You can claim that this process was divinely protected, but that's a faith assertion, not a historical fact.

Historically, the Quran underwent human editing and that's per Islamic sources themselves.

( And in the next post I will further shorten this for your convenience )

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@LordJames

Bottom line:
Under a strict, literal standard of what constitutes change, the traditional claim that "the Quran today is exactly what was given to the Prophet, letter-for-letter" becomes theologically asserted, but historically problematic.

• Muslims argue the process was divinely guided — but that’s a faith-based belief, not a historical fact.
• Historically, editing, selection, standardization, and loss are unavoidable realities, even from Islamic sources themselves.

The historical reality based on Sahih Bukhari, the Sanaa palimpsest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript ) and the Quran itself is this:

1. The Prophet never personally compiled a final version of the Qur'an and infact admitted to abrogating verses
2. After his passing, different companions had varying fragments and memories.
3. The first compilation happened under Abu Bakr, based on recollection and gathered materials.
4. Years later, Uthman edited, standardized, and burned alternate versions to enforce a single text. ( Therefore implying that this was a very human process not a divine one )

Thus, the Quran we have today was shaped by human collection, selection, and standardization and not a personally finalized or approved by the Prophet.

You can claim that this process was divinely protected, but that's a faith assertion, not a historical fact.

Historically, the Quran underwent human editing and that's per Islamic sources themselves.

( And in the next post I will further shorten this for your convenience )

Lol you are so uneducated when it comes to Islam, the chat gpt language is so visible.

Your each point is easily negatable but I may not expend so much time in replying

 

[uppercut]

@LordJames here is the even more short summary of Post#250

The Quran was never finalized by the Prophet himself , instead it was pieced together after his death, first by Abu Bakr, and then forcibly edited, standardized, and competing versions burned by Uthman.

What Muslims hold today is not a perfectly preserved divine manuscript, but a humanly compiled, politically enforced text, shaped decades later without the Prophet's direct approval. This is not divine preservation, rather it is human revision and this is per your own Islamic sources like the Sahih Bukhari, The Quran and the recent Sanaa manuscripts.​

 

[uppercut]

Lol you are so uneducated when it comes to Islam, the chat gpt language is so visible.

Your each point is easily negatable but I may not expend so much time in replying

So whats stopping you from refuting those points ? Attack the message not the messenger.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

So whats stopping you from refuting those points ? Attack the message not the messenger.

I may have sent a voice note lol...but too lazy to write big passages to you...but if you could comprehend could answer each point in a separate sentence

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@LordJames here is the even more short summary of Post#250

The Quran was never finalized by the Prophet himself , instead it was pieced together after his death, first by Abu Bakr, and then forcibly edited, standardized, and competing versions burned by Uthman.

What Muslims hold today is not a perfectly preserved divine manuscript, but a humanly compiled, politically enforced text, shaped decades later without the Prophet's direct approval. This is not divine preservation, rather it is human revision and this is per your own Islamic sources like the Sahih Bukhari, The Quran and the recent Sanaa manuscripts.​

Prophet PBUH didn't compile Holy Quran because thousands of Muslims already had memorized it by heart (as you even witnesses today) then in the battle of Yamama many companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH got martyred who had memorized the Holy Quran by heart. So as a precautionary measure first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) was advised by Hazrat Umer (RA) to compile it in a written form.

And Hazrat Usman just to avert confusion approved an agreed upon dilect for reciting Holy Quran...@uppercut as simple as that... hopefully you could comprehend it which I doubt

 

[uppercut]

Lol sorry @LordJames but I am answering his point one.

ALLAH (SWT) didn't revealed it in one go...as the purpose was not to put it down someone's throats but Holy Quran to be a practical guide for the Muslims.

God Almighty keep revealing verses from time to time that infact directly answered or resolved the enigma or issues that emerged over this time and for you to understand it more succinctly. ALLAH (SWT) didn't ask Muslims to abstain from all evils overnight but through teachings of Quran first encouraged them to shun particular evils and then made them forbidden (Haram) eventually.
For example the issue of alcohol consumption, gambling that were too entrenched in that society get forbidden eventually after initial condemnation.

If the Quran had to be revealed piecemeal over 23 years to slowly guide society, then it was responding to human limitations and not delivering a timeless, universal truth. Because ... a perfect and all powerful God would not need gradual social engineering like a human reformer would.

He would reveal the complete and final truth instantly, without waiting for society to "catch up." Your argument shows that the Quran was shaped by evolving circumstances and restricted to Arabia, not revealed as an eternal, unchanging manual from the outset meant for the entire world.​

In short : If God's message needed 23 years of social trial-and-error to become acceptable, then it wasn't divine perfection but rather it was human-level adaptation dressed up as Divine revelation.

 

[uppercut]

I may have sent a voice note lol...but too lazy to write big passages to you...but if you could comprehend could answer each point in a separate sentence

not sure what that highlighted past means ... But short is very much ok ... and infact will be a quicker method to get to the core issue.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

If the Quran had to be revealed piecemeal over 23 years to slowly guide society, then it was responding to human limitations and not delivering a timeless, universal truth. Because ... a perfect and all powerful God would not need gradual social engineering like a human reformer would.

He would reveal the complete and final truth instantly, without waiting for society to "catch up." Your argument shows that the Quran was shaped by evolving circumstances and restricted to Arabia, not revealed as an eternal, unchanging manual from the outset meant for the entire world.​

In short : If God's message needed 23 years of social trial-and-error to become acceptable, then it wasn't divine perfection but rather it was human-level adaptation dressed up as Divine revelation.

Lol sorry but who would discern to your subjectivism.

Anyway if it was for that time, then how come still providing guidelines to Muslim in 21st century

And Prophet Moses were given the commandments in one go as per bible and how much did they reformed

I hope my questions are not difficult to answer.

And by the way for those who born after Prophet Muhammad PBUH time it was all available in one go in a Holy Book already

 

[uppercut]

Lol sorry but who would discern to your subjectivism.

Anyway if it was for that time, then how come still providing guidelines to Muslim in 21st century

Well if it was sooo divine why are 100% Shariah/Sunnah compliant countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan find themselves in such a pitiable situation in the 21st century ?

And Prophet Moses were given the commandments in one go as per bible and how much did they reformed

I hope my questions are not difficult to answer.

These are all just beliefs.

And by the way for those who born after Prophet Muhammad PBUH time it was all available in one go in a Holy Book already

The point is that it was humanly compiled( even if we assume that the source was truly divine which is highly doubtful ). See my post#250 or if you prefer short versions then Post# 252 or even shorter #254.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well if it was sooo divine why are 100% Shariah/Sunnah compliant countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan find themselves in such a pitiable situation in the 21st century ?

Who told you that Afghanistan and Pakistan are 100 percent shariah compliant... certainly uppercut debating on Islam is not your forte man....do you even know that Pakistan has the same law codes as India and for Afghanistan they are also not in any way 100 percent Islam compliant regime.

Secondly, your post 252, 254 etc have already answered by me

 

[uppercut]

Who told you that Afghanistan and Pakistan are 100 percent shariah compliant... certainly uppercut debating on Islam is not your forte man....do you even know that Pakistan has the same law codes as India and for Afghanistan they are also not in any way 100 percent Islam compliant regime.

So why do they call themselves "Islamic" countries then ? And if they are not then which country is 100% Islamic country ?

Secondly, your post 252, 254 etc have already answered by me

You only answered one point ( and I countered it too ). Here is another counter to your claim that Quran is divine and for all times and all humanity .... It involves the topic of Interest ( Riba in verses 2:278–279.). Without that simple economic concept of charging interest the world as we know it today would not exist.​

Here is just one simple example of what would happen if we banned charging Interest because its Gods word:

Governments borrow by issuing bonds that pay interest.
Without interest, bond markets would cease to exist.
No bond markets means no public infrastructure funding, no social programs, no military spending etc
Nations would default en masse and spiral into chaos.

Therefore God prohibiting Interest doesn't sound like a Divine revelation

 

[The Bald Eagle]

So why do they call themselves "Islamic" countries then ? And if they are not then which country is 100% Islamic country ?

​

First of all there isn't any perfect Islamic country existing at the momen

You only answered one point ( and I countered it too ). Here is another counter to your claim that Quran is divine and for all times and all humanity .... It involves the topic of Interest ( Riba in verses 2:278–279.). Without that simple economic concept of charging interest the world as we know it today would not exist.​

Here is just one simple example of what would happen if we banned charging Interest because its Gods word:

Governments borrow by issuing bonds that pay interest.
Without interest, bond markets would cease to exist.
No bond markets means no public infrastructure funding, no social programs, no military spending etc
Nations would default en masse and spiral into chaos.

Therefore God prohibiting Interest doesn't sound like a Divine revelation

Secondly if you had any idea about economic then you would know the biggest and most stable resource to raise money is through trade of commodities....do you even know why Trump is imposing tariffs??

 

[uppercut]

First of all there isn't any perfect Islamic country existing at the momen

Secondly if you had any idea about economic then you would know the biggest and most stable resource to raise money is through trade of commodities....do you even know why Trump is imposing tariffs??

You clearly don’t understand basic economics. Trade existed for thousands of years, but trade alone doesn't build nations today. Modern civilization runs on debt, credit, investment, and interest.

Without interest there would be

No banks
No mortgages
No infrastructure
No startups
No economic growth

Tariffs have nothing to do with funding massive economies, they are minor tools for price protection, not replacements for credit systems. The Quran’s total ban on interest (riba) would crash every modern economy overnight.

That's not divine wisdom. But rather a 7th-century economic ignorance ... Without interest, humanity would still be trading camels for dates and not building skyscrapers, launching satellites, or running trillion-dollar economies.

 

[uppercut]

@The Bald Eagle just to add to my previous post ...

here is the short term interest rate chart for the last 10 yrs for Saudi Arabia set by their Central bank:

Link: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/saudi-arabia/short-term-interest-rate

So if even the official Custodians of the Two most Holy Mosques cannot obey the Quran's ban on interest, it proves that Islamic economics collapses the moment it meets real-world reality.

thus when even the custodians of Islam’s holiest sites have to ignore the Quran’s commands to function economically, it exposes the brutal truth: the Quran’s laws were made for a primitive barter society, not a timeless divine revelation for all of humanity for all times. Your own supposedly Islamic country cannot survive without costly IMF loans ( that are funded by un-believers who charge a heavy interest)


​

 

[Farhan The Man]

uran’s laws were made for a primitive barter society​

That's the crux. Primitive laws. For a primitive society. Made up of primitive bedouins.

There are no "islamic-compliant" countries today, because it is unworkable in today's civilization. You don't cut off someone's hand for stealing bread. Nor you kill humans for choosing religion per freewill.

Case in point: your debaters are all judeo-christian lands based. Ran as far away from an islamic society to point of no voluntary return. Kudos to them for choosing personal benefit over islam.

 

[uppercut]

Prophet PBUH didn't compile Holy Quran because thousands of Muslims already had memorized it by heart (as you even witnesses today) then in the battle of Yamama many companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH got martyred who had memorized the Holy Quran by heart. So as a precautionary measure first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) was advised by Hazrat Umer (RA) to compile it in a written form.

And Hazrat Usman just to avert confusion approved an agreed upon dilect for reciting Holy Quran...@uppercut as simple as that... hopefully you could comprehend it which I doubt

Why was there any confusion to begin with if thousands of followers had perfectly memorized the entire book ... so much so that Uthman had all copies of the first Version burnt ... that clearly suggests that significant edits were made to fix serious issues with the first Quran compiled by Abu Bakar and just to ensure and prevent any further propagation of the problematic 1st version of the Quran it was burnt down

This clearly indicates that the Prophets own followers who were first hand recipients/witnesses to the revelations did not agree on the Contents of the Quran.

 

[uppercut]

That's the crux. Primitive laws. For a primitive society. Made up of primitive bedouins.

There are no "islamic-compliant" countries today, because it is unworkable in today's civilization. You don't cut off someone's hand for stealing bread. Nor you kill humans for choosing religion per freewill.

Forget capital punishments.... even a simple thing as implementing interest free environment which would be very popular for the majority of the population is simply not possible.

 

[LordJames]

@LordJames

Bottom line:
Under a strict, literal standard of what constitutes change, the traditional claim that "the Quran today is exactly what was given to the Prophet, letter-for-letter" becomes theologically asserted, but historically problematic.

• Muslims argue the process was divinely guided — but that’s a faith-based belief, not a historical fact.
• Historically, editing, selection, standardization, and loss are unavoidable realities, even from Islamic sources themselves.

The historical reality based on Sahih Bukhari, the Sanaa palimpsest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript ) and the Quran itself is this:

1. The Prophet never personally compiled a final version of the Qur'an and infact admitted to abrogating verses
2. After his passing, different companions had varying fragments and memories.
3. The first compilation happened under Abu Bakr, based on recollection and gathered materials.
4. Years later, Uthman edited, standardized, and burned alternate versions to enforce a single text. ( Therefore implying that this was a very human process not a divine one )

Thus, the Quran we have today was shaped by human collection, selection, and standardization and not a personally finalized or approved by the Prophet.

You can claim that this process was divinely protected, but that's a faith assertion, not a historical fact.

Historically, the Quran underwent human editing and that's per Islamic sources themselves.

( And in the next post I will further shorten this for your convenience )

@uppercut – Chance for Retraction?

I apologize — for some reason, I did not receive the notification for your earlier post. I will keep this message extremely brief and sincerely hope you will respond.

Jay Smith makes the following claim in first argument posted by @uppercut

"[45:35] what they claim it was completed by Uthman in 652 — that's probably this book in my hand right here from Usman."

Your second argument against Islam, along with the highlighted text in your post, directly contradicts Jay Smith’s claims. Before moving forward, I am once again — for the third or fourth time — asking you to directly acknowledge that your first post contradicts your second and subsequent arguments.

I am simply appealing to your honesty and integrity.

For clarity, for those who may not be familiar:

• The Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 23 years and he passed away in 632.
• Muslims maintain that the Qur'an was first compiled during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him), who passed away in 634.
• Jay Smith claims the compilation was completed under the 3rd Caliph, Uthman (may God be pleased with him), who passed away in 652.

This presents a timeline difference of nearly 20 years — a contradiction that @Suleiman had already pointed out even before this discussion began.

All I am expecting here is a simple, honest admission that Jay Smith’s assertion is incorrect, and by agreeing with it, @uppercut also made an error.

Here are 13 previous attempts where I have asked @uppercut to address this contradiction and the 14th one added...

1. Attempt 1: answering your "Jay Smith" arguments and providing contradictions.
2. Attempt 2: breaking down a singular argument into a singular post to make you focus
3. Attempt 3: Drawing your attention attention again to the Arabic dots and vowels
4. Attempt 4: breaking down another inconsistency into a singular post
5. Attempt 5: Again explaining myself about the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith"
6. Attempt 6: Another attempt at clarifying the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith" and trying to focus on content
7. Attempt 7: @uppercut ran away and did not address anything, pivoted so I addressed his second set of arguments
8. Attempt 8: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues
9. Attempt 9: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and directly addressing him
10. Attempt 10: @uppercut continues to hide and run away so reiterated that I will answer his last post
11. Attempt 11: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
12. Attempt 12: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the links
13. Attempt 13: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
14. Attempt 14: Latest post now...

You have my word, I will continue addressing all of @uppercut 's arguments point-by-point.

 

[HalBass9]

Some still believe the Saudis are the custodians of Islam, a belief as outdated as it is convenient.

 

[LordJames]

Some still believe the Saudis are the custodians of Islam, a belief as outdated as it is convenient.

Good reminder...

We are "Muslims" and Islam belongs to all of us, such as one of the most comprehensive books on Arabic books written for today's students is by someone who converted from Hinduism to Islam.

Seriously ... what is the point of all that book keeping of past posts ?




Instead of making personal/ad-hominem remarks ... please address these core points that directly pertain to the topic of Quran preservation:

1. Why did it take over 23 years to complete the Quran if it was from an all-knowing God? Gradual revelation with edits and replacements looks like human legislation, not divine foresight.​
2. How is abrogation (2:106 and 16:101) compatible with the claim that the Quran is eternal, unchanged, and perfect?​
3. Why is there no definitive, preserved list of all abrogated verses — meaning people today rely on later human juristic opinions rather than a clear record from the Prophet's time?​
4. Why was it necessary for Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran and burn other materials if the original compilation under Abu Bakr was complete and preserved? Note: Even the first edition was not certified by the Prophet. Infact there is no such certified version at all​
5. Sahih Bukhari (4987–4989) shows critical verses being missed during the first compilation, only found with single individuals, and then added. How is this compatible with claims of perfect preservation?​
6. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?​
7. Early manuscripts like the Sana'a palimpsest show textual variations, corrections, and erased layers. How do you explain these if the Quran was perfectly preserved from the beginning?​

None of the above depends on whether Jay Smith included it in his video or not. None of it disappears just because you dislike who pointed it out and when. If these problems listed above are real ( which they are ) then it doesn’t matter who highlights them.

Truth stands by itself. Focus on the facts and not on who delivers them and what their agenda is or other inane technicalities. Infact me and Jay smith could be the most biased people out there but it does not change the facts we are presenting.

As for your comments about ChatGPT:

Tools do not change facts. You are attacking the messenger instead of answering the message. Every point I have raised is independently verifiable from various Islamic primary sources i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, early Tafsirs, and manuscript studies. No AI tool invents historical records.

If you are confident in your position, address the issues one by one, cleanly and honestly. Instead resorting to personal attacks only show weakness, not strength.

(And in the spirit of honest pointed discussion ... In the next post i will present a very short succinct summary of my position on the topic of Quranic preservation to make it easier for you to respond )​

@LordJames

Bottom line:
Under a strict, literal standard of what constitutes change, the traditional claim that "the Quran today is exactly what was given to the Prophet, letter-for-letter" becomes theologically asserted, but historically problematic.

• Muslims argue the process was divinely guided — but that’s a faith-based belief, not a historical fact.
• Historically, editing, selection, standardization, and loss are unavoidable realities, even from Islamic sources themselves.

The historical reality based on Sahih Bukhari, the Sanaa palimpsest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript ) and the Quran itself is this:

1. The Prophet never personally compiled a final version of the Qur'an and infact admitted to abrogating verses
2. After his passing, different companions had varying fragments and memories.
3. The first compilation happened under Abu Bakr, based on recollection and gathered materials.
4. Years later, Uthman edited, standardized, and burned alternate versions to enforce a single text. ( Therefore implying that this was a very human process not a divine one )

Thus, the Quran we have today was shaped by human collection, selection, and standardization and not a personally finalized or approved by the Prophet.

You can claim that this process was divinely protected, but that's a faith assertion, not a historical fact.

Historically, the Quran underwent human editing and that's per Islamic sources themselves.

( And in the next post I will further shorten this for your convenience )

@uppercut – Desperation Reaches New Heights

Memorization Argument Ignored:

From the very beginning, it was made clear to @uppercut that millions of people today (in 2025) know the Qur'an by heart. Every year during the month of Ramadan, in Mosques around the world, the entire Qur'an is recited from memory — and any error, whether in a word, a verse’s sequence, or even slight pronunciation, is immediately corrected on the spot.
This is something anyone can easily verify by visiting a Mosque or simply watching YouTube videos.

Yet @uppercut refuses to acknowledge this undeniable fact.

Instead, he makes a staggering claim: he wants us to believe that millions of non-Arab Muslims (Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Turks, etc.) can memorize the Qur'an in 2025 — but somehow, the people around Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who spoke the language natively in its purest form, could not!
He wants us to accept this blatant contradiction.

Furthermore, @uppercut once tried to trap me by asking, "Are you claiming the preservation was all oral?"
Even if it was purely oral (it wasn’t — it was both oral and written), the fact that a book has been memorized verbatim by millions would still be a miracle of preservation!

In reality, both the oral and written traditions complemented each other without contradiction.

---

Why Was the Qur'an Revealed Over 23 Years?

@uppercut also argues that if the Qur'an is divine, why was it revealed gradually over 23 years rather than all at once?
This is a weak and irrelevant point.

The Qur'an has approximately 6,236 verses (give or take). Whether revealed all at once or over decades, the challenges of preserving, recording, and transmitting the text would still exist — so the method of revelation makes no difference to the reliability of preservation.

However, there is a logical reason for gradual revelation: the Qur'an was revealed in response to real-world events — wars, social changes, questions asked by locals, Jews, Christians, and so on.
If the Qur'an had been revealed all at once, much of it would have seemed out of context — speaking to events and issues that hadn’t yet happened!

For instance, verses revealed to address an event in year 17 could not meaningfully exist on day 1 without that event occurring.

---

Compilation vs Standardization:

Initially, @uppercut repeated Jay Smith’s claim that the Qur'an was first compiled under the 3rd Caliph Uthman (may God be pleased with him) who died in 652.

Later, he contradicted himself by admitting that it was compiled under the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) who died in 634 — but standardized under Uthman.

Now, he tries to manufacture controversy: "Why was standardization necessary?"

Again, this has been explained repeatedly:

• In Arabic, the word for "book" is كِتَابٌ (kitābun).
• In Urdu/Persian, it’s written as كِتَاب (kitab).
• In Turkish, it’s kitap.

The standardization under Uthman was to preserve the original Arabic script and its pronunciation — not to change content.
Copies that reflected local dialects or transliterations were destroyed to ensure that the Qur'an stayed in its pristine, original form.

The goal was to prevent future confusion as Islam spread to non-Arabic speakers.

Even today, when teaching Qur'an to children and adults, students often initially write Arabic in forms they are familiar with based on their native languages (Urdu, Persian, Turkish, Uzbek, etc.) — but eventually transition fully to the standardized Qur'anic Arabic.

This is normal in any educational setting.

Uthman’s standardization was a brilliant step to protect the Qur'an’s integrity across generations and geographies.

---

Parchments and the Sana'a Palimpsest:

Regarding the Sana'a manuscript, discovered in 1972:

• The Sana'a manuscript contains a palimpsest — meaning an earlier text was erased and a later text written on top.
• Some argue that the erased lower text shows spelling variants, phrasing differences, and minor chapter order variations.

But @uppercut is being selective.

He wants everyone to ignore the overwhelming memorization tradition and the standardized written text, and instead focus on a student’s notebook draft from early centuries.

The lower text is clearly a working draft — understandable in a time when writing materials were expensive and precious, and students learned by copying texts repeatedly.

Every teacher, every classroom in history, knows that student notes and early drafts are always imperfect.

Even if you ignore my years of experience teaching the Qur'an, common sense and everyday experience in any educational field proves this point.

---

You can watch this video explanation which visually illustrates exactly what I have said above.

@uppercut insistance on Abrogation
I have already answered it here and here. @uppercut has simply skipped over and keeps asking the same set of questions again and again.

@uppercut example of verse of Stoning
My kids are yelling and screaming to go out as it is a nice day so I will address this seperately and in detail.

Here are 14 previous attempts where I have asked @uppercut to address repeatedly which he is choosing to ignore...The point of past posts is to keep reminding people on issues which uppercut is continuing to ignore!

1. Attempt 1: answering your "Jay Smith" arguments and providing contradictions.
2. Attempt 2: breaking down a singular argument into a singular post to make you focus
3. Attempt 3: Drawing your attention attention again to the Arabic dots and vowels
4. Attempt 4: breaking down another inconsistency into a singular post
5. Attempt 5: Again explaining myself about the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith"
6. Attempt 6: Another attempt at clarifying the inconsistencies of "Jay Smith" and trying to focus on content
7. Attempt 7: @uppercut ran away and did not address anything, pivoted so I addressed his second set of arguments
8. Attempt 8: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues
9. Attempt 9: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and directly addressing him
10. Attempt 10: @uppercut continues to hide and run away so reiterated that I will answer his last post
11. Attempt 11: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
12. Attempt 12: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the links
13. Attempt 13: Again asking @uppercut to specifically address the issues and highlighted the inconsistencies
14. Attempt 14: Latest post now...

 

[uppercut]

@uppercut – Chance for Retraction?

I apologize — for some reason, I did not receive the notification for your earlier post. I will keep this message extremely brief and sincerely hope you will respond.

Jay Smith makes the following claim in first argument posted by @uppercut



Your second argument against Islam, along with the highlighted text in your post, directly contradicts Jay Smith’s claims. Before moving forward, I am once again — for the third or fourth time — asking you to directly acknowledge that your first post contradicts your second and subsequent arguments.

I am simply appealing to your honesty and integrity.

For clarity, for those who may not be familiar:

• The Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 23 years and he passed away in 632.
• Muslims maintain that the Qur'an was first compiled during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him), who passed away in 634.
• Jay Smith claims the compilation was completed under the 3rd Caliph, Uthman (may God be pleased with him), who passed away in 652.

This presents a timeline difference of nearly 20 years — a contradiction that @Suleiman had already pointed out even before this discussion began.

All I am expecting here is a simple, honest admission that Jay Smith’s assertion is incorrect, and by agreeing with it, @uppercut also made an error.

Here are 13 previous attempts where I have asked @uppercut to address this contradiction and the 14th one added...


You have my word, I will continue addressing all of @uppercut 's arguments point-by-point.

I wouldn't call it contradiction or some devious plan by Jay Smith to trick Muslims. It is captured at a very High level when he says this:

47:10 I always ask show me one manuscript of your Quran from the seventh century that's unchanged just like the Quran I
47:15 have in my hand here where do we go to find out about the Quran we have to go to sahih buhari
47:21 remember I told him that he died in 870 so we he's the one that tells us how the Quran is put together now this is what
47:26 he says he says Muhammad died in 632 it had not been written down it finally got written
47:32 down in his final form uh at the time of uthman in 652 the third caliph he then set five copies to five different cities
47:38 Mecca Medina Basra kufa and Damascus and those been became the Canon the
47:45 canonized Quran for the whole world uh in 652.

Clearly, anyone even remotely familiar with the topic knows that the Hadiths related to the compilation of the Quran are widely accepted to be from Sahih Bukhari 4986–4989. If you actually read them, it becomes obvious that Uthman’s version relied on Abu Bakr's earlier compilation, which I have already mentioned more than once in my posts earlier in this thread.

As I said before... you need to stop trying to corner me based on inane technicalities. That’s not a serious discussion tactic.

Jay Smith may have left out several other important pieces of evidence (such as 2:106, Hadith 6829, etc.). That does not invalidate those facts, nor does it prevent us from analyzing them.

This is not a courtroom where the "prosecution" must declare every piece of evidence upfront. Obsessing over every single word said in passing only exposes your lack of confidence in engaging with the actual arguments. Therefore if you are really serious about this debate start focusing on the core points that I have highlighted in post#250 and further summarized briefly in #252, #254

Most importantly, I know for a fact that no matter how overwhelming the evidence becomes, you will never admit that the Quran went through multiple human edits. You are simply too hypnotized by your own belief system, too deeply invested emotionally and psychologically, to ever allow yourself to face the reality that the Quran’s compilation was an evolving, fallible, human-driven process. You will doggedly continue to defend the indefensible and Honestly, it doesn’t surprise me at all.

​

 

[Champ_Pal]

The thread is 4 pages now. But to summarize it….
The entire surah is a direct attack on Christianity regarding the divinity of Jesus. So anyone who thinks Jesus or Mary are God is going straight to hell and Allah has special punishment for them. A threat basically. Whatever miracles Jesus did was because Allah let him do it. Anyone who does not believe that Jesus is not son of God will have nice rewards in the heaven.
The reciter got emotional cried in the end.

Not sure what is so amazing in this surah. May be someone can enlighten us.

 

[HalBass9]

The thread is 4 pages now. But to summarize it….
The entire surah is a direct attack on Christianity regarding the divinity of Jesus. So anyone who thinks Jesus or Mary are God is going straight to hell and Allah has special punishment for them. A threat basically. Whatever miracles Jesus did was because Allah let him do it. Anyone who does not believe that Jesus is not son of God will have nice rewards in the heaven.
The reciter got emotional cried in the end.

Not sure what is so amazing in this surah. May be someone can enlighten us.

Idol worshippers are going to hell according Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

[uppercut]

@uppercut – Desperation Reaches New Heights

Please stop this juvenile ad-hominem nonsense if you really want a serious debate. Resorting to name-calling, cheap insults, ad-hominem attacks only shows that you’ve run out of arguments. Leave your emotions at the door. ​

Memorization Argument Ignored:

From the very beginning, it was made clear to @uppercut that millions of people today (in 2025) know the Qur'an by heart. Every year during the month of Ramadan, in Mosques around the world, the entire Qur'an is recited from memory — and any error, whether in a word, a verse’s sequence, or even slight pronunciation, is immediately corrected on the spot.
This is something anyone can easily verify by visiting a Mosque or simply watching YouTube videos.

Yet @uppercut refuses to acknowledge this undeniable fact.

Instead, he makes a staggering claim: he wants us to believe that millions of non-Arab Muslims (Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Turks, etc.) can memorize the Qur'an in 2025 — but somehow, the people around Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who spoke the language natively in its purest form, could not!
He wants us to accept this blatant contradiction.

Furthermore, @uppercut once tried to trap me by asking, "Are you claiming the preservation was all oral?"
Even if it was purely oral (it wasn’t — it was both oral and written), the fact that a book has been memorized verbatim by millions would still be a miracle of preservation!

In reality, both the oral and written traditions complemented each other without contradiction.

Nobody disputes that millions today have memorized the Quran. That’s not under debate. Whats under debate is which version of the Quran they have memorized in 2025.

The issue is: Was the Quran fully memorized, perfectly preserved, and systematically standardized during the Prophet’s lifetime without needing major human intervention later? Absolutely not.

Because the very Hadiths that the Islamic world considers as authentic (like Bukhari 4986–4989) admit the following:

1. Verses were missed during the initial compilation (example: the verse from Surah Ahzab only found later with Khuzaima). ( Bukhari 4988 )
2. Abu Bakr had to initiate an emergency project to search and collect the Quran from scattered sources (bones, parchments, memories). ( Bukhari 4986 )
3. Even after that, Uthman had to order a massive standardization, destroying all other copies, because differences in recitation and content were already causing chaos among Muslims. ( Bukhari 4987 )
4. Verses like the stoning verse were acknowledged to have been part of the recitation but are missing from the present Quran. (Bukhari 6829)

If oral memorization was so flawless and a from Day 1, none of this would have been necessary and there would be no "missing verses.", there would be no disagreement between companions like Ibn Masud and Zaid ibn Thabit and most importantly there would be no need to burn alternative Quranic copies across the empire.

Your analogy ("millions memorize it today, so companions must have preserved it perfectly back then") collapses because today's memorization depends on the modern text which is a result of many Human edits years after Muhammad’s death ( so obviously never certified by the Prophet )

You are retroactively projecting the modern state of memorization onto a chaotic early period which your own sources admit required drastic correction.

And the fact that Uthman had to burn alternative copies proves that multiple, conflicting transmissions existed before his standardization ( and continued by others )

You’re appealing to miracles after the fact and not explaining the very real human interventions that were necessary to "fix" the Quran years down the line after 632AD

 

[uppercut]

Why Was the Qur'an Revealed Over 23 Years?

@uppercut also argues that if the Qur'an is divine, why was it revealed gradually over 23 years rather than all at once?
This is a weak and irrelevant point.

The Qur'an has approximately 6,236 verses (give or take). Whether revealed all at once or over decades, the challenges of preserving, recording, and transmitting the text would still exist — so the method of revelation makes no difference to the reliability of preservation.

However, there is a logical reason for gradual revelation: the Qur'an was revealed in response to real-world events — wars, social changes, questions asked by locals, Jews, Christians, and so on.
If the Qur'an had been revealed all at once, much of it would have seemed out of context — speaking to events and issues that hadn’t yet happened!

For instance, verses revealed to address an event in year 17 could not meaningfully exist on day 1 without that event occurring.

@LordJames

Your argument completely misses the point... The problem is not whether gradual revelation can be justified for "real-world context"... The real problem is that an all-knowing God would already know all future events and wouldn't need to "wait" 23 years reacting to unfolding incidents like a human politician.

If the Quran was truly eternal, perfect, and unchanged, the full guidance should have been given upfront... timeless and independent of events... not revealed in bits and pieces reacting to circumstances.

You can't have it both ways...You can't claim the Quran is a divine, eternal document and at the same time defend a revelation process that behaves exactly like a human evolving with the situation.

At best, the Quran looks like a reactive, ad-hoc compilation... not a timeless divine decree.

A truly divine book wouldn’t need 23 years of edits, revisions, and reactions to get it right... That’s the behavior of human legislators, not an all-knowing God

And when you look at some of the rulings that are in there ... like the outright ban on charging any interest for loans .. it shows just how human, short-sighted, and impractical these rulings are.. because if applied today, banning interest would collapse all modern banking, kill credit markets, destroy entrepreneurship, and send global economies into a death spiral...

This is not divine wisdom... this is very human naivety

( Gotta go now will address the other parts when I find time next week )​

 

[LordJames]

Please stop this juvenile ad-hominem nonsense if you really want a serious debate. Resorting to name-calling, cheap insults, ad-hominem attacks only shows that you’ve run out of arguments. Leave your emotions at the door. ​

Nobody disputes that millions today have memorized the Quran. That’s not under debate. Whats under debate is which version of the Quran they have memorized in 2025.

The issue is: Was the Quran fully memorized, perfectly preserved, and systematically standardized during the Prophet’s lifetime without needing major human intervention later? Absolutely not.

Because the very Hadiths that the Islamic world considers as authentic (like Bukhari 4986–4989) admit the following:

1. Verses were missed during the initial compilation (example: the verse from Surah Ahzab only found later with Khuzaima). ( Bukhari 4988 )
2. Abu Bakr had to initiate an emergency project to search and collect the Quran from scattered sources (bones, parchments, memories). ( Bukhari 4986 )
3. Even after that, Uthman had to order a massive standardization, destroying all other copies, because differences in recitation and content were already causing chaos among Muslims. ( Bukhari 4987 )
4. Verses like the stoning verse were acknowledged to have been part of the recitation but are missing from the present Quran. (Bukhari 6829)

If oral memorization was so flawless and a from Day 1, none of this would have been necessary and there would be no "missing verses.", there would be no disagreement between companions like Ibn Masud and Zaid ibn Thabit and most importantly there would be no need to burn alternative Quranic copies across the empire.

Your analogy ("millions memorize it today, so companions must have preserved it perfectly back then") collapses because today's memorization depends on the modern text which is a result of many Human edits years after Muhammad’s death ( so obviously never certified by the Prophet )

You are retroactively projecting the modern state of memorization onto a chaotic early period which your own sources admit required drastic correction.

And the fact that Uthman had to burn alternative copies proves that multiple, conflicting transmissions existed before his standardization ( and continued by others )

You’re appealing to miracles after the fact and not explaining the very real human interventions that were necessary to "fix" the Quran years down the line after 632AD

I don’t usually write while giggling and smiling, but the level of desperation and absurdity from @uppercut has just reached new heights.

@uppercut ’s relentless attempts to undermine the Qur’aan’s preservation continue:

The logical fallacies of Uppercut are on full display:

My dear friend @uppercut says — and I quote:

"Nobody disputes that millions today have memorized the Quran. That’s not under debate. What's under debate is which version of the Quran they have memorized in 2025."

Let’s break down what @uppercut is actually suggesting:

• The Qur’aan has been perfectly preserved, both orally and in written form, from 652 CE all the way until 2025 CE, memorized by millions around the world — many of whom have little to no knowledge of Arabic.
• Yet somehow, according to him, it could not be preserved over the short span of 20 years (from 632 to 652 CE) by those who not only knew Arabic fluently but were also native speakers intimately familiar with the dialects and linguistic nuances.

@uppercut further states

The issue is: Was the Quran fully memorized, perfectly preserved, and systematically standardized during the Prophet’s lifetime without needing major human intervention later? Absolutely not.

Let me make his assertion even simpler:

1. In 2025, millions of Indians — who neither speak nor understand Arabic — have memorized the Qur'aan. I know...
2. Now tell me about those who memorized the Qur'aan in the first 20 years — when their native language was Arabic and they were fully fluent.

okey, dokey...The rest of his points have already been answered in detail but I will copy/paste and repeat with emphasis one again during the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him).

I will keep on responding in detail and to every point but just want my giggling to be over so I can write coherently.

 

[LordJames]

I wouldn't call it contradiction or some devious plan by Jay Smith to trick Muslims. It is captured at a very High level when he says this:

47:10 I always ask show me one manuscript of your Quran from the seventh century that's unchanged just like the Quran I
47:15 have in my hand here where do we go to find out about the Quran we have to go to sahih buhari
47:21 remember I told him that he died in 870 so we he's the one that tells us how the Quran is put together now this is what
47:26 he says he says Muhammad died in 632 it had not been written down it finally got written
47:32 down in his final form uh at the time of uthman in 652 the third caliph he then set five copies to five different cities
47:38 Mecca Medina Basra kufa and Damascus and those been became the Canon the
47:45 canonized Quran for the whole world uh in 652.

Clearly, anyone even remotely familiar with the topic knows that the Hadiths related to the compilation of the Quran are widely accepted to be from Sahih Bukhari 4986–4989. If you actually read them, it becomes obvious that Uthman’s version relied on Abu Bakr's earlier compilation, which I have already mentioned more than once in my posts earlier in this thread.

As I said before... you need to stop trying to corner me based on inane technicalities. That’s not a serious discussion tactic.

Jay Smith may have left out several other important pieces of evidence (such as 2:106, Hadith 6829, etc.). That does not invalidate those facts, nor does it prevent us from analyzing them.

This is not a courtroom where the "prosecution" must declare every piece of evidence upfront. Obsessing over every single word said in passing only exposes your lack of confidence in engaging with the actual arguments. Therefore if you are really serious about this debate start focusing on the core points that I have highlighted in post#250 and further summarized briefly in #252, #254

Most importantly, I know for a fact that no matter how overwhelming the evidence becomes, you will never admit that the Quran went through multiple human edits. You are simply too hypnotized by your own belief system, too deeply invested emotionally and psychologically, to ever allow yourself to face the reality that the Quran’s compilation was an evolving, fallible, human-driven process. You will doggedly continue to defend the indefensible and Honestly, it doesn’t surprise me at all.

​

@uppercut dishonesty and lies on full display

Claims of Jay Smith posted by @uppercut about first compilation of Hadeeth

Before reading, understand that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632.

8:03

amount of material on Muhammad on what he says this is known as the Hadith and the sayings these are the sayings of

8:09

what Muhammad said they were first written by down by al-buhari now look at his date 870

8:15

you thought you thought even your shop was bad enough this is 240 years after

The sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were recorded during his lifetime — both orally and in written form — by his companions. Some of the well-known early written compilations directly from the Companions include:

1. The Manuscript of Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As
2. The Compilation of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
3. The Narrations Collected by Abu Huraira

These early collections were later incorporated into larger hadith compilations. In fact, numerous authentic compilations of prophetic sayings predate Imam al-Bukhari, including the following:

• Muwatta of Imam Malik (711–795)
• Ṣaḥīfat Hammām ibn Munabbih (719-748)
• Musnad of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi (750-820)
• Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (775–849 CE)

Jay Smith deception by @uppercut about compilation of Quraan

Before reading, understand that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632.

45:35

what they claim it was completed by uthman in 652 that's probably this book in this my hand right here is from Usman

1. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) passed away in 632 CE.
2. He was succeeded by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), who passed away in 634 CE, roughly 2.5 years later. He first collected and complied the Quraan.
3. The second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), ruled until 644 CE.
4. The third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), ruled until approximately 653 CE. Uthman took the verified copy (already in existence) made more copied and publicized it. He then had the other copies which people had made destroyed because he wanted the singular copy to be accepted and utilized.

STOP claiming any of this. Muslims claim the opposite that the Quraan was complied by Caliph Abu Bakr (May God be pleased with him) and not 20 years later by Uthman (Peace be upon Him). This was said by @Suleiman way before we even started discussions.

Muslim claim that Qur'aan was preserved via:

1. Oral tradition: Memorisation
2. Written form in mansucripts

Jay Smith and @uppercut are both trying to introduce a 20+ year lag in written form when it doesn't exist! Be absolutely crystal clear in chronology with no ambiguity.

If you are truthful then say that Uthman (Peace be upon Him) used the copy of Abu-Bakr (Peace be upon Him) which was complied within 18 months to 2 years of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) pasing away in 632 and spread it. Be CRYSTAL in your words, instead of playing with words.

@uppercut deception about manuscripts

@uppercut states:

Early manuscripts like the Sana'a palimpsest show textual variations, corrections, and erased layers. How do you explain these if the Quran was perfectly preserved from the beginning?

He deliberatly uses the words interchangebly to confuse the readers, here is what the two words mean in dictionary:

1. Manuscript: a written or typewritten composition or document as distinguished from a printed copy
2. Palimpeset: writing material (such as a parchment or tablet) used one or more times after earlier writing has been erased OR something having usually diverse layers or aspects apparent beneath the surface

He starts the discussion about a mansuript but then changes the conversation to Palimpeset which in actuality no evidence at all. Because he is referrering to the the erased writing underneath the clear writing, in other words it may have been a student or whatever who practised something and then corrected it.

I cannot make this abundantly clear, @uppercut states:

Nobody disputes that millions today have memorized the Quran. That’s not under debate. Whats under debate is which version of the Quran they have memorized in 2025.

He wants to create doubts the authentciity of the Qur'aan:

1. not based on manuscript but Palimpeset
2. not based on clear writing but erased writing underneath the clear writing
3. not based on authentic archeological evidence but unauthenticated Palimpeset

Talk about desperation...

 

[Champ_Pal]

Idol worshippers are going to hell according Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Not nice. Thankfully it’s just a belief. However attacking Christianity h this way is not nice either.

 

[uppercut]

• The Qur’aan has been perfectly preserved, both orally and in written form, from 652 CE all the way until 2025 CE, memorized by millions around the world — many of whom have little to no knowledge of Arabic.
• Yet somehow, according to him, it could not be preserved over the short span of 20 years (from 632 to 652 CE) by those who not only knew Arabic fluently but were also native speakers intimately familiar with the dialects and linguistic nuances.

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying ... what I am saying is that EVEN as early as within the first 30-40 yrs after the 1st verse was revealed there were multiple edits made to the Quran as suggested in Bukhari and the Quran itself. And if you watch that video he says how that process of editing the Quran continued and it was not until 1924 that the "Official" version of the quran was picked. ( But for now lets stick to just the Early years )

So dont put words in my mouth and you need to permanently stop that juvenile nonsense and answer the questions honestly and in a straightforward manner without dodging and dancing and nitpicking on the technicalities.

Here are the 3 most important questions from post# 249

4. Why was it necessary for Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran and burn other materials if the original compilation under Abu Bakr was complete and preserved? Note: Even the first edition was not certified by the Prophet. Infact there is no such certified version at all
5. Sahih Bukhari (4987–4989) shows critical verses being missed during the first compilation, only found with single individuals, and then added. How is this compatible with claims of perfect preservation?
6. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?

Once again it does not matter if Jay Smith and me were not completely accurate about it. Because these are bare facts that none of us can ignore. I am not here to win this debate using inane technicalities or trickery ... Understand ?

Now can you provide a direct facts based response to those 3 points above without indulging in further ad-hominem attacks ?

If you are truthful then say that Uthman (Peace be upon Him) used the copy of Abu-Bakr (Peace be upon Him) which was complied within 18 months to 2 years of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) pasing away in 632 and spread it. Be CRYSTAL in your words, instead of playing with words.

See post #205 which was made one week ago and then #249, #251 and #253. Go ahead lets see who is being truthful.

 

[LordJames]

@uppercut losing his mind...

Now he thinks that Quraan was finalized 101 years ago

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying ... what I am saying is that EVEN as early as within the first 30-40 yrs after the 1st verse was revealed there were multiple edits made to the Quran as suggested in Bukhari and the Quran itself. And if you watch that video he says how that process of editing the Quran continued and it was not until 1924 that the "Official" version of the quran was picked. ( But for now lets stick to just the Early years )

@uppercut absurdity on full display

The stupidity of above argument is too dumb to comprehend. @uppercut is now saying that millions of Muslims keep adjusting and synchronizing memorization and last synchronization happened 101 years ago (when combining his last 3 posts on the topic.
Dude is suggesting that millions are synchronizing memorizing a book verbatim in foreign language

See his earlier post...

Nobody disputes that millions today have memorized the Quran. That’s not under debate. Whats under debate is which version of the Quran they have memorized in 2025.

@uppercut trying to hide dishonesty...

Once again it does not matter if Jay Smith and me were not completely accurate about it. Because these are bare facts that none of us can ignore. I am not here to win this debate using inane technicalities or trickery ... Understand ?

@uppercut refuses to R-E-A-D but keeps on throwing the same argument:

6. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?

1. The stoning verse which is reported in Sahih Bukhari 6829 was acknowledged as revealed by God but is absent from the Quran today. How do you reconcile this with the claim that nothing is missing?​

1. Abrogation in the Qu'raan has already been discussed by me (days ago) with example
2. Detail study on abrogation was also referenced by me

The final authority on the Qur'aan was God and it was God who decided what was final and in the Quraan. The revelation finished with the passing away of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) and what is final Qur'aan still remains to this day.

@uppercut never bothers to read my arguments otherwise the response to stoning would have been easy but let me repeat myself again, abrogation is a reality and the verse is as follows:

[2:106] If We ever abrogate1 a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it with a better or similar one. Do you not know that Allah is Most Capable of everything?

Abrogation is of multiple kinds.

Abrogation Example 1 (Verse remains but Injunction Abrogated)

This is an example of abrogation where verse is still recited today but the junctions have been superseded...

[2:219] They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about intoxicants and gambling. Say, “There is great evil in both, as well as some benefit for people—but the evil outweighs the benefit...”

This verse acknowledged both the harm and limited benefit of intoxicants, signaling the beginning of a moral shift.

[4:43] O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say...

Here, alcohol use was still technically allowed, but severely restricted—especially around prayer—further nudging believers toward quitting.

[5:90] O believers! Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and drawing lots for decisions are all evil of Satan’s handiwork. So shun them so you may be successful.

Abrogation Example 2 (Verse recital abrogated but Injunction remains)
The evidence suggested by @uppercut is as follows:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." `Umar added, "Surely Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

The punishment of stoning is still part of Islam and narrated by dozes of companions! So injunction still remains but verse was no longer recited.

@uppercut scores own Goal:
I said it from the beginning these Islamophobes use Hadeeth (narrations) for their evidence but refuse Hadeeth (narrations) when we quote it, watch @uppercut go ballistic on this!
He keeps on repeating the same arguments:

1. Quraan was not written down (fully or systematically) during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)
2. There was no system of preservation during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)

In bringing up this topic of stoning, @uppercut has brought a discussion which proves that Quran was being written down during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) and the answer to his next clutching at straws question is that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) may have been informed from the beginning to not have it written down

It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said, 'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184.)

Umar (may God be pleased with him) himself knew that this wasn't part of the Qur'aan:

About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said: "'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148.)

There are multiple answers to this but I have given the most straightforward reply.

 

[uppercut]

@LordJames

( before I respond to your post ) I have a very quick question ... do you understand the concept of Ad-Hominem ? Simple yes/no pls.

 

[LordJames]

Uppercut: Flagbearer of Hindutva Doublespeak

I was engaged by @uppercut with the following words:

This is not entirely true but please let me know if you are interested in a serious facts and logic based discussion.

Uppercut then hides misinformation by stating:

“Once again it does not matter if Jay Smith and me were not completely accurate about it. Because these are bare facts that none of us can ignore. I am not here to win this debate using inane technicalities or trickery ... Understand ?”

All I am doing is showing contradictions and instead of addressing the points, my friend now says:

@LordJames

( before I respond to your post ) I have a very quick question ... do you understand the concept of Ad-Hominem ? Simple yes/no pls.

Yes, I fully understand what "ad-hominem" attacks are. What I am doing is pointing out contradictions and duplicity — not attacking, but highlighting reality. The claims you quoted from "Jay Smith" have been shown to be both erroneous and duplicitous. You asked for a fact-based discussion, but when a supposed "fact" is proven to be a hoax — or at the very least heavily disputed — intellectual honesty demands you acknowledge it. I have already provided sources, including books (even before citing Sahih Bukhari) and links to Al-Jazeera, to demonstrate that your claims are baseless. Instead of addressing these points, you keep changing the subject and revealing your own ignorance. If you can point out a factual error in my posts, I am more than willing to correct it and apologize — I am human and open to correction. However, do not evade arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. Your own words are exposing your reality.

Your arguments across multiple posts are riddled with contradictions and have been thoroughly exposed for everyone to see. Not only do you lack a proper understanding of the subject, but you also fail to articulate the little you have learned from the "white man" in a coherent and intelligent manner. You consistently make basic and fundamental errors, often quoting the wrong narration (usually one above or below the intended one), resulting in a far weaker argument. This clearly shows you are out of your depth.

 

[HalBass9]

Not nice. Thankfully it’s just a belief. However attacking Christianity h this way is not nice either.

Attacking

Not nice. Thankfully it’s just a belief. However attacking Christianity h this way is not nice either.

Attacking?

 

[uppercut]

Uppercut: Flagbearer of Hindutva Doublespeak

I was engaged by @uppercut with the following words:



Uppercut then hides misinformation by stating:



All I am doing is showing contradictions and instead of addressing the points, my friend now says:



Yes, I fully understand what "ad-hominem" attacks are. What I am doing is pointing out contradictions and duplicity — not attacking,

Yes you are .... by labeling me Hindutva right here in this post and calling my posts as stupid or accusing me of doublespeak and what not you are doing exactly just that.

While I could similarly respond back more brutally but that is not my style.

So if you REALLY WANT a mature and Serious discussion you need to COMPLETELY abandon that tactic and rely purely on facts to refute my points and completely leave your emotions at that doorstep. Keep it bland and professional. That is if you truly understand and accept that Ad-Hominem is not how serious debate is conducted.

So pls Confirm with a simple yes/no if you accept that standard of debate/etiquette going forward.​

but highlighting reality. The claims you quoted from "Jay Smith" have been shown to be both erroneous and duplicitous. You asked for a fact-based discussion, but when a supposed "fact" is proven to be a hoax — or at the very least heavily disputed — intellectual honesty demands you acknowledge it. I have already provided sources, including books (even before citing Sahih Bukhari) and links to Al-Jazeera, to demonstrate that your claims are baseless. Instead of addressing these points, you keep changing the subject and revealing your own ignorance. If you can point out a factual error in my posts, I am more than willing to correct it and apologize — I am human and open to correction. However, do not evade arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. Your own words are exposing your reality.

Your arguments across multiple posts are riddled with contradictions and have been thoroughly exposed for everyone to see. Not only do you lack a proper understanding of the subject, but you also fail to articulate the little you have learned from the "white man" in a coherent and intelligent manner. You consistently make basic and fundamental errors, often quoting the wrong narration (usually one above or below the intended one), resulting in a far weaker argument. This clearly shows you are out of your depth.

Doesn't matter how many contradictions that you think there are in my arguments. I likewise think there are much bigger problems in your stand but the difference between us is that I NEVER CALL YOUR ARGUMENTS STUPID OR hurl juvenile Ad-hominem attacks or sprinkle childish smiles and troll emojis in response. That is the sort of discipline and etiquette I expect from all parties going forward. Fair ? If so confirm that you can bring yourself up to that standard before we proceed any further.

And yes I said I will answer every single question you have... just not in super quick time that you expect ( If you want a sharp short/brief/succinct/quick response in the the interest of time then you need to likewise be short/brief/succinct/quick ).

You cant expect me to go through pages upon pages of your responses and respond in short time.



​

 

[Champ_Pal]

Attacking

Attacking?

Yes. It is a direct attack on the Christian faith.

 

[Suleiman]

Going to try and go through Mufti Menk’s biographies on the Prophets (peace be upon them all). Already went through the seerah of Prophet Muhammad PBUH 2 years ago. Great experience. now for the other prophets too.

Prophet Isa’s PBUH:

@sweep_shot I know you follow Mufti Menk as well, have you watched this already?

 

[HalBass9]

Yes. It is a direct attack on the Christian faith.

How?

 

[Champ_Pal]

How?

Saying anyone who believes Jesus is god is going to hell. Calling Jesus as a servant of Allah means calling Christian god a servant of Islamic god.

 

[HalBass9]

Saying anyone who believes Jesus is god is going to hell. Calling Jesus as a servant of Allah means calling Christian god a servant of Islamic god.

Okay!

 

[sweep_shot]

Going to try and go through Mufti Menk’s biographies on the Prophets (peace be upon them all). Already went through the seerah of Prophet Muhammad PBUH 2 years ago. Great experience. now for the other prophets too.

Prophet Isa’s PBUH:

@sweep_shot I know you follow Mufti Menk as well, have you watched this already?

I watch many of his lectures but did not watch this one.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[LordJames]

Yes you are .... by labeling me Hindutva right here in this post and calling my posts as stupid or accusing me of doublespeak and what not you are doing exactly just that.

While I could similarly respond back more brutally but that is not my style.

So if you REALLY WANT a mature and Serious discussion you need to COMPLETELY abandon that tactic and rely purely on facts to refute my points and completely leave your emotions at that doorstep. Keep it bland and professional. That is if you truly understand and accept that Ad-Hominem is not how serious debate is conducted.

So pls Confirm with a simple yes/no if you accept that standard of debate/etiquette going forward.





Doesn't matter how many contradictions that you think there are in my arguments. I likewise think there are much bigger problems in your stand but the difference between us is that I NEVER CALL YOUR ARGUMENTS STUPID OR hurl juvenile Ad-hominem attacks or sprinkle childish smiles and troll emojis in response. That is the sort of discipline and etiquette I expect from all parties going forward. Fair ? If so confirm that you can bring yourself up to that standard before we proceed any further.

And yes I said I will answer every single question you have... just not in super quick time that you expect ( If you want a sharp short/brief/succinct/quick response in the the interest of time then you need to likewise be short/brief/succinct/quick ).

You cant expect me to go through pages upon pages of your responses and respond in short time.



​

Nobody can have a serious fact based discussions when the other side is stating blatant and demonstrable falsehoods!

1. Saheeh Bukhari is not the first compilation of Hadeeth.
2. Arabic can be read withouts dots and vowels
3. Uthman (May God be pleased with him) did not compile the first Quran
4. Quran did not have its "official version" until 1924...

These falsehoods are being peddled by you and hence you are directly responsible so as a result personally responsible for lying!

I have all the time in the world for discussions and disagreements but not when someone blatantly keeps on lying and doubling down.

Not only that, I have told you multiple times that I will write the way I want and choose the length of my choice so STOP dictating how you want the dialogue to proceed, instead focus on displaying honesty.

Nothing wrong with disagreement but you wanted to have a fact based discussion then stick to "facts" and don't double down when it has been demonstrated multiple times that you are lying!

A person can be wrong but you are constantly lying!

 

[uppercut]

Nothing wrong with disagreement but you wanted to have a fact based discussion then stick to "facts" and don't double down when it has been demonstrated multiple times that you are lying!

THEN stick to FACTS AND FACTS ONLY. I DONT WANT TO SEE ANY NONSENSE LIKE HINDUTVA, STUPID, DOUBLESPEAK, LYING, ISLMAPHOBE ETC ETC ... Believe me i can very easily reply in kind but I am going to stick to my words of serious discussion.


And absolutely categorically no emotions no smiles and bakwas whatsoever. Keep it bland professional and absolutely no emotions. Fair ?


Rest assured I will answer every single point you make ( within reason ) and unlike you I will never ever indulge in ad-hominem ( which you already have despite being reminded gently )

And also you need to make a decision on how fast this discussion needs to progress.


If you are going to make posts that are pages upon pages long then you will have to patiently sit and wait for my response ... I don't want to see any other juvenile memes pressuring me to post. Fair ?


DO you agree with that and have the discipline to indulge in a debate of that standard ? Simple Yes/No

 

[Farhan The Man]

THEN stick to FACTS AND FACTS ONLY. I DONT WANT TO SEE ANY NONSENSE LIKE HINDUTVA, STUPID, DOUBLESPEAK, LYING, ISLMAPHOBE ETC ETC ... Believe me i can very easily reply in kind but I am going to stick to my words of serious discussion.

And absolutely categorically no emotions no smiles and bakwas whatsoever. Keep it bland professional and absolutely no emotions. Fair ?

You forgot prohibition for memes as well.

Apparently, the insults in this thread are just one way.

He backs himself into a corner and lets rip on the mislabels. For distraction.

 

[LordJames]

THEN stick to FACTS AND FACTS ONLY. I DONT WANT TO SEE ANY NONSENSE LIKE HINDUTVA, STUPID, DOUBLESPEAK, LYING, ISLMAPHOBE ETC ETC ... Believe me i can very easily reply in kind but I am going to stick to my words of serious discussion.


And absolutely categorically no emotions no smiles and bakwas whatsoever. Keep it bland professional and absolutely no emotions. Fair ?


Rest assured I will answer every single point you make ( within reason ) and unlike you I will never ever indulge in ad-hominem ( which you already have despite being reminded gently )

And also you need to make a decision on how fast this discussion needs to progress.


If you are going to make posts that are pages upon pages long then you will have to patiently sit and wait for my response ... I don't want to see any other juvenile memes pressuring me to post. Fair ?


DO you agree with that and have the discipline to indulge in a debate of that standard ? Simple Yes/No

If you stick to the facts and stop misrepresenting things—or at the very least acknowledge when the arguments you're presenting are disputed—then there wouldn't be an issue. If you practice honesty, you won't find it difficult.

Unfortunately, you seem to struggle not only with honesty and truth but also with basic reading and comprehension.

I've said it multiple times: I will read everything you write carefully, digest it fully, and respond thoroughly and in due time. Unlike you, I will not propose a standard for myself and treat you differently.

In short, stick to the truth and be honest, and there won't be a problem.

You forgot prohibition for memes as well.

Apparently, the insults in this thread are just one way.

He backs himself into a corner and lets rip on the mislabels. For distraction.

Your assertions are completely contradicted by @uppercut himself

Once again it does not matter if Jay Smith and me were not completely accurate about it. Because these are bare facts that none of us can ignore. I am not here to win this debate using inane technicalities or trickery ... Understand ?

So go cry somewhere else for your intellectual inadequacy and Academic incompetency, I am not responsible for wastage of "11 years of your life in a Madrasah"!

 

[The Bald Eagle]

You clearly don’t understand basic economics. Trade existed for thousands of years, but trade alone doesn't build nations today. Modern civilization runs on debt, credit, investment, and interest.

Without interest there would be

No banks
No mortgages
No infrastructure
No startups
No economic growth

Tariffs have nothing to do with funding massive economies, they are minor tools for price protection, not replacements for credit systems. The Quran’s total ban on interest (riba) would crash every modern economy overnight.

That's not divine wisdom. But rather a 7th-century economic ignorance ... Without interest, humanity would still be trading camels for dates and not building skyscrapers, launching satellites, or running trillion-dollar economies.

No ad hominem, but your reply is so childish.

Do you know what caused all the great and notable economic depressions in human history be it the great depression of 1929 or US housing Buble 2008 crisis...Loan on credit

Instead do some simple research first, before floating such puerile sweeping statement that an interest free economy can't exist in modern times. Even scores of western scholars agree to that too

And still answer plainly why is Trump imposing Tariffs on all the world???????

Lol on no banks no mortgages example by you.