Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"

islamispeace wrote: Kish, if you are going to regurgitate plagiarized material from Answering-Islam (another trait you share with a fellow Jehovah's Witness on this forum), then I am afraid no one will take you as a serious researcher.

As if your research is to die for and I�m here to impress someone. And number 1, whether it is research that you staunchly disagree with, so be it your opinion, nevertheless it is still research, the Quran is very, very old news so no need to reinvent the wheel. Number 2, you also take a shallow position in assuming who I am (Jehovah�s Witnesses) and where this information comes from, (answering Islam) a very defensive and cowardly move to gain a strategic advantage and to cause conflict and division amongst Christ�s followers, typical though from what I�m seeing of your posts.

islamispeace wrote: �.provided a phony reference to make it appear as if you actually read Von Denffer's work.  Unfortunately for you, this work is available on the internet,

Interestingly enough, you only quoted what I already quoted, which was already found on the internet and there we have it a reinvention of the wheel, stay with me this time.

The fact still remains as you try to distract from the question at hand, why do the different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others do not? Also, no one accepts all of these versions as authentic, why are some accepted and others rejected? In fact, they are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity.

islamispeace wrote: I have mentioned this fact before to argue that since the Quran was memorized by many people, the chances of mistakes entering the text (whether deliberately or by mistake) and being retained was impossible.

Friend, just because someone memorized a book doesn�t make it truth although it could be accurately false! If I have seven copies of a book and I only agree with one out of the seven copies to be the truth and then have you memorized that one copy �I� think to be truth, how do you know if that is the copy polluted with errors?

Case and point:

The original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, etc which were burnt! Also, the Quran�s verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They too were burnt! Plus, the original one consisted of �yazmas� (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world! You want people to believe that today�s Quran is the same as when Muhammad recited it although they were burnt?

�All that was written in the original Quran was conveyed into the �Mushafs� (later copies of copies of the Quran) by Othman, so there was no need for the original one. If it had not been burnt, some suspicions would have arisen and the doubts around the �Mushafs� would not have ceased. I was afraid of that, so I had the original scripts burnt.� (Ref.: ıb Ebi Davud, Leiden 1937, pub., p.243-Suphi e's-Salih Mebahis Fi ulum-il Kuran)

Also, the Sura �The Opening�, which is a basic one, does not take place in Ibn Mesud�s Mushaf. Neither do the Suras �The Dawn� and �The Confederate Tribes�. The order of the Suras in Ali�s Mushaf is not the same as in today�s Quran. Suyuti points out in his book that the Suras �The Cow� and �The Clans� are the same length. (See Suyuti, el ıtkan, 2/32) Yet, in today�s official Quran, �The Cow� has 286 verses whereas �The Confederate Tribes� has only 73.

No wonder Islam researcher Dr. Suphi e�s-Salih asks in his book, �Well, where is the official copy that was made in the time of Othman now?�

Suspicion, that�s the least of your worries!