Plagued Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace

[Iwasamwillbe]

Firstly I'm not sure what you mean by 'pre-caliphal', the first caliph took power the same year the Prophet (PBUH) died, there is no 'pre-caliphal' period Secondly aren't randos I'm referring to these are people like Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal, Saalim the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir to name a very small number of them who literally learned the Qur'an in its entirety directly from the Prophet (PBUH) himself. There are in fact too many for me to list despite being charitable and restricting myself only to those who were taught directly without contribution from other sahabi and furthermore it is well known that the sahabi would teach one another and yes they did literally actively correct each other's recitation.

"Pre-caliphal" meaning the period of early Islam before Muhammad died, or before Uthman made the first Qur'anic codex. And even the Companions of the Prophet (pig's dung be upon him) had major disagreements among themselves (cf. Ali vs Aisha), which of course involved differing interpretations of the Quran and the like, irregardless of "corrections".

You've completely misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that your argument begins fails even before getting to the point where there's a need to begin discussing the potential for corruption from oral narration.

I'm really trying to avoid gish galloping you but you're making it very difficult, here's an article, if you want it explained simply I can do that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at

Apparently I'm supposed to accept that these "degrees of acceptable variation" (never mind the "unacceptable variations" that in all likelihood existed during the same time period) didn't emerge from differing recitations but sprang fully formed into existence from the ether. Or maybe they were invented by Islamic scholars for some unknown purpose.

It seems that despite all your blubberings and meanderings about "redundant networks" in an attempt to explain away the inherent fallibilities of the human memory, and bringing up various manuscripts as if they prove anything in particular, these variations (which could have only ever come about via changes, alterations, distortions, and even corruptions from a presumably original oral narration) still managed to appear. It's just that later Islamic scholars just accepted them as is and rationalized them.

And here you were talking about "argument begins fails even before getting to the point". Maybe you should reread your own article, much more fully this time, especially this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at#Questions_&_Doubts

The fact you'd even entertain this is ridiculous. Would you like me to walk you through the reasoning behind that too or can you do it on your own?

I mean, if you take certain fringe theories about Islam's origins...

But that is ultimately irrelevant. The point is, your argument is fundamentally weak and you're dumb for still adhering to it.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

And here you were talking about "argument begins fails even before getting to the point". Maybe you should reread your own article, much more fully this time, especially this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at#Questions_&_Doubts

Maybe you should take your own advice lmao.

But that is ultimately irrelevant. The point is, your argument is fundamentally weak and you're dumb for still adhering to it.

And yet in every attempt to prove that you have failed comically.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Maybe you should take your own advice lmao.

I have. To quote a passage:

Non-Muslim Islamic scholar Fred Donner argues (as of 200 that the large number of qira'at stemming from early "regional traditions" of Medina, Kufa, Basra, Syria, etc.; with variations in the rasm (usually consonants) "as well" as with vowelling,[42] suggests evidence not for qira'at being slight deviations from an original text developing over time from in the different pronunciation of different dialects; but for their being different Qurans that had not yet "crystalized into a single, immutable codified form ... within one generation of Muhammad".[42] Donner argues that there is evidence for both the hypotheses that the Quran was codified earlier than the standard narrative and for codification later.[42]

Not even just deviations from an original text, but entirely different Qur'ans altogether. But wait, maybe he doesn't count because he isn't a Muslim or from Oxford. I guess the textual variations (any number of which by themselves could significantly change the meaning of any given verse) somehow don't actually mean anything either.

You are not as smart as you think you are.

And yet in every attempt to prove that you have failed comically.

You can't make falsehoods real just by asserting them with unwarranted confidence. Maybe you stop watching degenerate Wahhabi-disapproved Western music videos so you can find time to learn how to stop puffing up your chest.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Not even just deviations from an original text, but entirely different Qur'ans altogether.

Literally the next paragraph, and then try actually reading the article.

You are not as smart as you think you are.

It really doesn't take much to be smarter than you.

Maybe you stop watching degenerate Wahhabi-disapproved Western music videos so you can find time to learn how to stop puffing up your chest.

Hey man don't dis mah boi Frank.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Literally the next paragraph, and then try actually reading the article.

I did read it, and it didn't prove me wrong, because I never once argued that there were "long passages of otherwise wholly unknown text claiming to be Quran, or that appear to be used as Quran", only that the Quran went through various alterations as according with fallible human memory and the whims of various powers that be, which the very existence of such things as qira'ats and ahrufs would prove, along with the differing recitations compelling Uthman to make his own "official" codex and burn every other variant. Again, not as smart as you think you are.

It really doesn't take much to be smarter than you.

Is this what the kids call "Dunning-Kruger" effect? Then again, given that you unironically said that "Stirnerism" is the lone Western philosophy that approaches divine command theory in rationality, I'm 35% this is just a giant troll and you were "just pretending" to be Wahhabi apologist trash.

Hey man don't dis mah boi Frank.

The Wahhabis you revere certainly would, and likely do. Why don't you take it up with them?

 

[Sage In All Fields]

only that the Quran went through various alterations as according with fallible human memory and the whims of various powers that be

And yet you haven't even come close to proving that, at best you're trying to build a case for there having at some point been variations and you still haven't presented any evidence for that claim other than a hilarious misreading of Wikipedia.

which the very existence of such things as qira'ats and ahrufs would prove, along with the differing recitations compelling Uthman to make his own "official" codex and burn every other variant.

Again you quite clearly don't understand what these things are or you wouldn't be making these arguments.

 

[Basil II]

Anyone who uses the term "judeo-christian" is a retard.

 

[Harlay de Champvallon]

Anyone who uses the term "judeo-christian" is a retard.

Anyone who uses the term "judeo-christian" is a retard.

A retard and cuck.

I wonder how the regressive left deals with Moslems not liking Cuties, a film about corrupting a young Moslem girl. Hailing it as brave and transgressive is a badge of honor for them.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

And yet you haven't even come close to proving that, at best you're trying to build a case for there having at some point been variations and you still haven't presented any evidence for that claim other than a hilarious misreading of Wikipedia.

Variations are themselves alterations. The fact that this even has to be said is telling in and of itself.

Again you quite clearly don't understand what these things are or you wouldn't be making these arguments.

So Uthman wasn't compelled to standardize the Quran and burn every other variant because of preexisting alterations to recitations? Is that what you're seriously trying to argue here?

Anyone who uses the term "judeo-christian" is a retard.

I should apologize for my prior usage, but in my defense, @SageInAllFields used it first and I simply went along with it for simplicity purposes.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Variations are themselves alterations. The fact that this even has to be said is telling in and of itself.

The fact you think this is correct just shows you have no idea what you're talking about, even if you still disagreed with me, if you knew what you were talking about you would actually confront the accepted narrative for the sources of the qir'at but you've made absolutely no effort to do so. The fact that the Prophet (PBUH) recited 7 different Qur'ans is backed up by the most authentic hadiths we have.

So Uthman wasn't compelled to standardize the Quran and burn every other variant because of preexisting alterations to recitations? Is that what you're seriously trying to argue here?

No, what I'm saying is that these alterations never became widespread thanks to his efforts, there was a threat to its integrity due to reciters dying and there was a need to make written script clearer as more people began learning Arabic. None of this amounted to a major issue with the integrity of the Qur'an that would have even made recovery difficult. Abu Bakr had already done alot of the hard work for Uthman in the year the Prophet (PBUH) died by compiling the entire Qur'an so that there would be a reference.

Obviously a certain portion of people will recite things differently but they would be corrected by the huge amount of people who know the Qur'an. You have to keep in mind that things did not move nearly as quickly back then as they do today, and even today 12 years - the time between the Prophet (PBUH)'s death and Uthman's effort - is recent history.
You have to understand that what you are claiming amounts to a conspiracy theory that would have had to involve a huge number of people who had put their lives on the line to serve him within 12 years.

Here's a really simple article that goes through the main parts of the standard narrative if you want to read it: https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=7808

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

The fact you think this is correct just shows you have no idea what you're talking about, even if you still disagreed with me, if you knew what you were talking about you would actually confront the accepted narrative for the sources of the qir'at but you've made absolutely no effort to do so. The fact that the Prophet (PBUH) recited 7 different Qur'ans is backed up by the most authentic hadiths we have.

So now you're contradicting yourself. First you said that errors and alterations couldn't build up over time because "muh redundant networks", now you're saying the Prophet himself has prophet himself was fine with recitations of multiple different Qurans.

No, what I'm saying is that these alterations never became widespread thanks to his efforts

Oh so there were preexisting alterations to the Quran even before it had to become standardized under caliphal authority, in spite of "muh redundant networks" and even the "accepted" different versions. Glad you proved my point for me, by contradicting yourself further.

*autistic Wahhabi screeching and coping*

All of this is bare assumption backed up by nothing. If all differences in recitation were immediately corrected by everyone around them, there wouldn't be any need for Uthman to standardize the text in the first place, just write down what everyone already accepted. And of course, human memory can change a lot in a single year, let alone 12.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

First you said that errors and alterations couldn't build up over time because "muh redundant networks", now you're saying the Prophet himself has prophet himself was fine with recitations of multiple different Qurans.

Except that's not what I said, your inability to comprehend simple arguments is really hampering this discussion.

in spite of "muh redundant networks" and even the "accepted" different versions.

Redundancy doesn't work the way you for some reason think it works.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Except that's not what I said, your inability to comprehend simple arguments is really hampering this discussion.

Redundancy doesn't work the way you for some reason think it works.

This "I didn't actually say that" trick doesn't work when you can look a page back.

[in response to "When one considers that the Qur'an originally survived as oral tradition (remember the telephone game now) before being written down under the supervision of politically interested parties, the probability is vanishingly small that it wasn't distorted or tampered with, deliberately or otherwise."]
The sheer number of people that had memorised it would have made that extremely difficult and the structure of the Qur'an is such that people can easily hear an error in it even without knowing Arabic. Playing a game of telephone doesn't work the same way because the entire point is that you don't have any redundancy in the network.

[in response to "Do you honestly think that little "errors" can't build up over time (because human memory isn't perfect, and certainly not among large populations)"]
Nope, see the way redundant networks work is that the more people memorise the thing the more defence you have against modification. Human memory isn't perfect but people seem to be able to memorise songs quite well don't they? Now imagine if a few hundred people were all learning the same songs for decades.

If Uthman found a need to standardize the text in the first place, then it would seem that those redundant networks aren't as good as you proclaimed them to be, and those little alterations and "errors" did indeed manage to pile up.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

If Uthman found a need to standardize the text in the first place, then it would seem that those redundant networks aren't as good as you proclaimed them to be, and those little alterations and "errors" did indeed manage to pile up.

Doctoring your own quotes to misrepresent someone is pretty sus mate

Do you honestly think that little "errors" can't build up over time (because human memory isn't perfect, and certainly not among large populations), with an oral tradition that has been transmitted among peoples who didn't have Arabic as their first language, to the point where entire populations are reciting entirely different versions of the same oral tradition?

And no, finding the need to standardise texts after a certain point doesn't magically negate the reliability of redundant networks.

It's quite clear at this point that you seem perfectly content with pulling arguments out of thin air and actively misrepresenting things to further a narrative. I've said everything I need to say, may God grant you guidance.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Doctoring your own quotes to misrepresent someone is pretty sus mate

I only put in the part you directly responded to, Ahmed. This attempt to read some vague nefariousness into that is lame as fuck.

And no, finding the need to standardise texts after a certain point doesn't magically negate the reliability of redundant networks.

You wouldn't find a need to standardize texts to begin with if the "redundant networks" were all that reliable to begin with. You'd just write down what was already there.

It's quite clear at this point that you seem perfectly content with pulling arguments out of thin air and actively misrepresenting things to further a narrative. I've said everything I need to say, may God grant you guidance.

I guess this is what Wahhabi hypocrites who want all the trappings of Western society but none of the "bad stuff" (if your tastes in music are any indication) say when they're losing an argument.

 

[Legoshi]

I recently listened to a podcast with Julie Bindel who was talked about the Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs, and while she makes some good points, she fails to mention how women and girls are treated in their culture. You rarely hear about this from many western feminists. It honestly irks me how much people on the left pussyfoot and beat around the bush about the horrendously ugly aspects of Islam, particularly in regards to things like misogyny and homophobia. It's the culture and backwards beliefs that are present in many Muslim majority countries that they refuse to speak about, probably becuase they don't want to be labelled as "Islamophobic" or "white saviours". When people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks up about this yet she's met with death threats and harassment there is silence.

I also find it funny when Muslims mock Christians when their prophet Muhammad married a six year old girl and FGM and child marriages are pretty common in Islamic countries There are also many that mock Christianity and Judaism, but cry when their own religion is mocked.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Christianity gone through a great change over periods of time as well?)

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Christianity gone through a great change over periods of time as well?)

Yes it has, unlike Islam.

Christianity is also unique in that there are dozens and dozens of different denominations (think of Christianity as a forum and then denominations as sub-forums) that deviate in beliefs and practices. Some denominations have several different versions of the main denomination itself. For example, you have Baptists, then you have "Free Will Baptists." Because of this it is really difficult and especially unfair to generalize Christians, because the religion itself is so varied. In a general sense, Christians are conservative, but there are some churches that can lean liberal to the point others will call it heresy. I'm not sure about Episcopalians/Anglicans at large but there was some controversy a while back because an Episopal church somewhere was raising money for an abortion clinic. There is a lot more nuance with the religion that doesn't get talked about. You also have the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. that sprouted from Christianity but aren't considered denominations exactly.

 

[Tito from Rocket Power]

The only thing these self-hating whites want is for the West to be destroyed. They resent something: their upbringing, being bullied in high school for being fat or nerdy, being called a cracker...

Ultimately, any political stance they take is a strategic position to tear down the fabric of a culture that has rejected them. If you understand this, their cognitive dissonance regarding regressive third worlders will make sense. They don't care who they ally with, as long as that ally is whole-heartedly dedicated to usurping the stability of western white society.

"Do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny." - Sam Hyde

 

[Tootsie Bear]

 

[Shaka Brah]

View attachment 1739902

This is true and also completely justified. I'd be afraid of Muslims and hate Muslim apologists if I was an ex-Muslim. They kill people who leave their cult.

Always remember that when a Leftist says "tropes" he means "truth."