The Qur'an is not corrupted? really?

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Dec 21, 2008 at 14:53

Our dear samer wrote

>No, not really, the Quran is NOT corrupt, no one changed it

Really THEN how do you explain Q53:32? This is clear corruption of the Qur'an and should we read MLk in surat al-fatiha as maaliki or maliki and it could not have been both. Do you know that this very simple example means? It means that the ulama edited or corrupted the Qur'an by adding in the case of maaliki an alif that did not exist in the rasm or in the case of maliki by adding a fatha which did not exist in the rasm and do you know what this means/ Congratulations our dear samer but the ulama have corrupted at least surat al-fatiha

And how do you explain "variant traditions" as in the case of the shu3ayb tradition unless we have more than one author of the Qur'an. oh no this one is far beyond your poor madrassa education

The Qur'an must be the most corrupted so called holy book

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".