tommywho70x
Rookie
- Apr 15, 2010
- 826
- 60
- 0
- Banned
- #61
You didn't read the article I posted because, unlike the other, it doesn't support your ignorant presumption of Qur'anic impurity. The fact stands that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the Qur'an we have today is not word-for-word the Qur'an delivered to Muhammad (SAWS) 1400 years ago.Then you didn't read it.
i didn't read the whole article you posted because it was way too long for me to read when i'm playing online. i like to get paid to read and report on something that long.
i did read the the atlantic article and the following is what i claim supports my assertion:
that is two untrue statements you make.
i read the first few hundred words slow and then the next few thousand fast and when i didn't find the answers to the questions i asked, i bookmarked the page for later when i had time to go through it.
you are not dealing with a zionist fanatic here, kalam and you can take your thoughts of my "ignorant presumption of Qur'anic impurity" and stuff them up your islamic fanatic ass.
(if it isn't obvious to you, fanatics bug me regardless of which side of an issue they are screaming about)
i am a trained empirical scientist and adept at research of a wide variety. i do not draw conclusions without plenty of data to base them on and certainly not some emotional bias drawn from a lifetime of warfare.
the atlantic report seemed to present credible evidence that the Qur'an is not word-for-word as it was delivered to Muhammed. how do you account for the variations reported by that research?