That's a lie. It was refuted. Stop repeating this thread and look into the archive.

>>18457302
This "solution simply means that god either can't be good or can't be loving.

>>18457302
The Bible goes completely against your revised version that says God has evil in him. 1 John 1:5 says "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" and Deuteronomy 32:4 says "He is the rock, his works are perfect and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just".

So there is no evil in God. Nor do I need to be evil to exist: when I was a baby I was not evil (in b4 Catholics saying babies are evil) and there are possible worlds where I never make a single evil choice (that is to say, none of my evil was ever a necessity to choose) as 1 Corinthians 10:13 says.

So the Bible is completely against what you're saying.

>>18457302
Real evil doesn't exist. This is a free will question, you don't have truly free will as such would mean that you would be a god
What you mean by evil is something that has been debased, something that has lost fidelity. Something that the let's call the person an infidel, for losing fidelity, thinks is good for him but isn't really.
So in a monotheistic model doesn't actually have evil as such a thing cannot exist. You may think of it but you have unironically no reason to enact actual evil
>But i want to
Psychic enjoyment as you believe your whims are good
>but i want to prove you wrong
you think proving me wrong is good
>But satan
Completely subordinate to God, even in revolt, as are you. This is why the belief in judgement day is a point, as Satan is guaranteed to be punished himself, it is quite literally a matter of time
This paradox is a debunk of polytheism and dualism desu

>>18457372
Have you considered that you would like your foreskin back?
Islam promises your foreskin back after judgement day alongside the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations. Being completely traceable and ironically enough, being rather tolerant by sheer scientific spoliers. Look up the muslim scholars in sciences, ibn khaldun and Câbir bin Hayyân
>no renaisance
>no ''enlightenment''

>>18457302
>preventing evil would mean denying me from existence
>God cannot make me in a way that isnt evil
>Then God is not all powerful
The chain of epicurean cannot break that easily wench

>>18457418
I don't exactly see how this is related to what I said; best I can parse it is that the image in the OP is supposed to be from an Islamic perspective?

>alongside the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations
Well that's simply not true. The hadith makes it clear that this isn't the case.

Take a look for instance at https://sunnah.com/muslim:1050:

"We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:" Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi 2.) and" that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13)."

So according to the hadith entire surahs are missing.

fags that complain about "evil" are insufferable. Imagine thinking that your moral opinion on a topic ought to be objective reality of ... reality and the universe is really dropping the ball by not having things your way

>>18457540
The problem of evil isn't a "complaint" about evil, it's the claim that the theist view which posits the existence of a triomni god as well as of evil is inconsistent.

>>18457503
>I don't exactly see how this is related to what I said
oh, that's because you said
>''your revised version''
We have much stricter criteria for religious texts, even for the hadith.
For example from my layman understanding the hadith you gave seems to be the reciters from Basra mistaking the word of the prophet with the word of God himself i.e. a hadith about reciters mistaking a hadith for the Quran.
Buhkari has it as a hadith while you quoted from sahih Muslim.
> Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
>I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "If the son of Adam (the human being) had two valleys of money, he would wish for a third, for nothing can fill the belly of Adam's son except dust, and Allah forgives him who repents to Him."
>Sahih al-Bukhari 6436
These sorts of things happen because the companions and early Muslims tried to make note of everything, even if baseless, deprecated or otherwise as the process of divination was then a current thing, and they likely thought it would be of use to future generations. Though I would recommend you ask this to a more knowledgeable person as my own research is frankly too surface level with to my lack of understanding of Arabic.
People generally ask the stoning(Recm) verse event from Omar btw I'm surprised you came up with something even I didn't know.

>18457556
apologies,
>the process of divination was then a current thing
current or recent thing*
Standardization was finalized around Uthman's time with the hadiths being generally regarded as sorted out by Bukhari's time, since there's a time gap of 200 or so years regarding hadith and some people like the Shia don't trust Bukhari, there's a shitstorm based on the hadith and it's interpretation. The Quran however is not really debated if at all. Our clergy doesn't have their own Qurans and don't tend to genocide each other besides almost completely political reasons

>>18457556
>''your revised version''
...of the Epicurean Paradox. The image in the OP is an altered version that posits God himself contains evil, if you read it. It's a revised version of the usual image.

>seems to be the reciters from Basra mistaking the word of the prophet with the word of God himself i.e. a hadith about reciters mistaking a hadith for the Quran.
The hadith as it says is quoting Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the Companions of Muhammad and one of the very first Muslims who converted even before the hijra. He is the one telling you that surahs are lost from the Koran.

>People generally ask the stoning(Recm) verse event

Yes this is missing too. Look at https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4418 which says:

"Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there)."

And learned Muslims don't deny that the Koran used to contain the Verse of Stoning, look at https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/581/please-explain-the-verse-of-stoning-and-of-suckling-an-adult-ten-times-were-revealed-and-they-were-written-on-a-paper-and-kept-and-a-lot-more/:

"The ayah of rajm (stoning) was initially part of the Quran.", they outright and directly state. They just have to say it's gone because Allah wanted it gone.

So as far as "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations", not so.

>>18457589
>one of the very first Muslims who converted even before the hijra.
Checked to be not Quran but hadith by others
>They just have to say it's gone because Allah wanted it gone.
Pretty much, what we have is the final version of the Quran as it was at the end of revelation i.e. the Prophet's death.
What Omar wanted to was to write in a side note that it was a verse in the Quran at one point. Which was then rejected.

>>18457589
I apologize. There is indeed alteration by God in the Quran. Thanks for making me clarify that.
Omar didn't accuse the Quran of alteration by man but seems to have said that ''there was an abrogated verse we could add as a note''. While I said the Basra hadith was likely a hadith mistaken for the Quran on the Bukhari hadith it might also have been abrogated during the prophets time, but the evidence seems to be in favor of it being a hadith instead.
>...of the Epicurean Paradox.
i see, thank you for your time. I mistook it as you taking a jab at protestants.

>>18457302
I am God, and I am beyond good and evil.

>>18457693
>Checked to be not Quran but hadith by others
That doesn't appear to be the case, read the next hadith after that one, Bukhari 6437, Ibn Abas says "I do not know whether this saying was quoted from the Qur'an or not", and in the next one, Bukhari 6438, it says "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an" per Sahl bin Sa'd. 6440 cites Ubayy Ibn Ka'b himself of all people saying "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an".

>what we have is the final version of the Quran
Do you see how this could sound like dishonesty? We've gone from "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations" to "okay yes it was altered but Allah must have wanted the alterations to happen so they don't count".

Even today different Korans in different parts of the world have differences. A Hafs Koran and a Warsh Koran will have some textual variants between them.

>What Omar wanted to was to write in a side note that it was a verse in the Quran at one point.
Hence there are indeed pretty hefty "doubts of alteration".

>i see, thank you for your time. I mistook it as you taking a jab at protestants.
Oh I see - no definitely not, I'm a Protestant myself! I was taking a jab at the idea that God contains evil within himself like OP's picture said.

>>18458255
>That doesn't appear to be the case
Up to debate on if it was an abrogated verse or a hadith with most leaning hadith
>We've gone from "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations" to "okay yes it was altered but Allah must have wanted the alterations to happen so they don't count".
Besides my ignorance, the first position has not been held in your meaning, for which I apologize once again. It's only God that can alter the Quran. Which would be done during prophecy
>If We ever abrogate 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? 2:106
>Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.
>It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder, and it is certainly We Who will preserve it.
With there being a great deal of reciters and records, checked by the prophet and each other, it's a pretty solid foundation to strictly rule out any man made alteration since prophecy ended at the prophet's death with guarantee that no more prophets would come.
>Qira'at?
All seven were accepted recitations during the prophet's time to my knowledge.
>Hence there are indeed pretty hefty "doubts of alteration".
It could be altered by God during prophecy, not by reciters or writers, the fact that even the abrogations and notes on them were written down in hadith is a testament to the detailed process.
You might be interested in the chains of narration and the criteria necessary for Quran and hadith. Here's on the writing of the Quran:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjBR2JbHN6o
Here's a short video which might be easier to digest:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n281Zyywyn4
on abrogation 101:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llX6cFAp-7w

>>18458398
>or a hadith with most leaning hadith
This is positively not true. Abu Musa said this was a surah. Ibn Abas said he didn't know if it was or wasn't. Ubayy said "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an". Ubayy is essentially the #1 Koran scholar in history besides Muhammad himself, look at https://madrasatalquran.com/blog/the-master-of-quran-reciters-ubayy-ibn-ka-b. According to Muhammad, Allah specifically singled out Ubayy to learn the Koran. There is not a stronger authority on the Koran besides Muhammad himself. And he tells you this was considered part of the Koran.

>It's only God that can alter the Quran.
If you say "it hasn't been altered" but mean this, then you are a liar.

>With there being a great deal of reciters and records, checked by the prophet
All ancient documents that are widely spread accumulate textual variants. This very much includes the Koran.

The Koran was not widely memorized in Muhammad's day. You yourself are saying some, like we have seen with Ibn Abas, weren't sure whether something was in the Koran or not. Isn't that a pretty big red flag for your idea that the whole thing was memorized verbatim by many many people?

It's because at this time it was not. Hence part of it being lost when part of the text was destroyed. Look at https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1944: "The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it". This part of the text was lost when part of the manuscript was physically destroyed per the hadith.

Muhammad himself didn't even have it memorized. Look at https://sunnah.com/muslim:788a: "'A'isha reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard a person reciting the Qur'an at night. Upon this he said: May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of such and such a verse which I had missed in such and such a surah."

>>18459066
>Abu Musa said this was a surah.
Maybe it was an abrogated surah or a hadith, the general leaning by scholars to my knowledge is that it was a hadith.
> then you are a liar.
I may appear as such if you believe God can't change his own rulings. Which is contradictionary to;
>If We ever abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten,We replace it with a better or similar one.
Me being retarded, I can only really say sorry and correct myself in saying that the Quran was not altered by anyone other than God.
>It's because at this time it was not. The Koran was not widely memorized in Muhammad's day
This is plainly untrue, you have an entire community who are primarily concerned with this religion
>tame sheep came in and ate it"
Not really an accepted hadith however you may ask the specific ruling to a scholar as stoning is still a part of the sharia to my knowledge, abrogation 101-type 3 abrogation
>Muhammad himself didn't even have it memorized.
He was recited to by Gabriel every Ramadan and checked the companions constantly. The hadith you mention seems like an example of
>or cause it to be forgotten
You are questioning the source rather than the authenticity of the text at that point.
With respect, you seem to think that the compilation of the was some hidden process which the companions did as they pleased rather than prophecy, collection, compilation and standardization. All done and discussed openly. Doesn't it seem weird to you that you're citing Islamic sources? The fact that there are abrogated verses that we know of from the companions themselves is a testament to the fact the Quran has quite a strict criterion. The compilation of the Quran was discussed by the links i provided. I urge you to find a scholar to discuss this further and give you more a satisfactory answer. Thank you for your interest.

>>18459283
>Maybe it was an abrogated surah
In other words the book has been altered.

>I may appear as such if you believe God can't change his own rulings
You said: "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations". Even *if* you say it was Allah doing it, the text of the Koran has still been altered. You are a liar.

This is also circular reasoning. You explicitly used the Koran's supposed lack of alterations as evidence for Islam's truth. You can't then say "well if we assume Islam is true then the Koran has no alterations". Then your argument only works if Islam is true in the first place.

>This is plainly untrue
Why how did Ibn Abbas not know if something was from the Koran or not?

>you have an entire community who are primarily concerned with this religion
This is how legends come about, you know. Someone infers "this is how it must have been" and then tells others "this is how it was". But our sources definitively contradict the idea that everyone had easy access to the Koran and many had it memorized.

Remember that it could only and exclusively come from Muhammad's mouth. It can't be passed around and copied like a written text.

>Not really an accepted hadith
Yes it is, it's rated hasan as you can see there.

>He was recited to by Gabriel
Do you see the circular reasoning? You keep having to assume Islam is true in order to defend your claim that the Koran's lack of alterations is true, which doesn't work when you use the Koran's supposed lack of alterations as your evidence for Islam in the first place.

>and checked the companions constantly
Cite the hadith you are drawing this from.

>or cause it to be forgotten
Which makes no sense to say unless parts were indeed forgotten, as our hadith tradition makes clear. Hence you saying "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alteration" despite knowing this is full-blown dishonesty. You lied to try and persuade people your religion is true. This is common and disgusting Islamic behavior.

>>18459334
>In other words the book has been altered.
Likely, by God while prophecy was in effect, the revelation is complete, so there is no alteration afterward.
>Why how did Ibn Abbas not know if something was from the Koran or not?
Because he wasn't a prophet, we know if something was from the Quran or not because there was a selection process somewhat detailed in the links i gave.
> This is how legends come about, you know.
No, it's a pretty important sticking point that you can't just make up otherwise all the other thousands of muslims would object and correct you. We have a clear line of recitation and collection of the Quran alongside writings to back them up, seeming contradictions have been resolved to the point that the Quran is certainly the Quran of the Prophet, note how it's either an abrogated surah or a mistaken hadith, these were decided by the prophet and publicly known.
>Cite hadith
Here are some instances of the prophet asking, praising, teaching people to recite the Quran in various situations
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1159d
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2914
https://sunnah.com/muslim:818a
>Maybe the prophet was wrong
..., not in my belief and The Quran is as he transmitted it, we have been continuously reciting parts of it 5 times a day, and some of us, the entirety, every Ramadan for 1400 years
>You lied to try and persuade people your religion is true.
I mistakenly stated that the Quran had no alterations or doubts of alteration while I should have stated that the Quran has only been altered by God and has the strongest proofs for not being altered by man. i.e. word of God unaltered by man
>despite knowing this is full-blown dishonesty.
No, I didn't. You're abusing the fact that I mistook that the Quran was unaltered to mean that the Quran was unaltered even by God. This makes 3 counts, honestly thank you for making me research this a bit more.
>our hadith tradition makes clear
>our
Fellow Muslims, we must

>>18459503
>Likely
Then your original point fails. You said we could know Islam was true because of "the Quran having no alterations or doubts of alterations". But now we see that yes, it does. To be consistent, you must now say that if the Koran lacking alterations was evidence for its truth, then the Koran having alterations is evidence for its falsehood. Are you going to be consistent?

>so there is no alteration afterward
Are you going to be consistent and say that if there was alteration afterward then Islam would be false? Or are you really just playing another dishonest shell game here and even if we did discover the text had been changed (say we found a cache of earliest copies and they had a differences), you wouldn't actually consider that evidence against it?

>Because he wasn't a prophet
But you said everyone knew the Koran, it was widely memorized and checking was easy. So how could Muhammad's own cousin Ibn Abbas not know if something was part of the Koran or not if this is accurate?

Whereas it makes perfect sense in the world that the hadith actually gives us. One where it is infrequently and inconsistently memorized and where parts of the text can be completely lost if the manuscript they are written on is damaged or if they are long and nobody had them fully memorized.

>otherwise all the other thousands of muslims would object and correct you
And despite these thousands of walking Korans Muhammad's own cousin didn't know if something was actually in the Koran?

>Here are some instances
The first two have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the Koran actually being checked like you claim. The third does but it *disproves* your point. That's the hadith about the seven ahruf. Taking this hadith as accurate (though more likely it's an after-the-fact justification for textual variants) it proves the Koran has not been preserved. There are supposed to be seven ahruf and you use whichever is easiest. Without, it is incomplete.

>evil exists
terrible axiom to start with

There is no convincing argument for the existence of evil with a righteous God. Free will isn't an argument. First of all, free will cannot be objectively proven. There are too many deterministic factors behind one's thoughts and actions. But for sake of argument, God could still intervene if someone was abusing their free will. The decision process is still theirs at the moment of choice. Since God chooses not to intervene, he willingly allows evil to happen. Heaven/Hell is the cope for this.
Also, "evil" as a teacher doesn't work either, as there is far too much senseless, chaotic suffering in this world. There is natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases in infants), and so much suffering and death that serves no logical purpose.

>>18457302
>Evil exists
Unproven premise before he even begins.

>>18459661
If some guy goes up and stabs a random baby to death, is that not evil? What other term is there for it?

>>18459528
>Your beliefs were contradictionary to Islam, im not criticizing Islam, i'm critizing your prior belief!
Yes, my prior belief was wrong and Islam was right. Also about women.
>Are you going to be consistent and say that if there was alteration afterward then Islam would be false?
there could be no alteration to the Quran until the end time since there could be no more prophets. Any differences in collections were either accepted as per prophetic command or fixed accordingly. You yourself can write a verse of your choosing wrong, this does not mean the Quran is altered. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZe_qREjNYI please stop pretending that the Quran was written willy nilly.
>And despite these thousands of walking Korans Muhammad's own cousin didn't know if something was actually in the Koran?
On the criterion necessary for the Quran. Zayd asked them and checked written notes and collections to write Abu Bakr's mushaf. The Quran was written transparently and comprehensively. Abu-Bakr's copy was written publicly based on both reciters and writings written with the oversight of the prophet with zero objections. This is all with Zayd being one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject. The end of the tovba surah is the weakest Ayah with it still meeting the minimum requirements. All done publicly, not in a palace meeting or secluded room of a temple
>The first two have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the Koran actually being checked
It's some of the proof that the prophet indeed made people recite and memorize the Quran which you denied previously. People who were used to check the written Quran.
>There are supposed to be seven ahruf Without, it is incomplete.
??? All of them are valid readings of the same book
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkPH9Hjc4K8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hj7u0F3yEg
So far we've got a literal gotcha for fools like myself, an attempt to quadruple down and an attempt to say ''but i can write it wrong''.

>>18459694
>there could be no alteration to the Quran until the end time since there could be no more prophets
Then, by your own words, Islam must be false.

There are different lines of Koranic textual transmission. All of these originate with Uthman's standardized version and so these changes are post-Uthman textual variants.

If you go to https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=tb1&tpath=1 you can view them. If you don't speak Arabic, this webpage works well even if you use your browser to translate it to English. It shows you where these variants are. Both things like 10:16 having "he would have made it known to you" vs. "he would not have made it known to you" where the meanings are different and many more minor differences in wording.

Again: all of these emerge from Uthman's single version, these do not pre-date Uthman's purge. They are not different ahrufs, they must come from one single ahruf (granting that they do indeed exist and assuming Uthman successfully preserved one full ahruf...neither of which are likely, but granting it for the sake of the discussion).

So, by your reasoning, Islam must be false.

>Zayd asked them and checked written notes and collections to write Abu Bakr's mushaf.
When you make historical claims you must show me your source hadith. Bring it forward.

>The Quran was written transparently
If you mean the ancestor text of modern Korans no, it very much was not. Uthman destroyed all other manuscripts besides his own in an attempt to purge textual variants: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4987

>It's some of the proof that the prophet indeed made people recite and memorize the Quran
None of these involving checking anything. Only the third did, and it confirms the Koran's lack of preservation.

>??? All of them are valid readings of the same book
You are supposed to have seven of them and use whichever is easiest per Muhammad. You cannot as six are gone. Meant to be seven. Only one remains. Incomplete.

>>18459954
You're not asking if the Quran is altered, neither by the collequal meaning of being altered by man nor by the literal meaning of being altered at all, including by an omnipotent, all powerful God using his prophet, you're asking;
>How can i claim islam to be false
Because the answers to those questions are no, And we have the Quran exactly as the prophet transmitted it to us, hence you slipping up and asking if the prophet was wrong with a ''my fellow muslims''
there are different recitations of the Quran, people learn recitation by reciting from teacher who have a direct line of recitation from the prophet, we don't have to look to anonymously written books for guidance, that's the point
>If you mean the ancestor text of modern Korans no, it very much was not.
By your standards which are ''i can write it wrong'' and ''but God altered it.''
and you proclaim that as proof for accusations that weren't even put forth by the old enemies of Islam as you abuse that the dead cannot defend themselves. If you do not believe that 4 reciters whose recitations were directly traceable to the prophet, who checked in between each other and by the prophet near constantly, backed up by the writings of the sahaba written with the personal oversight of the prophet are enough for the people who were themselves the first and closest followers of the faith, guaranteed heaven by the God himself and so open that they openly state events like abrogated verses themselves to compile said Quran in text form to complement the already present recitation form with the input of anyone who passed said criteria and open to criticism from anyone else. Then it's your standards that are malicious
>But the Prophet didn't make people recite and memorise the Quran ---> The prophet made people recite the Quran constantly to the point it was common denominator in most affairs but this is actually a bad thing for preservation
...
Ask a scholar to explain literally every detail to you

>18460231
You would only be criticizing my Islam rather than the actual Islam, for example what I learnt as 4 reciters seem to be including Zaid and Abu Bakr during the last parts of the tovba ayah, but they themselves don't count their own testimonies as to be even more transparent. I urge you to not abuse the dead who cannot directly defend themselves nor ask the deaf to lead you in your blindness
Here's a much better layman on the subject:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc_P8FLt6sY