Preservation of the Qur"an

DISCLAIMERIn the previous round, I clarified that I don't follow the Islamic-ordained rulings on the authenticity of hadeeths and that I request empirical evidence that a particular scholar is mistaken. Pro instead used personal attacks against scholars and Hadeeth narrators without any empirical evidence but following Sunnah mainstream beliefs.Furthermore, Pro has plagiarized most of his responses(mostly off-point contentions) from non-trusted, Islamic websites. For instance, he copied/pasted a whole paragraph from this website(http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...) without any citation. From "The fact is this narration is not valid according to the rules of narration as Zuhri was not the eye witness...."To "... memorized the whole of the Qur’an and did not die in the Battle."REBUTTALPro's argument from mathematical symmetry:"Sum of chapters: 6555Sum of verses: 6236Sum of odds: 6555Sum of evens: 6236."Rebuttal: In the past, the Qur'an was split into 6000, 6204 and other number of verses, before the standardization of the Kufah System (6236 verses) became the most popular. In conclusion, the Qur'an was not released to Mohammad split into verses, but many numbering systems emerged (Kufah and Basrah, for example) and the Kufah became the most popular, and hence any symmetry found in the Kufah is not from Allah but from whoever split the Qur'an into verses at a later historic stage.Pro offered many mathematical relations to speak of other aspects of symmetry in the Qur'an. I used a local copy of a Qur'an e-book released by Oxford, and double-checked using Qur'an.com word-by-word search[1]."PARADISE=77 HELL=77"[Paradise is mentioned 52 times as "Jannah" and 44 times as "Sama2", total = 96 times. Hell is mentioned 83 times as Jahanam]"ZAKAAH (charity)=32 BLESSING=32"[Zakaah is mentioned 47 times, while blessings* is mentioned 10 times]"WINE=6 INTOXICATION=6"[Wine is mentioned 4 times (sometimes as Ra7eeq and sometimes as Khamr), intoxication is mentioned 8 times]"Occurrences of the word "Jesus" in the whole Quran = 25 times = Occurrences of the word "Adam" = 25 times." [Adam is mentioned by his exact name 28 times, which is more than 25]...Because the number of falsehoods is overwhelming, I'm going to stop here...Pro's argument from memorization: "This method goes back to the Prophet of Islam Mohamed (peace be upon him) and his many of his Companions, until today there are millions of Hafzs (Memorizers of the Quran) all over the world continuing this practice."Rebuttal: This is nothing but a fallacy of equivocation between modern-day Hafizes and those at the times of Mohammad. As proven by Zaid Ibn Thabet's account, the Qur'an was known by few people who had limited chunks of it revealed to them in different times and separate occasions by Mohammad, supposedly, so such an argument is inherently incompatible with the times of Mohammad, as nobody had access to the whole Qur'an or memorized the whole Qur'an. As Ziad Ibn Thabet confesses, he could find some verses only with one reciter.---In summary, Pro used a mathematical hoax with many false numbers, and gave arguments which are disproved by accounts of Early Muslims who played major roles in collecting the Qur'an.MY CASEA1- Controversy over who actually collected the Qur'an.Pro ignored the actual argument and simply responded on why one of the hadeeths said "just four," and not the fact that we don't actually know who exactly collected the Qur'an.A2 - Zaid Ibn Thabet's inaccurate measures to collect the Qur'anPro quote-mined Zaid by saying: ‘So I started locating Qur’anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men.’Ziad Ibn Thabet's actual quote: So I started locating Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else..." [Sahih Bukhari 6:60:201]In summary, Pro argues that the Qur'an was fully memorized by the Prophet's companions, while quote-mining Zaid Ibn Thabet, although Zaid's "full account" proves that the original Qur'an was not fully memorized by the Prophet's companions, as he found verses "not found with anybody else."A3- Corruption of the Reciter's political classAs Leone Caetani puts it, "The qurra[Reciters] who were the custodians and also, of course, the readers and interpreters of the sacred text, by their very position held enormous power over the masses, and this in a sense placed them outside the scope of the central authorities. These in turn had no way of checking whether the Qur'anic passages used by the qurra were authentic or not[2]."Pro argues, "you gave us names so what? here from german Prof Angelika Neuwirth she is a scholar on text of the quran and she clearly stated that what we have (quran) today is the same of the quran of the prophet peace be upon him"Rebuttal: Patricia Crone and Leone Caetani have written academic and peer-reviewed books about that historic stage. Moreover, Neuwirth's does not claim that the whole Qur'an was preserved, but only says that some parchments affirm that some parts of the Qur'an were preserved and clearly states that she is simply studying the Qur'an from a Muslim perspective and treating the Qur'an being preserved as an assumption in exactly the beginning of the chapter Pro quoted, "The presentation of qur'anic developments in this chapter presupposes the reliability of the basic data of traditional accounts about the emergence of the Qur'an, assuming the transmitted Qur'anic text to be the genuine collection of the communications of the Prophet...In summary, Pro both quote-minted and misrepresented the chapter written by Angelike Neuwirth, and gave an off-point contention, not an actual refutation to the argument presented.B1- Uthman's confession that he modified the Qur'an.Pro remarks, "I cant find any references to this "uthman confession". maybe its from shia source? "Rebuttal: I already gave the citation Muntakhab Kanz al Ummal, v2, p.48. This is an Islamic Hadith Collection, collected by the Scholar Ali al-Hindi. If it was a Shiah source, I don't see how that would make it lose any credibility if I'm not given any empirical evidence on why the Islamic scholar Al-Hindi is mistaken.B2- Zuhri's reports many lost chapters and versesPro plagiarized someone arguing, "Zuhri was not the eye witness nor has he mentioned as to what is his source of information."Rebuttal: Al-Zuhri is an expert Hadeeth scholar with reliable sources of information on how verses were lost. An example of such sources is Abi Dawud's account of an eye witness testimony: "'Umar b. al-Khattab enquired about a verse of the Book of God. On being informed that it had been in the possession of so-and-so who had been killed in the Yemama wars, 'Umar exclaimed the formula expressing loss, 'We are God's and unto Him is our return.'".B3- Early Muslim accounts of the Qur'an not being preservedPro responded that the Hadeeths are "Daif" without giving any empirical evidence, but following Sunni conventions that attack Ibn Lahya by saying that he is "well-known to be non-trusted."B4- Lack of diacritical marks in Uthman's codexPro asked for examples...Surah 2:259: "And look at the bones [of this donkey] - how We raise them and then We cover them with flesh."The current word is "we raise" or Nunshizha, although in the Warsh codex(which came after the Uthman codex) the verse uses the word Nunshiriha which stands for "we spread". Judging from the context, the two words would work as bones could be raised or spread in forming that Donkey, but we can never know which word was intended to be used, originally.CITATIONS[1] http://corpus.quran.com...[2] Ibn Warraq, The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book (Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1998), pp.72-74.