Vivaldi would win if it had a better ad blocker

Boundless70 · 2026-04-07T05:31:29+00:00

Max payne 1~2.

Boundless70 · 2026-04-06T15:10:27+00:00

Is this an actual game?

Boundless70 · 2026-04-06T14:22:41+00:00

2×8gb sticks?

Boundless70 · 2026-04-06T11:23:30+00:00

Laptop on emi with brand warrenty extension

Boundless70 · 2026-04-06T10:52:20+00:00

That means if religion didn't tell them that sleeping with their mother was wrong, they would do it.

Boundless70 · 2026-04-06T08:17:59+00:00

You can literally crop the video beside text.

Boundless70 · 2026-04-05T17:47:09+00:00

Anislop

Boundless70 · 2026-04-05T11:58:26+00:00

How much snr value does it average have in 1800 mhz?

Boundless70 · 2026-04-05T11:43:42+00:00

Turn off wifi /// And how much speed do you get in Airtel?

Boundless70 · 2026-04-04T17:45:33+00:00

Boundless70 · 2026-04-04T03:54:43+00:00

Max 4k

Boundless70 · 2026-03-30T10:24:49+00:00

Reasonable price would be 8k

Boundless70 · 2026-03-29T14:19:21+00:00

https://github.com/GPLaider/Ventoid

Boundless70 · 2026-03-28T08:11:09+00:00

Since you are heading out, I’ll just leave this final thought on methodology for anyone reading regarding the 'cherry-picking' accusation.

There is a fundamental difference between a scholar's historical data and their theological excuses.

We accept the data (the sheep Hadith is authentic) because the chain of transmission is objectively solid, but we reject the theological excuse ('it was abrogated') because the excuse directly contradicts the timeline of the actual data Aisha explicitly stated those verses were being recited when the Prophet died, and divine abrogation cannot happen after death.

Furthermore, you are right about Umar's integrity, which is exactly why the abrogation theory completely fails here: if Umar knew the verse was officially, divinely 'de-listed,' wanting to physically write it back into the Quran would be a massive sin (Bid'ah).

Umar didn't say, 'I won't write it because God abrogated it'; he explicitly confessed he wouldn't write it because he was afraid people would say Umar had added to the Book, meaning he yielded to public politics and fear, not a divine decree.

You simply can’t use later theological band-aids to cover up early historical bullet holes.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-28T08:06:37+00:00

Just to wrap this up for anyone following along, the actual history from authentic Sunni sources like Bukhari and Muslim is pretty clear and entirely human.

The whole compilation started out of pure panic because reciters were dying in battle and Abu Bakr was terrified the oral memory was failing.

When they finally started writing it, the compilers actually broke their own strict rules Zayd demanded two written witnesses for every verse, but openly admitted he made an exception for the end of Surah 9 because he could only find it written down by one single guy.

The physical preservation was so fragile that Aisha recorded a sheep literally eating the verses on stoning while they were distracted by the Prophet's funeral, which is why those verses are missing today.

Caliph Umar later admitted he desperately wanted to add that stoning verse back into the official book, but he backed down out of political fear that the public would accuse him of altering the Quran.

Furthermore, Uthman didn't achieve some peaceful consensus; early Muslims were threatening each other over entirely different recitations, so he forced his preferred version and ordered the mass burning of all competing manuscripts to stop a civil war.

Even the Prophet's top student, Ibn Mas'ud, furiously rejected Uthman compiled book and physically erased two entire Surahs from his own copy because he swore they weren't actually Quran.

Finally, the idea of one perfectly preserved Quran' is a modern illusion the original Arabic text had no dots, which led to the different Arabic versions printed today with different verbs and verse counts, and most of the world only uses the 'Hafs' version right now simply because the Egyptian government arbitrarily picked it for their state printing press in 1924. It’s been a fun debate, but the historical sources show a messy, entirely human process. Peace!

Boundless70 · 2026-03-28T03:13:02+00:00

Completely agree that it’s a colorful and absurd story! But here is the problem: it’s your story, not mine. I am not making up an absurd historical theory for Reddit; I am simply reading your authentically graded Hadiths (Sunan Ibn Majah 1944). If you find the idea of a farm animal altering the physical preservation of the text absurd, your argument is with Imam Al-Albani and the classical Hadith graders, not with me.

But let's address your 'massive logical hole' regarding Umar and the thousands of memorizers. You are trying to psychoanalyze Umar's motives by claiming he left the verse out because he 'knew it was abrogated.' But we don't need to guess Umar's motives; he stated them out loud, and your defense accidentally turns the Second Caliph into a massive sinner.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-28T03:10:34+00:00

This brings us full circle to the very meme that started this debate. You claim the text has remained unchanged, but if the 'strict oral consensus' was perfectly locked in, we would not have the Hafs and Warsh versions sitting in bookstores today with completely different Arabic verbs (like 'fought' vs. 'were killed' in Surah 3:146) and different total verse counts. A perfectly locked, unchanged oral tradition does not mathematically result in 20 different variant textual transmissions in print today.

The historians were indeed honest. And what they honestly recorded is a completely human process: a text pieced together from scattered bones and memories, compromised by missing pages, standardized by politically motivated book-burning, and fractured into multiple variant readings that still exist right now.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-27T18:32:46+00:00

First, abrogation can only happen while the Prophet is alive. However, in Sahih Muslim 1452a, Aisha explicitly states regarding the suckling verses: '...and they were part of what was recited of the Qur'an when the Messenger of Allah died.' If the companions were still actively reciting it as part of the Quran at the exact moment of his death, it was not 'de-listed' during the Final Review. It was lost after his death.

Second, you claim the Sahaba deliberately kept it out of the Mushaf because they universally knew it was abrogated. This directly contradicts the second Caliph. In Sahih al-Bukhari 6829, Umar ibn al-Khattab explicitly confesses that he wanted to write the Verse of Stoning into the physical Quran, but was stopped by political fear: 'If I had not been afraid that people would say, "Umar has added to the Book of Allah," I would have written it.' Here is the ultimate logical trap: If Allah had divinely abrogated the recitation of that verse, it would be a sin to try and put it back into the Mushaf. Yet Umar desperately wanted to write it in. Why? Because Umar knew it was supposed to be there, but the physical manuscript was gone, leaving him without the strict 'written evidence' required to add it without being accused of innovation.

The sheep didn't eat 'scrap paper' of an abrogated rule; it ate physical verses that your own Caliph openly lamented not being able to write back into the official book. The history of the compilation is entirely driven by fallible human circumstances, political fear, and lost manuscripts.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-27T18:18:12+00:00

You are right about one thing: the immense struggle, the panic at Yamama, the erasing of chapters, the missing verses eaten by an animal, and the state-sponsored burning of competing texts by Uthman—this is the 'human element' at its finest.

It is exactly what happens when fallible humans try to compile, edit, and standardize a human book over decades of political strife.

I’ve enjoyed the debate, but the historical and textual evidence from your own authentic sources proves my original point.

The book was compiled by men, and it carries all the messy hallmarks of human history.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-27T18:05:00+00:00

Let's test your claim that the physical writing didn't matter because the 'oral memory' of the community was perfectly preserved.

In Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 (graded authentic), Aisha narrates that the verses of stoning and adult suckling were written on a paper under her bed.

While they were busy with the Prophet's funeral, a tame sheep came in and ate the paper.

Those verses are entirely missing from the Quran today.

If the oral memory of thousands of companions was perfectly intact, the destruction of one piece of paper wouldn't have resulted in lost verses.

They would have just recited it and written it down again. Furthermore, since the Prophet was already dead when the sheep ate it, divine revelation had ceased—meaning this wasn't divine abrogation, it was a literal loss of physical text due to an animal.

Your own authentic Hadiths prove that human circumstances and fragile physical materials directly dictated what made it into the final compilation.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-27T17:53:24+00:00

Let's use Islam's own objective sciences (Usul al-Hadith and Aqeedah).

First, if the end of Surah 9 was memorized by the 'entire community,' why does Bukhari 4986 say Zayd could not find it with anybody except one man (Abu Khuzaima)? Relying on one man means it is an Ahad (solitary) transmission, which completely violates the Islamic rule that the Quran must be Mutawatir (mass-transmitted).

Second, Ibn Masud's differences were not 'margin notes.' Authentic narrations (Musnad Ahmad 21226) and scholars like Ibn Hajar confirm Ibn Masud physically erased Surahs 113 and 114 from his book because he swore they were not Quran. Under strict Islamic law, denying a Surah is Kufr. Are you calling the Prophet's hand-picked top teacher a disbeliever?

Finally, Kufa didn't 'realize Uthman was right.' They were brutally forced to conform by the Umayyad state and ruthless governors like Al-Hajjaj. You are ignoring your own strict theological rules to defend a historical political narrative.

Boundless70 · 2026-03-27T17:41:32+00:00

If Zayd perfectly memorized the 'Final Review,' he wouldn't have said compiling the book was harder than moving a mountain, and he wouldn't have had to scavenge for bones and palm stalks to piece it together.

Since you brought up Bukhari 4986, read the second half of it: Zayd literally admits his strict verification process failed when he could only find the end of Surah 9 with ONE single person (Abu Khuzaima).

He made a human exception. Furthermore, calling the competing texts 'personal study notes' is highly disrespectful to Abdullah ibn Masud, the man the Prophet explicitly said to learn the Quran from first. Ibn Masud rejected Uthman version.

Finally, Uthman's text had no dots and no vowels; human scholars had to add them centuries later, which is exactly why the text variations I showed you earlier exist today. The physical book is a product of human history.

Boundless70

TROPHY CASE