Friday, January 9, 2009

Seven Ahruf: The Qur'anic Escape Clause

Here is a simple question for Muslims: What does it mean to say that the Qur'an has been "perfectly preserved"?

I asked my friend this question last weekend, and his first response was that there have never been any changes in the text of the Qur'an. From an earlier post, we know that this claim is not verifiable: the earliest Quranic manuscripts were all systematically destroyed by Uthman. Beyond that, we know that this claim misses the point: there was plenty of controversy amongst the earliest Quranic scholars over what should even be considered "Quran". The Quran was not even a solid enough concept to be changable!

But there's more. When I pointed out to my friend that, in fact, there were differences in the manuscripts that Uthman sent out to the provinces and that there were variations in word usage, my reference was made to the hadith in which Muhammad says that there were seven ahruf.

Narrated by Umar bin Al Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah's Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me." The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way." He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, "It was revealed in this way. The Qur'an has been revealed in seven ahruf, so recite it in the way that is easier for you."

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith #3.601


Letting aside Umar's temperament, we see that he is shocked to find out that the Qur'an has been revealed in more ways than one. Indeed, the great Quran teacher Ubay b. Kaab had a similar response to this news, momentarily even doubting the Truth of Islam! (Until Muhammad punched him, that is):

Ubay: “…there occurred in my mind a sort of denial and doubt that did not exist even in the time of Jaahilliyah (before Islaam)! When the Messenger (PBUH) saw how I was affected, he struck my chest, whereupon I started sweating, and felt as though I were looking at Allaah in fear! Then the Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘O Ubay! A message was sent to me to recite the Qur’aan in one harf, but I requested (Allaah) to make things easy on my nation. A second message came that I should recite the Qur’aan in two ahruf, but I again made the same request. I was then ordered to recite the Qur’aan in seven ahruf.’”

Narrated by Muslim.


But what exactly is meant by the term "ahruf"? Let's turn to Muhammad for an answer:

...unfortunately, Muhammad does not elaborate on what the ahruf exactly are. So let's turn to his companions for more details:

...it seems none of his companions shares details on this concept of ahruf, either. If we are to gain any valid, non-speculative information about the ahruf, we should turn to the first three generations of Muslims, known as the salaf:

...as it turns out, no one in the salaf era actually expounded upon the concept of ahruf. Muslim scholars have wrestled with the concept of the seven ahruf for centuries, often concluding that no one knows exactly what they are except Allah!

We must conclude, then, Muhammad essentially said the following: there are seven ways in which the Quran was revealed, and there's no explicit limit to these differences. I posit that this ahruf clause allows so much elasticity for Muslims that they would use it to justify 7 entirely different Qurans if they were to exist! Indeed, we do see Muslims trying to explain the variants in the earliest Quranic manuscripts with this concept.

To summarize some of the past 2 weeks' blogs on the Quran:
  1. There really is no actual difference between the "perfectly preserved" Quran and an un-preserved book from antiquity. Both have been through sifting, sorting, variations, missing passages, editions, etc.
  2. The Quranic text can never be shown to be "perfectly preserved" because the crucial evidence was systematically destroyed by Uthman.
  3. The scholars Muhammad chose to teach the Quran disagreed on the contents of the Quran, including which words, verses, and even chapters to include.
  4. The earliest manuscripts in our posession do not indicate "perfect preservation"; they have variants in each one of them.
  5. Some of the variants match the opinion of Quran teachers who stood against Zaid as he compiled the predecessor of today's Quran.
  6. Even if it can be proven that there were up to seven different readings of the Quran, Muhammad's concept of the seven ahruf will provide an escape clause for Muslims.

O Muslim friends! Do ye say "perfect preservation?" Then explain this claim if ye be of those who pursue truth! And if ye cannot do it, and ye will never be able to do it, then desist from your baseless assumptions. And Jesus is most forgiving, ever-merciful.

70 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

We can at least be sure that there once existed seven different Qur'ans.

Just a pity we are unable to compare these! The early Muslims seemed to have a lot of coverup to do!

Unfortunately all we possess today is the corrupt, revised standard Qur'anic version of Uthman, which allegedly is a miracle from God, which nevertheless presents only further human corruption of an already fabricated piece of informative human material. Now that is what I call a groundless religion.

The funny thing is, we can conclude all these matters simply by consulting the early Islamic sources, without considering the use of modern conjecture; Islam it self provides the information.

So, I guess I am curious what exactly were these seven Qur'ans?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Well, as an honest investigator, I will have to conclude this:

At least some of the differences were minor enough to keep the alternate readings recognizable. For example, in the hadith I quoted from Bukhari, Umar recognized the portion being recited. It was different enough to infuriate Umar, yet similar enough to be recognizable and identifiable.

If the Muslim sources are accurate, and certainly they are about the only sources I quote, then it seems to me that the ahruf are alternate ways to say/write verses that were readily identifiable. But I could be wrong about that. Since neither Muhammad nor his companions have elaborated on the exact nature of the ahruf, it really is hard to conclude anything specific.

Fernando said...

Good work Nabeel Qureshi...

Bryant said...

Nabeel wrote:

"O Muslim friends! Do ye say "perfect preservation?" Then explain this claim if ye be of those who pursue truth! And if ye cannot do it, and ye will never be able to do it, then desist from your baseless assumptions. And Jesus is most forgiving, ever-merciful."


This is a historic day. Let me be the first to congratulate Nabeel on being the first person in over a millennium to finally meet the age old challenge of producing a Sura like the Quran.

Anonymous said...

Muslim scholars have wrestled with the concept of the seven ahruf for centuries, often concluding that no one knows exactly what they are except Allah!

This is really getting comical.

Islam2009 said...

Greetings all,

***Here is a simple question for Muslims: What does it mean to say that the Qur'an has been "perfectly preserved"?**

It means that the Quran we posses today is what was finally revealed to the Prophet from God.

[[there was plenty of controversy amongst the earliest Quranic scholars over what should even be considered "Quran".]]

I think your confusing the Quran with the NT here, my friend. It was the NT where church fathers couldn’t agree on what bits and books (!!!) should be in or out. Not until some bishop called Athenathius in the year 367CE decided to tell Christians (and God) what His word should be by cherry-picking a list of the same 27 NT books you use today. Even that didn’t really settle it completely.

<<<< Unfortunately all we possess today is the corrupt, revised standard Qur'anic version of Uthman, which allegedly is a miracle from God… ]]

Lol! Here we go with the ‘Uthmanic conspiracy theory’ again.

So Muslims should reject a written Quran that you yourself ADMIT was compiled by multiple eyewitness disciple of Mohammed, and instead take up your four anonymous ‘gosples’ that you ADMIT did not even exist at the time of Jesus?

Now that really is ‘comical’!

Even if I pretend (for your sake) that the gospels were written by Matt, Mk, Lk and John, what is to stop me from believing that there was similarly no later ‘disciple conspiracy theory’ to corrupt Christ’s words after him? Even those four contradict each other!

And aren’t these the same disciples who betrayed, doubted, denied and ran away to leave Jesus for dead on the cross??

And you still expect me to trust THIER accounts of him? Hmmmm..VERY suspect!

I can see why this topic is a frequent thorn of the side of Christian missionaries.

It must be really hard to swallow that while- aside from early memorization- the Quarn can boast thousands upon thousands of MSS from just DECADES after the prophet that scarcely contain a single intentional corruption amongst them, the NT MSS are a hash of intentionally corrupted MSS that are mainly centuries after Christ.

No wonder people like Bart Ehrman had the good sense to reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason.

Reagrds.

Nakdimon said...

Bryant: "This is a historic day. Let me be the first to congratulate Nabeel on being the first person in over a millennium to finally meet the age old challenge of producing a Sura like the Quran."

HAHAHA! Indeed, the eloquence, the literary style, the inerrancy of Nabeels Surah is astonishing.

We only have two options:
1 Nabeel, too, is a prophet
2 Nabeel is not a prophet, but then the Qur'an is not divine either.

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Someone sayd: «It means that the Quran we posses today is what was finally revealed to the Prophet from God»...

We habe a new comediann postting here...

Onn the onne sayd, I'm glad to see your post... one the other one, I feel depressed for seeing the shalowness of your arguments and reasoning: neither manifestting knoleddge of scientific studies about christianity or about the Qur'an...

butt then... what could be expected by sommeone who was called Islam2009 bie his parents?

I'll kip you inn my deappest thoughts during my hours of prayer mie friend Ishlam1009

Fernando said...

I meant: I'll kip you inn my deappest thoughts during my hours of prayer mie friend Islam2009...

Islam2009 said...

Hi Fernado.

<<< Onn the onne sayd, I'm glad to see your post... One the other one, I feel depressed for seeing the shalowness of your arguments and reasoning: neither manifestting knoleddge of scientific studies about christianity or about the Qur'an.]

Yes, that sounds like the missionary way of saying

" i cant refute your argumnets because they were too strong for me, but heres a good insult instead to make up for my ignorance! "

And i am named after a religion followed by almost 2 billion people.

You appear to be named after a Spanish waiter.

Regards my friend.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Islam2009--

Welcome to our blog! It looks like you're new here, and your comments indicate that you're out of the loop. Let me catch you up to speed on a few things.

I think your confusing the Quran with the NT here, my friend.

No, I'm really not. You are right that the NT had a process of discussion regarding certain books and whether to include them or exclude them. I will give you credit when you are right and you are right about that. But when you deny similar controversies in early Islam, you are just plain wrong. Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Quran (none of which were Zaid bin Thabit) disagreed with Zaid about what should be in the Quran and what should not. Please read the arguments and evidence for this claim here.

So Muslims should reject a written Quran that you yourself ADMIT was compiled by multiple eyewitness disciple of Mohammed

Well, the eyewitness disciples never came to any sort of consensus. Ibn Masud wanted 111 chapters in the Quran, Ibn Ka'ab wanted 116 chapters, Umar was convinced that the verse of stoning should have been in the Quran, and Ibn Abbas agreed. These were the earliest, most knowledgeable people concerning the Quran! So you turn to the companions of Muhammad in a vague "Look, they're the ones who compiled it!" manner, and when I turn to see what you're pointing at, I see ubiquitous controversy and arguments.

Did this controversy end up with agreement? Nope. In fact, Ibn Masud, Muhammad's number one teacher of the Quran, did not even give up his Quran for Zaid's Quran until he got a letter of warning from the khalifa.

I can see why this topic is a frequent thorn of the side of Christian missionaries.

The fact is, my friend, we are talking about the Quran right now. What was being discussed must have been such a big thorn to you that you decided to change the subject to the NT.

By the way, the preservation of the NT is not as important to Christianity as the preservation of the Quran is for Islam. Muhammad's greatest sign to his people was the Quran. It was supposed to be immediately distinguishable from all else as divine writ and it was supposed to be perfectly preserved. This was to be Allah's sign for the truth of Islam! Yet we know that even the Muslims couldn't agree what should be part of the Quran (hardly distinguisable, then!) and we know it has not been perfectly preserved!

The sign for the truth of Christianity, however, has never been the NT. It has always been, and always will be, the resurrection of Jesus. But lets stick with our focus.

the Quarn can boast thousands upon thousands of MSS from just DECADES after the prophet...

Please name me just a few of these thousands, or explain to us why you chose to invent facts. (As fair warning, unless you explain this statement I will use it in a future post to show that Muslims have a tendency to make up extremely fanciful arguments on a whim.)

...that scarcely contain a single intentional corruption amongst them

So these thousands of manuscripts contain corruption amongst them, but "scarcely any" are intentional? So you admit that there are variants! But then you go on to say that scarcely any of them are intentional; how do you know that? By the way, you are saying that a scarce number of these variants are intentional. Wow. These are pretty detailed claims. I sincerely hope you can prove them.

No wonder people like Bart Ehrman had the good sense to reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason.

Bart Ehrman rejects Christianity on account of the problem of evil. He would reject Islam on the same token. Bart Ehrman rejects the NT on the grounds that God would not allow his book to ever have a single variant. He would reject the Quran on the same token.

It's great to have you along, Islam2009. I'm looking forward to some defenses of your claims as well as an approach that takes our data into account.

Sincerely,
-Nabeel Qureshi

Fernando said...

No mie frriend Islam2009 (I'm guessing, by your agressive interpretation off mie words, this is not youre true name... but then... I'm just guessing... don't have anie clue to know that...)... not intended to insult you in any meaning or forme...

Yes... it was my mistake to say you pressented shaloow arguments and argumenmtation, because, as a metter of fact your words were neither...

If a kid sayd to me: "teacher, did you knowh that 2+2 equals 5?" i would trye to explain why he was wrong... but if hee was a college student in a maths class who saide the same, I would feel really depressed... or, perahps, would simplye give a laugh and ignore his remake... I imagine that's what is happening with other posters in this blog (eben the muslims ones must be embarassed with your sentences... but it's me guessing abain)...

I thougt it was rude for me to ignore your words, but they are as far awaie from the truthe, that they don't eben make an argument... and, yes, they looke very fonnie for me... I eben laugh when I reed them...

As for your comprehention of the scientific aspect of the untruth nature of Qur'ans "perfectly preserved" condition the posts placed in this blog the latter weeks shoud do enough...

As four your comprehension of the nature off the Bible I don't eben know where, or how, to start... really: take my words for a facte: you cannot starte your explanation of your position from a point where you show no knowledge off whate youre sayieng...

perhaps -- and I'm sayieng this as a help for your very first steeps in the knowledge of the holy Bible, eben if this present debate is not about it, you should read something about the for gospels being for books writen by diferent persons in different contexts and different times through very eache off them the same and onlie revelation of the life, deads and Passion off out Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, were communicated...

if you pick up a book about one single episode off, for example, the first world war writen and reed it; and then reed another book writen by another person you will see thate the same event will naturely be narrated in a different form... that doens't mean, by anie mean, the event wasn't true or that either of the authors were wroten a fake storie...

with the Holy Gospels his the same... that's no bie any means a problem cause no one says the Bible -- even it is the word off God through human mediation (accepted by God) -- is the inmutable Word of God as it's in Even... that Word his God the Son... Jesus Christ our redemer... and that doesn't have anything to do with the preservation off the Bible... No one ever tryiend to reduce those 4 accounts to one and destroi the other 3 (and that would be a conspiracie) has clearly (and historically proven) did Hutman...

Btw... the asertion you made that the NT books were rewriten centuries after has no historical or scientific grounde... even Bart Ehrman had to aknoladge that after the debates erupted after the publication of his two books regarding that aspect...

thankes verie munch for calling me "friend"... that's untypical in other muslims posters... and we know why's that...

but no, I'm not called after a spanish waiter, but bie a phillipino christian who was killed by muslims who didn't allow him to have a cross inside off his homme...

but I would like to finishe this non relevant post to thise present debate with some words off cumpliment to you, mie frriend: may your efford to refute scientificaly and kwnoledgebly christianity allow you to know better your two religiones and, then, the true nature of God... has I saide: I'll bee prayieng for you...

Fernando said...

I meant: allow you to know better OUR two religiones and...

Islam2009 said...

Hi Nabeel,

Thanks for writing back with a bit more substance and intelligence than your Christian predecessor.

[[ You are right that the NT had a process of discussion regarding certain books and whether to include them or exclude them. I will give you credit when you are right and you are right about that. }

Great! And where exactly does Jesus fit into this “discussion” as to what constitutes the NT that occurred over 300 years after him?

As for your paper on Zaid, ibn Masuud etc, it is an impressive deceptive mix of apocryphal and authentic sources to arrive at a bogus conclusion.

You quote an authentic source (Bukhari) to show ONLY that Ibn Masuud is a highly respected companion, then you quote apocryphal sources like Ibn Dawood to show he rejected 2 suras.

That’s a bit like me quoting you the NT to show that Thomas was such a good disciple, and then quoting you the gospel of Thomas to show how he contradicts Jesus. Very dishonest wouldn’t you say?

[ BTW even your apocryphal source of Ibn Dawood says that when Uthman burded the MSS, he did so openly with no objections from the companions which pretty much refutes your whole case. I think that’s on p. 23 ]

<<< By the way, the preservation of the NT is not as important to Christianity as the preservation of the Quran is for Islam. >>>

Really? Says who? You or Jesus? Its funny how this argument was never really used by Christians till after modern textual criticism showed just how corrupt the NT was about 100 years ago. If you’d said that back in the days of the King James Bible you would have been burned a heretic.

<<<< The sign for the truth of Christianity, however, has never been the NT. It has always been, and always will be, the resurrection of Jesus. But lets stick with our focus. >>>

And where can I read about the resurrection of Christ? Isn’t that in the NT? Now if that NT hasn’t even been accurately preserved then how and why should I trust the details of its narratives on the resurrection of Christ or anything else it has to say?


<<< Please name me just a few of these thousands, or explain to us why you chose to invent facts >>>

Or. 2165 in the British library (London).

Arabe 328 in Bibliotheq National (Paris).

1404 in the Chester Beatty (Dublin).

Plus THOUSANDS in Sana.

I thought you said you had researched this topic? With all due respect Nabil, it doesn’t look like you have.


[[ So these thousands of manuscripts contain corruption amongst them, but "scarcely any" are intentional? So you admit that there are variants! ]]

Depends what you mean by “variant”. If you mean spelling mistake, orthographic differences, Quriaat etc then of course there are “variants”! Why shouldn’t there be?


[[ But then you go on to say that scarcely any of them are intentional; how do you know that? ]]

Err.. from reading them. And reading about the ones that have been studied by scholars.

[ By the way, you are saying that a scarce number of these variants are intentional. Wow. These are pretty detailed claims. I sincerely hope you can prove them. ]

To be honest with you ive never come across a clearly intentional variant in any Quran MS that couldn’t be explained away as a basic scribal error or quriaat etc. Can you help? I said “scarcely” just to be cautious, but (for your sake) even if there was one you would have to then show its repetition in other MSS (as we do for the NT) and that it existed in an oral tradition too (which is the main method of presavation) for it to be a major threat to the Quran’s preservation claim.

[ Bart Ehrman rejects Christianity on account of the problem of evil ]

Lol come on now, you’re smarter than that, Nabil.

Read his book “misquoting Jesus”. He was an Evangelical (like you) but then ended up rejecting it as a direct result of studying all the corruptions in your MSS.

Anyone who isn’t blinded by faith would do exactly the same.

Regards.

Anonymous said...

That muslims try to use Bart Ehrman to make an argument against christianity is nothing but asininity.

In case you are looking for a critique of Ehrman, check out Daniel Wallace:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Islam2009 said...

Nabeel,


And BTW, you said nothing of my question about the honestly of the disciples of Christ in writing the gospels.

And its no good you saying that “this is about the Quran not the NT”.

Your blog isn’t just about getting Muslims to reject Islam is it?

If I become an atheist on the basis of your arguments, you would have gained nothing for Christ and failed as an evangelical.

Cleary your aim is to turn Muslims into Christians, so you need to show me, as a Muslim, how I can be 100% sure that the gospel authors didn’t pervert the message of Christ in some bizarre conspiracy theory, just as you claim Uthman did with the message of Mohammed.

Otherwise your arguments here give me -and other Muslims- absolutely no reason whatsoever to convert.

Anonymous said...

I think this quote is sufficient to destroy EHrman's whole argument:

With characteristic energy and perseverance, [Bengel] procured all the editions, manuscripts, and early translations available to him. After extended study, he came to the conclusions that the variant readings were fewer in number than might have been expected and that they did not shake any article of evangelic doctrine. - Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman

Islam2009 said...

Hi Matthew,

<<< That muslims try to use Bart Ehrman to make an argument against christianity is nothing but asininity >>>


I think it worked quite well actually.Hence the fact that Nabeel had to lie about why Erhman converted when he tells us plainly in his book :-)

And I heard the debate Wallace did with Ehrman.

I love the bit were Wallace admits the Old Testament is not preserved so the NT can’t be either! LOL!

I wonder if Jesus thought the O.T was not preserved too??

What do you think Matthew?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Islam2009--

Thanks for responding!

As for your paper on Zaid, ibn Masuud etc, it is an impressive deceptive mix of apocryphal and authentic sources to arrive at a bogus conclusion.

You quote an authentic source (Bukhari) to show ONLY that Ibn Masuud is a highly respected companion, then you quote apocryphal sources like Ibn Dawood to show he rejected 2 suras.


Looks like you're using good old MAT1 (Muslim apologist tactic #1): Deny the sources. As I have said in multiple posts in the past, and as I continue to maintain, the primary method Muslims use to maintain their positions is to deny early Muslim sources which refute their positions.

There are many problems with what you have asserted. The first is that you take Ibn Daud to be apocryphal. On what grounds? That he is not one of the compilers of sihah sittah? As you well know, the sahih are a collection traditions regarding Muhammad and his sayings, not a history of the compilation of the Quran. So why on earth would we turn to them for the history of the Quranic text?

The most scholarly and comprehensive work from antiquity which records the collection of the Quranic text is Ibn Daud's Kitab al-Masahif. There is no circumventing this fact. If there is another, please tell me what it is.

So, your claim is that Ibn Daud is "apocryphal". Please provide your reasoning instead of simply dismissing the source without reason (MAT1).

(By the way, the most scholarly book I have read from a modern Muslim regarding the Quran is called The Sciences of the Quraan by Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. He provides excellent evidences, though I disagree with many of his conclusions. Solely providing evidences sets him apart from most modern Muslim scholars. Anyhow, in this book, Qadhi lauds Ibn Daud for excellent scholarship. My use of this source, therefore, is not just a "Christian tactic" but is well-reasoned and Muslim-corroborated.)

For future reference (and to prevent arbitrary designations as "trustworthy" vs. "untrustworthy" sources) what are your criteria for the trustworthiness of sources?

[BTW even your apocryphal source of Ibn Dawood says that when Uthman burded the MSS, he did so openly with no objections from the companions which pretty much refutes your whole case. I think that’s on p. 23]

Here we have a contradiction in historical accounts, because we know that Ibn Masud was not willing to give up his codex. It wasn't until he received a direct order from Uthman that he assented. So even if your point were accurate, I can completely see why people would not go against the khalifa. Just ask Musailima.

By the way, the preservation of the NT is not as important to Christianity as the preservation of the Quran is for Islam.

Really? Says who? You or Jesus?


Both of us. When pressed for a sign (after having given many, including one just a few minutes earlier) Jesus said that he would be back from sheol (the grave) just as Jonah came back from sheol. (Mt 12:39) He marked that as his one sign for these people who just would not believe. You show me where he said "The NT will never be corrupted, and that is the sign of my truth!"

Its funny how this argument was never really used by Christians till after modern textual criticism showed just how corrupt the NT was about 100 years ago. If you’d said that back in the days of the King James Bible you would have been burned a heretic.

Yes, aside from your date of 100 years ago, you're right. Praise God that
1- We have early MSS such as sinaiticus, chester beatty, etc. which we can use to confirm our modern Bibles.
2- That no one burnt our early MSS
3- That Christians do not have to rely on textual preservation for the truth of their faith.
4- That disagreement with other Christians does not lead to persecution like it used to.
5- That Christians allow people to investigate and criticize their texts openly.

I pray, Islam2009, that you will be able to one day praise God for the same things.

And where can I read about the resurrection of Christ? Isn’t that in the NT?

If you think Christians have to make their case for the resurrection solely from the NT, think again. But you're missing the greater picture, as we see below:

Now if that NT hasn’t even been accurately preserved...

Who said it hasn't been accurately preserved? If you say it wasn't perfectly preserved, then I may agree with you. But inaccurate and unusable (as you are implying) is totally incorrect. I would say the same thing about the Quran in a heartbeat: imperfect, but not inaccurate and unusable.

Or. 2165 in the British library (London).

Arabe 328 in Bibliotheq National (Paris).

1404 in the Chester Beatty (Dublin).

Plus THOUSANDS in Sana.


None of the manuscripts you've listed above are "within decades of the prophet" (i.e. first century AH). If you say they are, provide your evidence: the burden of proof is on you.

Beyond that, not one of those manuscripts perfectly matches the codex of Uthman that we have today.

Depends what you mean by “variant”.

Good question - this word differs depending on the Muslim you're talking to and his concept of "perfect preservation". But like I said, such as in my post on Fogg's palimpsest, there are variants in the early Quranic MSS that agree with Ibn Masud and against Zaid in wording (not spelling or script mistakes, but word choice).

To be honest with you ive never come across a clearly intentional variant in any Quran MS that couldn’t be explained away as a basic scribal error or quriaat etc. Can you help?

Yep - check out that link. And I'll be posting more on this on the main page within the next week or so.

...even if there was one you would have to then show its repetition in other MSS (as we do for the NT) and that it existed in an oral tradition too (which is the main method of presavation) for it to be a major threat to the Quran’s preservation claim.

Well this destroys your argument against the NT, doesn't it? You say that the corruption must be perpetuated, but since we have super early MSS of the NT off which we base our NT today, the corruption in between does not count any more. There goes your argument against John 7/8, Mk 16, and 1 John, and any variations in the NT.

Read his book “misquoting Jesus”. He was an Evangelical (like you) but then ended up rejecting it as a direct result of studying all the corruptions in your MSS.

You did not read to the end of my paragraph. Read it again.

It seems you have some defending to do. Why is Ibn Daud untrustworthy (to the point of being "apocryphal"?) How do you determine what is trustworthy? How are the MSS you named "just DECADES" after Muhammad?

I will not be able to reply until after my shift is over - I'm working in the emergency room at my local hospital. At the very least, we can pray together that God will bless my mind and my hands to heal those who walk through those doors :-)

God bless you, friend. Sincerely,
-Nabeel

El-Cid said...

Nabeel,

Thank you very much for taking time out of what I am sure is a VERY busy schedule in the medical profession to craft these posts.

And honestly, I could pretty much read about the textual history of the Quran all day :-). I look forward to future posts on this subject.

Anonymous said...

My point on Ehrman was this:
I bet with you when you tell Ehrman "The Qur'an has been perfectly preserved!" he will laugh at you.

Didn't even Shabir Ally admit that the Qur'an wasn't perfectly preserved, but just an attempt to write down the wisdom of Allah?

Do you accept Ali Dashti on the Qur'an? Do you accept any textual criticism on the Qur'an?

I think it worked quite well actually.Hence the fact that Nabeel had to lie about why Erhman converted when he tells us plainly in his book :-)

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html

A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=qenJ9QZ97EM

But hey, we are christians, WE MUST BE LYING!

And I heard the debate Wallace did with Ehrman.

Can I listen to it on the internet? I haven't watched it yet. But I strongly reject Ehrman's opinion on the topic (most scholarship does ...), one of his main concerns still seems to be "Was Jesus angry or compassionate??"

Nakdimon said...

Matthew, I'm really looking forward to the Ehrmann vs White debate, coming up in two weeks. Very eager to see that clash.

Bryant said...

Nakdimon said:

"Matthew, I'm really looking forward to the Ehrmann vs White debate, coming up in two weeks. Very eager to see that clash."

Yessssss!! I have been thinking about that debate all week. On Jan 21 Bart Erhman will be EXPOSED for the deceiver that he is!!

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Nakdimon and Bryant --

Are you gonna be at the debate? David and I are thinking about going.

Nabeel

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Islam2009--

Hmmm... the tone of your next few posts sounds less amicable and more inimical. We'll see if that was a preview of more to come or just a momentary lapse in cordiality. Anyhow, on with your questions.

you said nothing of my question about the honestly of the disciples of Christ in writing the gospels... And its no good you saying that “this is about the Quran not the NT”...Your blog isn’t just about getting Muslims to reject Islam is it?

Check out the name of the blog, Islam2009. It's called "Answering Muslims", not "Defending Christianity". Now, defending Christianity has its place while answering muslims, but it's far less frequent than Muslims would like to think. If the topic is the NT, I'll focus on the NT. If the topic is the Quran, I'll focus on the Quran. Bottom line: we should not try to distract people from the topic at hand.

If I become an atheist on the basis of your arguments, you would have gained nothing for Christ and failed as an evangelical.

One argument at a time, friend.

I think (quoting Bart Ehrman) worked quite well actually.Hence the fact that Nabeel had to lie about why Erhman converted when he tells us plainly in his book :-)

Lie? I lied? Watch your wording, Islam2009. Where I'm from, accusing someone of lying is serious. In Islam it may be common to accuse people of being untrustworthy or liars, especially if you don't have any evidence (as it seems you have a tendency to do). I guess its only natural that people who subscribe to taqiyya would themselves be paranoid about deception since it would be such a large part of their world. But here in Christianity, we treat peoples' integrity with integrity.

So if you accuse me of lying (i.e. intentional deception) please provide evidence instead of just maligning me. Otherwise, keep these kinds of words and accusations to yourself.

#1 - I couldn't care any less what Bart Ehrman says about anything but textual criticism. He is a textual critic, and there his expertise is to be respected. He is not a philosopher, his arguments against Christianity are non-sequitur, and if he had said he rejected Christianity on account of textual integrity, it wouldn't matter to me one iota.

#2 - The fact of the matter is, he said he rejected the inspiration of the NT based on textual variants, and he rejects the theology of Christianity based off of the problem of evil.

#3 - I have proof for my claim, which is posted by Bart Ehrman himself right here. (Thanks to Matthew for that link). Please, Islam2009, either advance or rescind your accusation against me as a liar after reading the title of Ehrman's post, and we'll see who's honest.

I love the bit were Wallace admits the Old Testament is not preserved so the NT can’t be either! LOL!

Provide some evidence of this. A link, a quote, something where we can verify that this is what he actually said. I may be wrong, but I have a hunch that you are misinterpreting his "admission".

We'll see how you respond when it comes to having substance to back up your claims. I'm looking forward to it.

Sincerely,
-Nabeel

David Wood said...

I think Islam2009 (if that is his real name) and other Muslims completely miss the point of what we're saying. When we say that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved, we're saying it because Muslims have claimed that it's perfectly preserved. They've made a positive claim, and we're refuting it. So it makes no sense to turn around and say, "But what about the New Testament?" No one's saying that the New Testament has been perfectly preserved (if, by "perfect preservation," we mean no textual variants). Hence, it would make little sense to respond to a claim that Christians aren't making.

Second, when we point out that the early Muslims didn't agree on the number of Surahs, or that Uthman burned the manuscripts, we're not suggesting a massive conspiracy that corrupted Muhammad's message. For the millionth time, I believe that the Qur'an we have today is a pretty accurate reflection of what Muhammad delivered to his followers. The point of bringing up disagreements among Muhammad's followers and the "Manuscript Genocide" of Uthman is to show that the claims Muslims make against the Bible ("There are textual variants, so it must be corrupt;" "There was a question about 3 John, so the NT can't be trusted") can be used far more effectively against the Qur'an.

Indeed, Islam2009 brags about the fact that Daniel Wallace admits that there are textual variants. Well, that simply shows a massive difference between the integrity of Christian scholars and that of Muslim scholars. A Christian scholar will look at a group of NT textual variants and say, "There are textual variants." A Muslim scholar will look at a group of Qur'anic textual variants and say, "There are no variants at all!" So Islam2009 is making fun of our scholars for being more scholarly.

MP said...

Islam2009 (is that really your name?) said: «Hi Nabeel, Thanks for writing back with a bit more substance and intelligence than your Christian predecessor»

As a mater of fact Fernando -- cheers to you my friend --, as always -- on his quite peculiar way of trying to be polite to those who don’t deserve the minimum of intellectual respect --, tried to give you a first glance of what is Christianity to someone who clearly doesn’t have a single clue about it…

But coming those assertion from someone – you, Islam1009 (if this is not your name, why the masquerade? Why the deception? Why the insults? Why the complete lack of knowledge?) -- who also doesn’t admit the more accurate scientific evidences about islam’s history one shouldn’t be surprised…

As Fernando said: your pseudo-arguments -- taken out of context from what you’ve heard or read without even having a clue about what you’re listening or reading -- are precisely that: “pseudo”, surely more intended to be a psychological defence mechanism to allow you to stay in a false religion than to be a ground for a mature and scientific debate about the “perfect preservation of the Qur’an”… which, by the way, is a totally false statement…

But even if one tries to look at your affirmations without starting to laugh -- and I also started laughing when I first read them – they are full of malice, deception, false statements, historical errors, misunderstandings, etc., that is almost impossible to know where to start defusing your ignorance… Fernando tried -- quite well… I should say – from the 2+2=4… but perhaps he should have started from the a-e-i-o-u… In that he showed a lack of intelligence, not because he lacks it, but only in order to accommodate himself to the “mental age” you manifested in your posts… you really don’t have a single clue about you’re talking, do you? You sound like those foolish kids who want to start a debate about the theory of relativity by arguing that you know for a fact that your watch, and that of your father, doesn’t always show the same time…

Fernando… don’t get offended by Islam2009 remarks… they’re like is pseudo-arguments… empty graves ready to be filled with is own words…

Nakdimon said...

Nabeel: "Nakdimon and Bryant --

Are you gonna be at the debate? David and I are thinking about going.

Nabeel"

Hi Nabeel,

I dont think that I will fly all the way from Europe to the US to attend a debate between White and Ehrman.

I'll just wait for the debate to become public.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

To settle the Ehrman-thing, you might want to check out the "Unbelievable"-programm from yesterday (10 Jan 2009).

http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

This show is about "God's problem", the other show was on "Misquoting Jesus".

That should settle the whole thing once and for all.

Listen to it and you will notice that what Ehrman said yesterday was: "I lost my faith in inerrancy, but I stayed a liberal christian for 15 years."

It's also a good discussion of the PoE. David might want to put a link to it on the PoE-blog.

Bryant said...

Nabeel,

I would like to go to the debate but the semester begins for me at Nyack college on the 20th. I'm pretty sure I'll be in class at around the time of the debate. Plus, I live all the way in NYC.

Islam2009 said...

Greetings all,

As the only Muslim here, apologies that I cant respond fully to everyone, so i continue with Nabeel.

Nabeel,

So i see you STILL insist on using Evangelical apologetic tactic #1 (EAT 1): Quote any source or person with a Muslim sounding name who has been dead for a few centuries and automatically try and pawn it off as Muslim doctrine.

Does that work with Christianity too? Can i quote you what any early church fathers said about the Bible as Christian doctrine?

<<< The most scholarly and comprehensive work from antiquity which records the collection of the Quranic text is Ibn Daud's Kitab al-Masahif. >>>

What makes it so scholarly? Please explain.

As you well know Muslims regard the Quran and six hadith as the ONLY truly authentic sources for Islamic law and history. Bukhari and Mulsim are top, followed by 4 others like Abu Dawud, ibn Majah etc. Quote from those or I’m not interested. If you wish to quote from something outside them, you need good supporting evidence- not just their say so.

Ibn Daud has never been generally regarded by Muslims as authrative history. Sorry.

And given that Ibn Daud is so brilliant, when this same “scholarly and comprehensive work” states on pages 12, 21 and 22 that all the companions AGREED with Uthmans burning of the MSS, doesnt that just refute your whole case? I think it does.

Looks like youre using Evangeical apologetic tatic #2 (EAT #2) here: Misquoting sources to ignore the bits you dont like!

You wrote on that issue:

<<< Here we have a contradiction in historical accounts, because we know that Ibn Masud was not willing to give up his codex >>

Really?! So one minute Ibn Daud is SO “scholarly and comprehensive”, but now hes contradicting “historical accounts”! You seem very confused here my friend.

Can you be specific? Which “historical accounts” is he contracting and what makes them better then Ibn Daud?? Looks like you’re using Evangelical apologetic tactic #3 (EAT #3) here: Being intentionally vague to disguise the fact that you have no case whatsoever.

<< When pressed for a sign (after having given many, including one just a few minutes earlier) Jesus said that he would be back from sheol (the grave) just as Jonah came back from sheol. (Mt 12:39) He marked that as his one sign for these people who just would not believe. You show me where he said "The NT will never be corrupted, and that is the sign of my truth!" >>

Yeh and he also said “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mrk 13:31) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10) and “not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until fulfillment” (Matt 5:18)

Once more we have (EAT 2) here.

<< 1- We have early MSS such as sinaiticus, chester beatty, etc. which we can use to confirm our modern Bibles. >>

Lol Brother please! And when do they date from?? Sinaitcus is 4th C (Over 300 years after Jesus!) and the Chester Beatty is 200 CE (almost 200 years after Jesus!). Before that you have nothing but a few tiny scraps. Sorry but that’s pathetic. The Quran MSS wipe the floor with that.

<< 2- That no one burnt our early MSS >>

Ive already shown how your uthmnaic conspiracy theory fails miserably. It’s a one-size-fits –all argument. You can claim there is a conspiracy with the early disciples of ANY religion against its founder- best of all Christianity.

<< 3- That Christians do not have to rely on textual preservation for the truth of their faith. >

You do. Otherwise Jesus is wrong and there is no reason to trust the NT. See above.

< 4- That disagreement with other Christians does not lead to persecution like it used to. >

Depends what you mean by “persecution”. Some Christians will call you heretic for believing in a “corrupt manuscript” like sinaticus. Isn’t that a form of verbal persecution? They may even slap you for it! Who knows?

< 5- That Christians allow people to investigate and criticize their texts openly. >

This is Evangelical apologetic tactic #4 (EAT #4). Spreading lies/myths.

Almost all the work that has been done on Quran MSS in modern times is being done by non-Muslims.


<< If you think Christians have to make their case for the resurrection solely from the NT, think again. >>

Well that’s news to me! Where else can I read about the resurrection of Jesus if not in the NT? Gospel of Peter maybe?

<< Who said it hasn't been accurately preserved? If you say it wasn't perfectly preserved, then I may agree with you. But inaccurate and unusable (as you are implying) is totally incorrect >>


Its been intentionally corrupted to the point where- in certain places- it is almost impossible to know what God words is and what it is not. That’s the problem that you have and we don’t.

<< Or. 2165 in the British library (London).

Arabe 328 in Bibliotheq National (Paris).

1404 in the Chester Beatty (Dublin).

Plus THOUSANDS in Sana.

None of the manuscripts you've listed above are "within decades of the prophet" (i.e. first century AH). >>

Every single one of them is from the 1st century AH!! And there are more! They have all been dated- by non-Muslims (who you said are not allowed access to them) to about the year 700CE. That’s just 68 years after the Prophet. Do you have any MS that are 68 years after Jesus?? Don’t think so.

The Sana collection has AT LEAST 80 MS from that time too. You said you have researched this, so you should know about the references.

<< Beyond that, not one of those manuscripts perfectly matches the codex of Uthman that we have today. >>

Depends what you mean
by ‘perfectly’. Ive already told you certain variants exist, and you yourself have proven how the Prophet himself allowed variation in the Quran’s reading. So what’s the problem?

You see Nabeel, you are doing a brilliant job of refuting your “Muslim friend” who thinks that every Quran MSS is IDENTICAL to the current printed text.

Sadly you are doing a terrible job of refuting Islam’s claim on what the Quran’s claim of preservation actually is.

<< But like I said, such as in my post on Fogg's palimpsest, there are variants in the early Quranic MSS that agree with Ibn Masud and against Zaid in wording (not spelling or script mistakes, but word choice). >>

That’s because Ibn Masuud’s Quran was in a different harf (dialect) to Uthmans which was in the Qurashi dialect. Does that mean Ibn Masuud OR Uthman were wrong? No, because the prophet said you can read in any of the seven dialects that you chose, as you yourself posted. When people began to fight after the prophet, uthman decided to preserve only one dialect and destroy all others to stop this, which (according to your favorite source of Ibn Dawood) all the companions agreed with.

Honestly Nabeel, if you really are a doctor you should surely have the common sense to put these two simple ideas together… Or maybe you just don’t want to?

<< Yep - check out that link. And I'll be posting more on this on the main page within the next week or so.>>

1) The fogg palmpist is not an intentional corruption because it is merely a different dialect of same verse we have today, thus it is ALSO Quranic. Seven DIFFRENT harfs remember?

2) Why don’t you translate the ‘variant’ for us so everyone can see just how pathetically minor it is? That in itself PROVES that it is part of the harf, as in intentional corruption would have changed the meaning of the text (like in the NT)- not just re-word the same law.

3) Funny how you don’t mention that that MS dates to the mid-7th century! The undertext is thus PRE-UTHMANIC, which is why it was rubbed off. So you have just proven that now we actually DO KNOW what uthman destroyed from manuscripts that date to BEFORE his very time!! Incredible!

If only you had manuscripts that dated to the time of Jesus dicipels.

You also show how the dialectal variants are recognizable, yet minor as you yourself theorized above and as the hadith said they were. So well done for tehrizing correctly and thanks for proving Islam’s case!

<< Well this destroys your argument against the NT, doesn't it? You say that the corruption must be perpetuated, but since we have super early MSS of the NT off which we base our NT today, the corruption in between does not count any more. There goes your argument against John 7/8, Mk 16, and 1 John, and any variations in the NT. >>

Not quite my friend, you completely misunderstood.

I’m saying that any intentional corruption must also occur in another MS and not just be a singular reading as a general rule of thumb of Textual Crisim to show that it is an actual variant.
All the NT variants you mention for the NT are found in MULTIPLE manuscripts. The end of Mark (for example) is missing is more than one NT MS. Can you show me any intentional corruption that is missing in more than one Quran MS? That would be a good start.

<< Read his book “misquoting Jesus”. He was an Evangelical (like you) but then ended up rejecting it as a direct result of studying all the corruptions in your MSS.

You did not read to the end of my paragraph. Read it again. >>

Read misquoting Jesus p.11.
Erhman was an evangelical, and he fell away because of his study of NT MSS. I take the point that he continued to be a ‘Christian’ after that, but my above statement is still accurate.

<< Check out the name of the blog, Islam2009. It's called "Answering Muslims", not "Defending Christianity". >>

In that case can you E-Mail “answering-islam” and tell them to remove all there Bible defense rebuttals section since it doesn’t match their website title? Thanks.

Secondly you statement doesn’t even make sense. You correctly observe that your blog is called “answering Muslims”. Well I’m a Muslim, and I’ve just made the claim that your NT is textually corrupt. So how about an answer?? If you can’t give me one, then you’re not exactly “answering Muslims”, and I humbly suggest you change your blog name to “ignoring Muslims” instead.

Anyway, I can understand why you don’t like talking about how the NT is a textually corrupted, cherry-picked selection of books by people living centuries after Jesus.

If I were a Christian, I wouldn’t want to talk about that either.

Kind Regards Nabeel, and God bless.

Islam2009 said...

Hi David,

<< Indeed, Islam2009 brags about the fact that Daniel Wallace admits that there are textual variants. >>

That’s EAT 2. Misquoting.

Danial Wallace didn’t just say “there are variants”. That is not in itself a problem for NT MSS or Quran MSS.

He said there are places in the O.T were we do not know what the text is meant to be. This is the same in the NT. There are places where you cannot tell what the word of God is or is not meant to be, unless you hazard a GUESS based on the MSS you have.

You GUESS one way, another Christian will GUESS another way.

Is Mark 16:9-20 the word of God, David?

Have a guess!

Unknown said...

Islam2009:Looks like youre using Evangeical apologetic tatic #2 (EAT #2) here: Misquoting sources to ignore the bits you dont like!

Salam Alaikum bro. Nabeel probably has not even read Ibn Abu Dawood's book (which as far as I know is only available in Arabic), merely selecting his quotations from websites critical of Islam. And he calls himself an honest investigator! Lol!

David Wood said...

Nabeel and I will be responding to Islam2009 later today when we get some time, but I just couldn't let this one slide:

Islam2009 said: "As you well know Muslims regard the Quran and six hadith as the ONLY truly authentic sources for Islamic law and history. Bukhari and Mulsim are top, followed by 4 others like Abu Dawud, ibn Majah etc. Quote from those or I’m not interested. If you wish to quote from something outside them, you need good supporting evidence- not just their say so."

Muslims are so obsessed with the "I only believe the Qur'an and Sahih Sittah" that they don't even think about what they're saying. Suppose I say that Muslims did something in the year 1000. I quote a Muslim source that reports this. The Muslim then says, "Well, since it's not in Sahih Sittah, I don't have to accept what you're saying. As you know, it's our only source for Islamic history."

Does this make any sense whatsoever? Sahih Sittah is about the teachings and deeds of Muhammad (and occasionally, the caliphs). It's not about things that happened after this period, and we only get a few details about the formation of the Qur'an. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, "Well, those things that happened later aren't in Sahih Sittah, so we don't have to accept them."

The Kitab al-Masahif is, for the most part, about things that happened after Muhammad's time. Indeed, much of it is based on the examination of manuscripts that took place after the time of the Caliphs as well. And yet Islam2009 acts as if Muslims can reject the material because it's not in texts that have to do with the life of Muhammad! Brilliant!

Imagagine if Christians were to do the same thing. Suppose that Christians were arguing that the New Testament has been perfectly preserved. Let us suppose further that the 4th century church historian Eusebius had collected a massive book filled with disputes about the New Testament, along with tons of variants, etc. A Muslim would say to me, "David, how can you claim that the NT has been perfectly preserved, when Eusebius records so many differences in the early manuscripts." And I reply, "I only accept what's in the NT, and Eusebius isn't in the NT. Therefore, I don't accept what Eusebius says without good evidence" (where "good evidence" = "evidence that will convince a completely biased person who will not accept evidence contrary to his position").

Indeed, I can even use Islam2009's methodology against him here. He says that there were disputes about certain books of the NT. How does he know this? Later Christian historians wrote about these disputes. But are these writings part of the NT? No. Abracadabra! Presto! I don't have to accept what these writings say!

If I live to be 1000, I don't think I'll ever understand how the Muslim mind works.

Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of one of the most renowned collectors of ahadith, has given us a tremendous list of differences in the early copies of the Qur'an. Is the burden of proof on Christians to show that he wasn't a liar inventing things out of his own head? Isn't the burden of proof on Muslims who want to deny all history that disagrees with their patently false claims?

Islam2009 said...

Waalakum Asaalam IBN..

<< Salam Alaikum bro. Nabeel probably has not even read Ibn Abu Dawood's book (which as far as I know is only available in Arabic), merely selecting his quotations from websites critical of Islam. And he calls himself an honest investigator! Lol! >>



Exactly bro! Quote (or rather misquote) any source with a Mulsim name attached to it and then claim that THIS is what all muslims must belive.

Rather like me going to Saudi Arabia and telling unsuspecting Muslims there that all Christains must accept the "Gospel of Thomas"

Nabeel hasnt researched anything on this topic as proven by his ignoance of the basic Quran MSS that i mentioned which are exteremly easy to find out about for anyone who actully DID what to do some honest research into this topic.

Its a shame the other Christians here cant see that..

Anonymous said...

Well I’m a Muslim, and I’ve just made the claim that your NT is textually corrupt. So how about an answer?? If you can’t give me one, then you’re not exactly “answering Muslims”, and I humbly suggest you change your blog name to “ignoring Muslims” instead.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Punch-Tu_Quoque_1904.jpg

Anonymous said...

the fact that Nabeel had to lie about why Erhman converted when he tells us plainly in his book :-)

followed by

he continued to be a ‘Christian’ after that, but my above statement is still accurate.

translates to:

CHRISTIANS ARE LYING BECAUSE THEY SAY EHRMAN DIDNT CONVERT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY WHILE IN REALITY HE DIDNT CONVERT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY BUT THEY ARE LYING AND IM INFALLBLE!

David Wood said...

IBN: "Nabeel's ignorant. He probably hasn't even read the Kitab al-Masahif, since it's probably only available in Arabic."

ISLAM2009: "That's right. Nabeel doesn't know what he's talking about. How dare he quote Muslim scholars on the history of the Qur'an. He's just plain dumb. Ignorant, I say!"

DAVID: "How is it possible that neither of our Muslim friends are familiar with the fact that Arthur Jeffery translated the entire text of the Kitab al-Masahif all the way back in 1933, and that the entire text is available online in English translation (not to mention in any good library? Why would they accuse someone of ignorance without making the slighest attempt to verify their attacks?"

IBN & ISLAM2009: "Because we don't care about accuracy! We don't care about logic! We don't care about consistency! We only care about condemning those who disagree with us (whether this happens to be Muslims or non-Muslims). You can't make us accept the facts! You can't! Sahih Sittah is the only source of information on anything that has ever happened in all of history! Allahu Akbar!"

David Wood said...

Yes Matthew, you're entirely correct.

ISLAM2009: "Ehrman rightly converted because of X."

NABEEL: "Actually, he converted because of Y. Note also that X and Y would both apply to Islam."

ISLAM2009: "Did everyone just see Nabeel LIE when he said that Ehrman converted because of Y? What a lying liar! Typical of these lying liars that are called Christians."

NABEEL: "You should be more careful when you call people liars. Ehrman coverted because of Y. That's just a fact."

ISLAM2009: "Well, so it's a fact that Ehrman converted because of Y, and not because of X. This doesn't change the fact that you're a liar! Ha! I will never apologize! No matter how many people I falsely accuse. Never!"

Anonymous said...

I think there is still room to claim "That's not true!", so let me summarize the case (I won't cover "conversion because of all this suffering" thing, that's settled):

Let's have a look at the first statement:

No wonder people like Bart Ehrman had the good sense to reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason.

Ehrman wrote:

In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God's word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection.

So we see that Ehrman did NOT" reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason".

Therefore the statement but my above statement is still accurate is false.

Just to make things clear.

MP said...

Just making an enumeration of Islam2009 (Ibn) incredible knowledge (just kidding... he's a typical muslim apologist... just playing blind poker, trying to win an hand by annoying the other opponents with is ignorance…):

1) Not until some bishop called Athenathius in the year 367CE decided to tell Christians (and God) what His word should be by cherry-picking a list of the same 27 NT books you use today... you don't have a single clue about the early Christians methodology to elaborate the first canons, do you? The formation of the canon was a living process, not a consequence of someone who decided to destroy other variants of the Qur’an just to corroborate it’s assertions…;
2) Even if I pretend (for your sake) that the gospels were written by Matt, Mk, Lk and John… you can pretend whatever you want… the fact is the Christian faith isn’t depended on whom wrote any text of the Holy Bible…;
3) And aren’t these the same disciples who betrayed, doubted, denied and ran away to leave Jesus for dead on the cross… yes they were… once again: you don’t have a single clue about the scientific hermeneutical rules to acknowledge historical truth, do you? The fact that the texts express that events that are so painful to recognise, when, if there was an conspiracy intended, they could have been completely erased, is the proof that we can trust in the NT statements…;
4) thousands upon thousands of MSS from just DECADES after the prophet that scarcely contain a single intentional corruption amongst them… sure…, after the Uthman intentional destruction of the others, it would be astonishing if it was otherwise… and who can say that a corruption is intentional or not? Scientific rules… and those are against you… but your maths is not very famous… thousands of thousands is at least 1000000 MSS… I doubt that number was reached before than 500 hundreds after the dead of Muhammad… and I bet you can’t even provide any scientific evidence to just 10 MSS like those you refer…
5) the NT MSS are a hash of intentionally corrupted MSS that are mainly centuries after Christ… that simply is a complete falsity!!! See, in a simple way: http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html or http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:T3knZgVeFM8J:innerstate180.com/Files/EternalTreasure-Sept26Notes-DatingtheBible.doc+Dating+the+Oldest+New+Testament+Manuscripts&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=firefox-a
6) No wonder people like Bart Ehrman had the good sense to reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason…This lye has already been demonstrated…
7)As for your paper on Zaid, ibn Masuud etc, it is an impressive deceptive mix of apocryphal and authentic sources to arrive at a bogus conclusion
8)And where exactly does Jesus fit into this “discussion” as to what constitutes the NT that occurred over 300 years after him… everywhere and every time… since he said to be the Truth, no true Christian would dare to corrupt or amputate his message… there were Gnostics movements which tried to adopt Christian doctrines to make their movements more strong and, in the process, created false teachings… How do we know that? Because we know, by they’re own texts, the Gnostic doctrines prior to the appearance of Christianity and after its development…
The list will continue soon enough…

Islam2009 said...

Hi David,

<< Nabeel and I will be responding to Islam2009 later today when we get some time, but I just couldn't let this one slide >

Yeh, Nabeel needs all the help he can get here.. Look forward to it.


<< Muslims are so obsessed with the "I only believe the Qur'an and Sahih Sittah" that they don't even think about what they're saying. Suppose I say that Muslims did something in the year 1000. I quote a Muslim source that reports this. The Muslim then says, "Well, since it's not in Sahih Sittah, I don't have to accept what you're saying. As you know, it's our only source for Islamic history." >>

Bogus analogy.

You can by all means quote me something from the year 1,000 about something that occurred around that time. But you are quoting me something from the 10th century that reports something that happened before 650 CE with no sound historical reference AND that runs contrary to manuscript evidence that pre-dates it.

How many of the THOUSANDS of manuscripts of the Quran from before the 10th C contain suras 115 and 116? How many leave out 113 and 114? And why don’t they exist as part of Oral tradition today ANYWHERE in the Muslim world?

Don’t give me any nonsense about “uthman burned them” because you already admit that these variants DID survive somehow till after uthman till AT LEAST the 10th C, or how else did Ibn Dawood know about them?

So if these variant quran Suras were floating around for 300 years from the 7th century right down to the 10th, then why is there no other evidence for them? And when and how were they eventually weeded out for good, and by whom?

Bare in mind here David, that im not saying that the work is all rubbish. In my opinion, many of the variants he reports are probably pre-uthamnic auraf and are thus authentic and some of them are even part of the Quraait like warsh that you can still buy today.

My issue is solely with the claim that companions had different Sura counts- NOT that they had different dialectal readings or even sura orders that is all accepted by the hadith anyway.

Now as I keep saying Ibn Dawood- your favourite source that you defend so vigorously- states that Uthman’s burning of the MSS was done with the blessing of everyone. That’s game, set and match right there bro. Sorry.


<< Imagagine if Christians were to do the same thing. Suppose that Christians were arguing that the New Testament has been perfectly preserved. Let us suppose further that the 4th century church historian Eusebius had collected a massive book filled with disputes about the New Testament, along with tons of variants, etc. A Muslim would say to me, "David, how can you claim that the NT has been perfectly preserved, when Eusebius records so many differences in the early manuscripts." And I reply, "I only accept what's in the NT, and Eusebius isn't in the NT. Therefore, I don't accept what Eusebius says without good evidence"

Indeed, I can even use Islam2009's methodology against him here. He says that there were disputes about certain books of the NT. How does he know this? Later Christian historians wrote about these disputes. But are these writings part of the NT? No. Abracadabra! Presto! I don't have to accept what these writings say! >>>



Actually I know that there were disputes around certain books because your earliest complete NT manuscript - Siniaticus has 29 books in it not 27- not because of any church father’s say so!

So Abracadabra! Presto!

Furthermore, manuscript copies exist of these other NT books which is PHYSICAL PROOF of their acceptance by some Christians.

Where is the manuscript proof of the acceptance of an 112 or 116 Sura Quran?? Nowhere.

Finally, it is a fact that there was no fixed canon of the NT for the fist few hundred years because NO TWO CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY could agree on the “correct” NT during that time. There is no canon list OR manuscript of your 27 books till the mid 4th C. So we have no choice but to go to your earlier church fathers like Eusabius to try and figure out what on earth was going on…

With the Quran we have an absolute consensus of both oral tradition AND MANUSCRIPTS from within the 1st Century onwards AND early Muslims that all say 114 suras.

But now, all of a sudden, you’re giving me some source from the 10th C that says that this one companion in the 7th century allegedly had 112 suras?

Why on earth should any Muslim believe that contrary to all the earlier opposing evidence- including physical manuscript proof?

Indeed, I can even use David's methodology against him here. Should I also believe in something derogatory about Jesus or the apostles in the later apocryphal gospels over something about them in the earlier NT?

Regards

MP said...

Forgot to write this one:
7)As for your paper on Zaid, ibn Masuud etc, it is an impressive deceptive mix of apocryphal and authentic sources to arrive at a bogus conclusion... no Islam2009/Ibn, it's not... your own scholars desagrre with you... here's a list of some of them: Khalil ibn Ishaq al-Jundi; Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Muhammad Baqir Majlisi...

Unknown said...

Wood, can you point me to the website that has Kitab Al Masahif in English?

Unknown said...

AlForrecca, you now think I am Islam2009? What a paranoid fool you are!

Anonymous said...

By the way, has anyone a weblink to Gerd R. Puin's article "Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a"?

Islam2009 said...

Greetings David,

“In short, my study of the Greek NT, and my investigation into manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismic change for me. Before this- starting with my born again experience in high school, through my fundamentalist days are Moody, and on through my evangelical days at Wheaton- my faith had been completely based on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the bible that way.”

Misquoting Jesus p.11

Amen Bart.



<< How is it possible that neither of our Muslim friends are familiar with the fact that Arthur Jeffery translated the entire text of the Kitab al-Masahif all the way back in 1933, and that the entire text is available online in English translation >>

Really?? Did he publish it?? Where is it online? Arthur Jeffery’s 1937 book of “Materials for the history..” Does notcontain a translation of Ibn Dawood. The book is at the end of his IN ARABIC.

And you didnt give me your best guess as to whether you think Mark 16:9-20 is the “word of God” or not.

Id really love to know the Holy Spirit's view on this.. Thanks


Reagrds

MP said...

What a paranoid fool you are!... "fool" and "paranoid"... I guess that these are compliments in your culture... unless you, as almost every muslim who posts in this blog, are just trying to be rude and ill intentioned... but then, what can we expect from a follower of someone who falsely claimed to be a prophet and killed anyone who opposed his will?

If I had any doubt before, now I don't have it anymore... but I wasn't saying that Islam2009=Ibn, just that you both follow the same path of argumentation… But there’re some evidences otherwise… Isn’t that so? IP numbers are so easy to track with the proper equipment...

Nabeel Qureshi said...

So i see you STILL insist on using Evangelical apologetic tactic #1 (EAT 1): Quote any source or person with a Muslim sounding name who has been dead for a few centuries and automatically try and pawn it off as Muslim doctrine.

Pawn it off as Muslim doctrine? No. Provide it as evidence? Yes.

I don't think you understand this concept of "evidence" vs. "authoritativeness". I'm not trying to use books that provide "authoritative doctrine" for you. I'm using books that tell us about history, and kitab-al-masahif is the only book of its kind that remains.

Why don't you have an argument with your Muslim brother (just about the only scholarly Muslim writing I've ever seen) Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi: "This book (Kitab al-Masahif) is an excellent reference, and it contains the necessary insaads for each narration, so the authenticity of each narration may be ascertained." (Sciences of the Quran, 388) Yes, Qadhi mentions that this book came with mixed reviews from hadith scholars, but I could have told you that without having been there simply because of the type of material mentioned in the book. Say anything that even begins to approach the truth about the Quran, and muslims get infuriated.

What makes it so scholarly? Please explain.

Quoting Qadhi again: "The only book that remains of these classical works (that discuss the differences in the mushaf) is the work authored by Abdullaah ibn Abee Daawood."

So #1: it is the only book we have left, and you've got nothing better to quote.

#2: Some hadith scholars liked it, some didn't. If it weren't scholarly, no one would have liked.

#3: There are isnaads for all his narrations.

This is about as scholarly as it gets for Muslims.

As you well know Muslims regard the Quran and six hadith as the ONLY truly authentic sources for Islamic law and history.

Oh yeah? Only the doctrines in the Quran and Sahih Sittah are trustworthy? Does it say that anywhere in the Quran or Sahih Sittah? If not, how can you trust that doctrine?!

Besides, that's about the silliest thing I've ever heard. You're saying "I only trust history that comes from these books about Muhammad and his traditions!" My response? "What if I want to learn about the collection of the Quran?" You: "Well if it isn't in those books about Muhammad, I refuse to hear it!" Ridiculous.

Bukhari and Mulsim are top, followed by 4 others like Abu Dawud, ibn Majah etc. Quote from those or I’m not interested. If you wish to quote from something outside them, you need good supporting evidence- not just their say so.

So these ahadith should be plenty for you:

Bukhari Book 8 Vol 82 Hadith 817 records Umar saying he would add the verse of Rajm back into the Quran if he could do so without anyone accusing him of trying to change the Quran.

Sahih Muslim 2286 records an entire chapter (resembling Musabbihat) including historical information, was "forgotten" by the Muslims. Could this be abrogation? No, abrogation applies to laws, not historical information.

Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah:
Narrated Aisha: "The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAW) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."

Clearly you don't need supporting evidences for these, right? That's what you implied above: these are authoritative and don't require supporting evidence. Done. Your argument is done.

Ibn Daud has never been generally regarded by Muslims as authrative history. Sorry.

You should be sorry. The son of Abu Daud (author of one of the books of sahih!) enjoyed respect from many muslims (though not all). To deny his work as historically useful is horrendous. You're right, this is a sorry way of investigating history.

And given that Ibn Daud is so brilliant, when this same “scholarly and comprehensive work” states on pages 12, 21 and 22 that all the companions AGREED with Uthmans burning of the MSS, doesnt that just refute your whole case? I think it does.

Don't you understand how to investigate history? You take all the evidence you have and see what the best fit is. You don't say "Hey, this guy seems authoritative! I'm going to blindly accept everything he says and nothing anyone else says!" Ibn Abi Daud has some evidences that fit with everything else perfectly, and he has some that cause strain. We assess the evidences appropriately. I shouldn't have to write such basic truths. Anyone boasting as much knowledge as you should know how to do a basic investigation.

Yeh and he also said “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mrk 13:31) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10) and “not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until fulfillment” (Matt 5:18)

Did he offer these as signs for his truth? No! Why do you ignore the context of our conversation? This kind of conduct clearly indicates insincerity.

We were talking about the sign Jesus offered for his truth. He clearly said "You will be given none except the sign of Jonah". Sure, you can go quote random things he said, but unless he is offering them as one of the most important signs for his truth, you are just being irrelevant to the point at hand.

Sinaitcus is 4th C (Over 300 years after Jesus!) and the Chester Beatty is 200 CE (almost 200 years after Jesus!). Before that you have nothing but a few tiny scraps. Sorry but that’s pathetic. The Quran MSS wipe the floor with that.

Sure there are more early Quranic MSS than Biblical MSS. But the earliest stratum of evidence was systematically destroyed by Uthman, so you can never get to anything unadulterated. Period.

Ive already shown how your uthmnaic conspiracy theory fails miserably. It’s a one-size-fits –all argument. You can claim there is a conspiracy with the early disciples of ANY religion against its founder- best of all Christianity.

What conspiracy theory? Who said anything about a conspiracy? Stop putting words in my mouth, Islam2009. I'm seriously contemplating ending this response early simply because of your rude responses.

I said nothing about a conspiracy. All I said was Uthman burnt the MSS. Do you agree? You have to. That's all I'm saying and that is terrible enough without a conspiracy theory.

Every single one of them is from the 1st century AH!! And there are more! They have all been dated- by non-Muslims (who you said are not allowed access to them) to about the year 700CE.

Give some quotes or references, Islam2009! You just reasserted what you said earlier, but now with two exclamation marks. Exclamation marks don't make you any more correct than you were before.

You see Nabeel, you are doing a brilliant job of refuting your “Muslim friend” who thinks that every Quran MSS is IDENTICAL to the current printed text.

Sadly you are doing a terrible job of refuting Islam’s claim on what the Quran’s claim of preservation actually is.


A terrible job, eh? So quoting Muhammad's earliest teachers as being in total disagreement with Zaid's quran is terrible? Why, because I used sources that discuss the quran instead of muhammad? Quoting the fact that, had muhammad had it his way, the quran would have 111 surahs? Or perhaps 116? If umar had it his way, the verse of stoning would be back in the quran?

No, my friend. By denying Muslim history to suit your needs, you are deluding yourself into a false sense of security.

By the way, I cannot wait to see how you will explain away the ahadith above from bukhari, muslim, and maja (three of the 6 sources you said were authoritative and require no complementary evidence.) Each of those shows large parts of the Quran to be missing.

<< But like I said, such as in my post on Fogg's palimpsest, there are variants in the early Quranic MSS that agree with Ibn Masud and against Zaid in wording (not spelling or script mistakes, but word choice). >>... That’s because Ibn Masuud’s Quran was in a different harf (dialect) to Uthmans which was in the Qurashi dialect.

So you admit to different word choice being part of the differences in ahruf? Well swing wide the doors, my friend! Why not let everything else into the "ahruf escape clause" as well. That's what this post was originally about, and you've just proven my point.

When people began to fight after the prophet, uthman decided to preserve only one dialect and destroy all others

Is that so? Then why did some differences remain in the Qurans that Uthman sent out to the provinces?

2) Why don’t you translate the ‘variant’ for us so everyone can see just how pathetically minor it is? That in itself PROVES that it is part of the harf...

Why don't you translate the word "harf" so that we can all know what will and will not fit into your escape clause! Muhammad, all four khalifas, the companions, and the salaf all neglected to do this simple thing. Perhaps you can pick up their slack instead of asking me to?

3) Funny how you don’t mention that that MS dates to the mid-7th century! The undertext is thus PRE-UTHMANIC, which is why it was rubbed off. So you have just proven that now we actually DO KNOW what uthman destroyed from manuscripts that date to BEFORE his very time!! Incredible!

Yeah, and it differed with what's in Uthman's Quran. That was my point this whole time - glad you caught on.

I’m saying that any intentional corruption must also occur in another MS and not just be a singular reading as a general rule of thumb of Textual Crisim to show that it is an actual variant.

Great. So Ibn Masud's quran had it, and the fogg's palimpsest had it. That's two that were passed on. It fits your definition of a variant. Not only that, but we know that Ibn Masud was teaching in Kufa, where many people had learned from his codex, and the variants were all passed on to them, too. You have just proven that the Quran had significant variants in the first century of Islam by your own standards. Done. Your argument is done.

Can you show me any intentional corruption that is missing in more than one Quran MS? That would be a good start.

Umar did that, I don't have to! And Uthman didn't even bother to listen to his khalifa's pleas. Ubay and Ibn Abbas record the verse of rajm as part of the Quran, too (again, meeting your criteria as a variant.) Uthman did not fix it, so it was intentional and it's missing in all the Qurans we have today.

Read misquoting Jesus p.11.
Erhman was an evangelical, and he fell away because of his study of NT MSS. I take the point that he continued to be a ‘Christian’ after that, but my above statement is still accurate.


Your statement? Who cares about your statement, no one accused you of lying! You accused me of lying, found out you were wrong, and have yet to apologize (instead you try to defend yourself by saying you were still accurate.) This type of conduct is what makes it extremely difficult for civilized people to speak with Muslims.

I’m a Muslim, and I’ve just made the claim that your NT is textually corrupt. So how about an answer?? If you can’t give me one, then you’re not exactly “answering Muslims”, and I humbly suggest you change your blog name to “ignoring Muslims” instead.

Did I or did I not say: "defending Christianity has its place while answering muslims, but it's far less frequent than Muslims would like to think. If the topic is the NT, I'll focus on the NT. If the topic is the Quran, I'll focus on the Quran." Thanks for ignoring that.

I do have to publicly admit right now that I think I've found a Muslim who is more consistent than any other I've seen. Not only does he ignore ancient Islamic history books, but he also ignores the person he's talking to.

Islam2009 - continue to delude yourself, but non-Muslims don't fall for these things. Fact is, the Quran was not agreed upon by all the early companions, and Muslims themselves record this. There are missing passages and missing chapters. You can cloak yourself in evidence denial, but you're not fooling any of us and you're certainly not fooling God.

MP said...

Islam2009 first said: «BE rejected the so-called ‘word of God’»; then he quotes "Misquoting Jesus" where BE says: «INERRANT word of God. Now I no longer saw the bible that way.»... don't you see the difference? Glad BE lost his childish comprehension of the Bible to a more mature one... but that didn't lead him, at that point, neither to loose his faith, not to doubt that the Holy Bible was the Word of God... But I guess this is to subtle to you...

And what is the problem with Mk 16? We Christians don’t mix-up “authorship” with “inspiration” or “authentication”… But, then again, I guess this is too subtle to you...

Anonymous said...

Islam2009, let me make a few points:

1) We already showed you numerous times that Ehrman did only lost his faith in the 100% preservation of the bible.
Someone once quoted Shabir Ally that the Quran is only an attempt to write down the wisdom of Allah and is not 100% perfectly preserved.
If Ehrman would have been a muslim, the outcome would have been the same. Are you still going to say "Amen Bart"?

2) You ignored the article from Ehrman we posted numerous times in which Ehrman wrote:

In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God's word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection.

So your claim that "Bart Ehrman had the good sense to reject the so-called ‘word of God’ for that very reason" is false. What he wrote in "Misquoting Jesus" makes perfect sense in the light of what he wrote in his other article. He rejected the dea that the bible we have today is 100% inspired.

3) You called Nabeel a liar for pointing to the fact that Ehrman's deconverted because of the suffering in the world.
We have already proven you wrong. Maybe you would like to apologize.

Unknown said...

Al Forecca:What a paranoid fool you are!... "fool" and "paranoid"... I guess that these are compliments in your culture... unless you, as almost every muslim who posts in this blog, are just trying to be rude and ill intentioned... but then, what can we expect from a follower of someone who falsely claimed to be a prophet and killed anyone who opposed his will?

So its ok for you guys to deride us by names such as jokers, spin doctors, stand up apologists, illiterate, etc. ,but it is wrong when we reciprocate in kind?

As Jesus(as) said, take out the wood from your own eye first.

MP said...

Lets explain it to Islam2009: "INERRANT" doesn't mean that some scribes didn't made mistakes... it means that in its original form -- and that's why, we Christians, do want to find (and not to destroy or conceal) the most ancient MSS --, the Bible is totally without error and free from all contradiction in respect of it’s soteriological message…

MP said...

Ibn said: «So its ok for you guys to deride us by names such as jokers, spin doctors, stand up apologists, illiterate, etc. ,but it is wrong when we reciprocate in kind?»... I didn't call anyone those things... the ad hominen attack started from Islam2009 (funny how when someone suggested you both were the same person you decided to try to prove otherwise...)… But do you think it’s the same saying that someone is paranoid or a fool (mental conditions) and saying he’s hilarious, incoherent, unprepared and ignorant?... Once again, perhaps that’s the case in your culture (that would explain a lot of things…), but that’s not the case in our culture in which we distinguish those realities…

Nakdimon said...

Ibn; "As Jesus(as) said, take out the wood from your own eye first."

LOL! How do you know that Yeshua said these words? Wasn't the Bible corrupt?

Oh no, it's only corrupt when you can't benefit from it. But now it might help, so this saying is part of "the original injeel"!


hahahah

Nakdimon

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Nakdimon--

I did not know you were in Europe. Where exactly are you? If you're ever state-side, we should hang out :-)

-Nabeel

Nakdimon said...

Nabeel,

I am in the small and cozy Netherlands. Whenever you are here, you should contact. We have enough space for guests to sleep over.

When I get to the states, we should definitely meet.

Nakdimon

Islam2009 said...

Hi Nabeel,

Thanks for writing back. I understand you are busy, so Im going to try and keep this and short as possible given that I am also engaged with your friend David, so please refer to that as the main thrust of my argument.

There is no point having two debates in two threads on the same topic.

On Ibn Dawood, i agree with Qadhi’s statement its is an excellent REFERNCE. Does that make it authentic in every thing he says? No. And Qadhi would agree.

My question was what makes his claims historical.

You wrote:

<< Quoting Qadhi again: "The only book that remains of these classical works (that discuss the differences in the mushaf) is the work authored by Abdullaah ibn Abee Daawood.">>

I agree!! It is most certainly a classical work. So what?

I already told you that this amazing work you love so much states that all the companions agreed with Uthamns Quran.

On that you wrote:

<< Don't you understand how to investigate history? You take all the evidence you have and see what the best fit is. You don't say "Hey, this guy seems authoritative! I'm going to blindly accept everything he says and nothing anyone else says!" Ibn Abi Daud has some evidences that fit with everything else perfectly, and he has some that cause strain. >>

EXACTLY! Well done!

Now lets think about this.

You believe his REPORT that early Muslims differed over Sura numbers. I believe his REPORT that they didn’t.

Now I have thousands upon thousands of MANUSCRIPTS from the TIME OF THE COMPANIONS THEMSELVES onwards that ALL agree with 114 suras, and hence with my report.

What evidence do you have in favour of for your report?

You have nothing but the claim itself, so you lose.

On Jesus’s words that his words can never pass you say:

<< Did he offer these as signs for his truth? No! Why do you ignore the context of our conversation? This kind of conduct clearly indicates insincerity. >>

And that response clearly indicates ignorance and desperation.

So your saying that its ok to prove Jesus was wrong about his words not being preserved, because he never said it was a ‘sign’.

That’s beyond desperate Nabeel!Lol.

How do I know im reading the words of Jesus at all then in ANYTHING the NT supposedly says he said if you admit his words can be corrupted give that its not one of his “signs”?

The verses I gave you from his lips are his PROPHESES. These prophesies have now been DISPROVEN by your MSS, and you think that’s ok?

LOL!

<< Sure there are more early Quranic MSS than Biblical MSS. But the earliest stratum of evidence was systematically destroyed by Uthman, so you can never get to anything unadulterated. Period. >>

This is where you are a proven liar. Sorry.

I told you that your Fogg pslipilst under text is PRE-UTHMANIC according to Muslim and non-Mulsim Scholars. So we DO KNOW what uthman destroyed. Yet you deliberately ignored this crucial point (see below), hence you are a liar.

Secondly, you have not told why I should believe that your ‘disciples’ give a true picture of Jesus in the ‘gospels’.

Especially when most scholars think they didn’t. So YOURE the one with the problem here since you cannot prove to me that Jesus’ message was not corrupted by the gospel writers.

<< Every single one of them is from the 1st century AH!! And there are more! They have all been dated- by non-Muslims (who you said are not allowed access to them) to about the year 700CE.

Give some quotes or references, Islam2009! >>


Here you go, they are all on here fully referenced:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

This the FIRST HIT you get when you type “Quran manuscripts” into Google, AND you even have a link to that site on your home page, yet you pretend you don’t know about it owing to the fact that its material devastates your propaganda.

And then you lie about being an “honest researcher”.

You are no such thing, my friend.


<< 3) Funny how you don’t mention that that MS dates to the mid-7th century! The undertext is thus PRE-UTHMANIC, which is why it was rubbed off. So you have just proven that now we actually DO KNOW what uthman destroyed from manuscripts that date to BEFORE his very time!! Incredible!

Yeah, and it differed with what's in Uthman's Quran. That was my point this whole time - glad you caught on. >>


If you really are a Doctor you must be acting intentionally stupid here.

OF COURSE it differed from Uthmans Quran, because it was in one of the OTHER SEVEN DIALECTS that you admit the Prophet allowed, thus its is STILL QURAN- not a corruption.

You just don’t want to accept the obvious conclusion.

<<< I’m saying that any intentional corruption must also occur in another MS and not just be a singular reading as a general rule of thumb of Textual Crisim to show that it is an actual variant.

Great. So Ibn Masud's quran had it, and the fogg's palimpsest had it. That's two that were passed on. It fits your definition of a variant >>

Again, this MUST be intentional ignorance.

I said you must show the same variant in at least TWO MANUSRIPTS.

The Fogg Palimpsest is ONE manuscript... where is the OTHER MANUSCRIPT with the same varient??

Do you not know the difference between ONE manuscript and TWO manuscripts?

However, in this case, don’t bother, since I already believe the accept that variant as a pre-uthmanic dialect (hurf) as allowed by the Prophet.

Now given you end in a complete cop-out for defending your “word of God”. Why not make yourself useful and answer my questions on the NT on the other thread?

Regards

MP said...

And he still doesn't understand the appalling picture he’s presenting of himself -- and other pseudo-muslim apologists -- with these posts… I’ve seen blind people with more vision of the truth than this guy… The list I was intended to make about his errors now would be almost impossible to finish in this century… Perhaps latter…

Alexandre Freire Duarte said...

Brother Alforreca... The problem is precisely that: they don't see... they're like those kids who spit on the wall anb begin shoutting: "look, look... I've made a Picasso... what? don't you see? you're blind!"

Islam2009 said...

Alfecco and Moi


If any of your ‘top’ debates (like David Wood ) debated a Muslim, and the best that Muslim could say against him was:

“He can see! Hes blind! He just doesn’t want to understand and accept Islam as the truth!”

Then who would you conclude won that debate?

See why your comments only prove your defeat?

Regards

Anonymous said...

Let's have a look:

We have reports that say that the version of the Quran were different in the beginning.
We know that Uthman destroyed manuscripts.
All manuscripts we find are basically the same.

Could it have something to do with muslims destroyed manuscripts?

Anonymous said...

So your saying that its ok to prove Jesus was wrong about his words not being preserved, because he never said it was a ‘sign’.

That’s beyond desperate Nabeel!Lol.


Yeah, Nabeel you uneducated desperate liar!

Islam2009, stop accusing people of being liars (I think you still did not excuse after being proven wrong) or being desperate.
Your quote-ming of Jesus makes no sense. Jesus didn't say "If one thing I ever said will be lost, I'm a loser."
It's a) wrong and b) a tu quoque fallacy.
Please, learn what a tu quoque is and stop using it.

This is how it looks:
"The Quran is perfectly preserved. It must be from God."
"But according to various sources, there were version of the Quran that were different from each other. And that's not really an argument."
"Aha, but what about the NT?"
"No one forced a version of the NT on christians like Uthman did."
"But we don't have all of Jesus' words!"
"Yes. And according to Aysha, a surah was eaten by a goat. Can we stay on topic, please?"
"But if we don't have all of Jesus words, you have a problem!"
"Not really. You shouldn't quote-mine him and twist it's meaning. He never said we need everything anyone ever wrote in the NT. It was you who used this kind of argument for the Quran and it does not work."
"How desperate you are!"

Islam2009 said...

MATTHEW


<<< This is how it looks:

The Quran is perfectly preserved. It must be from God."

"But according to various sources, there were version of the Quran that were different from each other. And that's not really an argument."

"Aha, but what about the NT?"

"No one forced a version of the NT on christians like Uthman did."

"But we don't have all of Jesus' words!"

"Yes. And according to Aysha, a surah was eaten by a goat. Can we stay on topic, please?"

"But if we don't have all of Jesus words, you have a problem!"

"Not really. You shouldn't quote-mine him and twist it's meaning. He never said we need everything anyone ever wrote in the NT. It was you who used this kind of argument for the Quran and it does not work."

"How desperate you are!" >>>




That’s how it looks to you because your a typical missonailly who was taught in Sunday school to ignore the bits you cant respond too.

Let me show you how it really looks:

The Quran is perfectly preserved. It must be from God."

"But according to various sources, there were version of the Quran that were different from each other. And that's not really an argument."

"Aha, but what about the NT?"

"No one forced a version of the NT on christians like Uthman did."

**NOW HERE’S WHERE WE COPY/PASTE FROM OTHER THERAD THE BIT YOU CENSORDED THAT YOU CANT RESPOND TO! ;-): **

1) What did Uthman Burn?? READ THAT SAME HADITH. He burned any MSS that was not in the DIALECT of Qurash to united Muslims on ONE DIALECT.

Now are the other non-Qurashi manuscripts (like Ibn Masuuds) more the word of God than the Qurashi version??? No, because the hadith that your buddy Nabeel posted PROVES from the prophet himself that ALL seven dialects are equally from God.

2) Now Do we KNOW what type of variants uthman destroyed??? YES! From palempset manuscripts (also courtesy of your Friend Nabeel! He’s so helpful you know... sometimes i wonder whose side he’s on!), that PROVE there were merely paraphrases of the same verse- just as the hadith said they were!

[ hence the fact that none of you have the guts to translate the Fogg variant, because you KNOW how minor it is ]

3) Did all the other companions agree with uthman on this?? YES!...according to David’s and Nabeels favourte source of Ibn Dawood!

4) As Myself and JeeIJoo point out... You seriously want to believe that an eyewitness disciple of Muhammad stabbed him in the back? Then give me a single reason as to why i should not belive that the gospel authors did the same to Jesus. Dont the gospels themselves say they already did many times before??



Yes, but we Christians cant defend out NT that same way you just did over Uthman there, so we just have to keep pretending that you never said that and keep recycling our already refuted rubbish against the Quran! And BTW, “You shouldn't quote-mine him and twist it's meaning. He never said we need everything anyone ever wrote in the NT. “

“No, but Jesus did! Where have you been?”

Yes, i know, but again since we cant answer that, we just have to pretend you never said it, so please go away and leave our blog alone so we can spread some more lies without being exposed for it!!

How desperate are YOU.

Regards.

El-Cid said...

Islam2009: "That’s how it looks to you because your a typical missonailly who was taught in Sunday school to ignore the bits you cant respond too."

Hahaha!! :-D

That has to be one of the most absurd ad hominems I have seen in quite a while.

Let me give you a little tip, Islam2009: In Sunday school, Christian children are primarily taught to sing songs and read the Bible, NOT given courses in apologetics or fundamentals of argumentation.

You really can't help yourself from throwing out caustic insults can you? Unfortunate.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Now sorry guys, I am off a lot; I managed to look through.

By the way muslim2009, you failure of sticking to the topic clearly shows the lack of academic integrity.
I am sure we would have learned much by focusing on the actual topic rather than bringing a multiple number of other issues on board; I am sure that was the purpose of Islam2009.

One question I have to all of you:

This palimset that dates prior to Uthman’s corrupted revised standard version, is it different in dialect from Uthman's version or is it different in wording, if different in wording, we are not dealing with dialects obviously but actual textual variants, and hence corruption, minor or major?

And if you choak up with any more insult on me islam2009, I will simply ignore you from now on and in future.

So my question was, the variants on the palimset are they variants of different Arabic dialects or textual variants?

B said...

Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah:
Narrated Aisha: "The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAW) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."



How does this narration prove anything? Does the narration state that this paper was the only one that documented those verses or that Aisha was the only one who knew them?

Plus, we already know what the verse of stoning is, despite its recital abrogation and despite a goat eating up a paper that contained the verse.

So this narration proves nothing.

TrueReligion said...

Thank you for your article. I was not aware of 7 ahruf before. But, now the way you people are discussing, it helped me to learn more about this topic. It shows more and more people have started to read quran in detail. Keep going, the more you will read, more you will understand about true religion and about the best book in the world.