Thursday, September 8, 2011

Corpus Coranicum Project Will Examine Differences Among 35 Editions of the Qur'an

Practically every Muslim you'll ever meet will tell you that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. When we compare this widespread delusional thinking with the harsh reality of the history of the Qur'an, we should begin to realize (1) how far Muslims have strayed from facts and evidence, and (2) how deceptive Muslim leaders have been with the communities that trust them.

(ANSAMED) - ROME, SEPTEMBER 7 - Today it is believed that Islam's holy text was directly dictated by Allah to Mohammed and therefore it must be viewed as a body of strict rules. But there was a time when the wise Muslims talked in critical terms about the Koran. A German group of researchers - as reported by the 'Jesus' monthly in an article - has now decided to follow that path once again. We are talking about the Corpus Coranicum, a project by the Berlin and Brandenburg Academy of Sciences that aims to present, in an open and digital form, the different 'lessons' of the book of Koran referred by oral and written history, together with the most significant historical commentaries and the texts of the cultural environment in which Islam's holy book was formed.

The objective of Corpus Coranicum is not that of drawing up a 'critical edition' of the Koran as a whole - establishing a new text 'cleaned out' of historical encrustment, transcription and transmission errors that piled up during 1400 years of history.

Rather, as project director Michael Marx explained to Jesus, ''we are setting the foundations for a potential critical edition: what we are doing is taking 35 different editions into account, trying to insert certain data from our database to refresh memories that the history of Muslim culture has a critical approach to the text''.

The idea of comparing, from a synoptic standpoint, the various 'lessons' of the Koran is certainly controversial. In most contemporary Muslim societies the prevailing notion is that the text of the Koran was directly dictated by Allah to Mohammed, and that consequently any intervention on the text must be considered blasphemous. In reality, for centuries the Muslim researches looked into the variations to the text, debating, accepting or rejecting the various 'lessons' set forth by the different traditions. And it is this same heritage that the Corpus Coranicum aims to systematise, organising it according to the Western research methods. (Source)

And now for a blast from the past:


Cristo Te Ama said...

Now muslims will say that is impossible, even when they dont need the corpus to know that the quran they have now is the zaid+uthman edition, which was rejected by ibn massud and ubay, i dont know how muslims can believe that claim "the quran is just like it was revealed" when their own records say it is not. I see the quran history like this: jesus b4 leaving tell us "hey if you wanna know what i did and say in my life you must ask john" then comes paul and brings the byography of jesus and john read it and say "this is not TRUE or accurate, and how will i accept a book about jesus from a guy who was an unbeliever when i was with jesus near to the cross", then paul burn the gospel of john, which according to jesus is the real byography of him. And now we have paul gospel, hhehe could we say that we actually have the real gospel? NO!! But it is pretty much what muslims have

My Two Sense said...

Why are they bothering? The Koran "only works in Arabic".

mkvine said...

It was only a matter of time before the myth of "perfect preservation" of the Quran would be debunked. Muslims always point to the critical editions of the Bible to disprove it. However, the Bible, unlike the Quran, has stood in the face of critical examination for centuries and has gone through the most radical theories ever propounded. In spite of that, most scholars agree that the overwhelming majority of the text of the NT is generally reliable (Wallace, Bock, Bauckham, etc). The Quran on the other hand, is barely going through its infancy of critical examination. That's why its "perfect preservation" hypothesis has gone generally unchallenged in the academic world. I am happy to see that finally, this German team will lay the foundation for future critical examination of Quranic texts. We will see that, just like many other books of antiquity, the Quran has gone through changes. Besides, Muslim sources in the Hadiths and commentaries already attest to that fact :-)

Kim said...

My two sense you are so right.

Kim said...

Noted archaeologist Arthur Jeffery wrote a book titled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an in which he related the state of the Qur’an text prior to its standardization under Uthman. It reveals there were several different texts prior to Uthman’s revision.

Jeffery concludes that “when we come to the accounts of ‘Uthman’s recension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter of removing dialectical peculiarities in reading [as many Muslims claim], but was a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for the whole empire.”

Furthermore, “there were wide divergences between the collections that had been digested into Codicies in the great Metropolitan centres of Madina, Mecca, Basra, Kufa and Damascus.”

So “‘Uthman’s solution was to canonize the Madinan Codex and order all others to be destroyed.” Therefore, “there can be little doubt that the text canonized by ‘Uthman was only one among several types of text in existence at the time.” [See Jeffery, 7–8.]

Watt, in discussing the variations between just two codices—that of ibn Mas’ud of Rufa and ibn Ka’b of Syria— writes, “No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just mentioned is extensive, running to a thousand or more items in both cases.” [Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, 45.]

kiwimac said...

The Koran only works in Arabic? So why bother printing it in any other language? The Bible 'works' in any language- Jesus Christ is the Saviour for all!

My Two Sense said...

Kim. I was being sarcastic.

Baron Eddie said...

Quran in English is sugar coated version of the Arabic version ...

John 8:24 said...

Kim said : "Noted archaeologist Arthur Jeffery wrote a book titled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an in which he related the state of the Qur’an text prior to its standardization under Uthman. It reveals there were several different texts prior to Uthman’s revision. "

So you believe that there were several texts of the Quran before the standardization by Uthman? Or is it another copy-paste job without really understanding what it says?

donna60 said...

Do you understand Arabic? I don't. My Muslim friends from Bangledesh don't either. They feel they are "saved" merely by reciting the sounds the Arabic letters make.

But I was reared in the West, and I want to know what I am reading. Why should I want to believe in a religion in which I can't even understand in my own language, and in which I would have to learn a second language in order to read and understand?

May I ask you this? When you were converted, was it to the words in the Arabic Koran or the English Koran? If it was the English Koran, how do you know that it was the right translation of the Arabic words?

donna60 said...


Correct me if I am wrong, but are you agreeing with Jeffery and Watt?


My Two Sense said...

I'm with kiwimac. The Bible "works" in every language it's been translated in. If the Koran only "works" in Arabic, why translate it at all? So... then is it the "poetry" of the Koran that only "works" in Arabic? or the translation of the message? Or both?

Search 4 Truth said...

@Kim, You do know that you just proved by your posting that the Quran today has been corrupted and it is Uthmans Quran. Not Allahs.

LOL! This is amazing. You dont even comprehend what you posted. Unbelievable!

Charles said...

I do not think that proving the Coran has different editions will help at all.

First, Muslims will say that the researchers are all “infidels”, and therefore their work is “a hopeless conspiracy attempt to discredit the word of Allah”.

Second, it is better for us –Christians, that Muslims keep considering their Coran as the untouched book supposedly written integrally by Allah himself:

Such a book filled with fairy tales, urban legends, scientific mistakes and hatred, makes it easy to demonstrate that Allah is clueless and that Islam is a gigantic forgery cult.

On the other hand, to believe that the Coran is written by (holy) men, will enforce the position of the Muslims who think that their doctrine is a peaceful one, compatible with every era at all time, and subject to interpretation. It will increase the confusion and add arguments to the politically correctness we are cursed with.

mkvine said...

Miss Kim,

I just read your post on some scholar's opinion of the Qur'an. I see you are making a lot of progress :-)

Kim said...

I read what I posted 4 times over before I posted it. And btw I was born a Muslim just like every single one of you were =).

Yes there may have been different 'texts' because of the 7 ways the Quran was revealed in and nonArabic speaking persons were confused on how to recite it. But these 'variants' or 'differences' don't change anything. Again, that is why Uthman (ra) collected the Quran in it's perfect form and burnt the scraps (which every Muslim agreed to this event) that may have started Fitnah or corruption. That's the way I understand it. It's perfectly reasonable and a wise decision at his time.

Deleting said...

No Kim, I was not born a muslim. I was not born wearing a hijab, my first words were not the shahadah.
Although I'll admit, I dropped a few bombs, but a quick diaper change took care of that. :")

As a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, I was born like everyone else on this board: with a sinful nature.
Just like you.
Kim=how do you feel about being born a sinner?

Baron Eddie said...

you cann't be serious Kim when you said "(which every Muslim agreed to this event)" ... Muslim commentatora almost always disagree unless you want to give a reference to what you said ... By the way Uthman did not burn scraps but burnt other qurans because Muslims started to fight each other ... I am an Arabic speaking person and I am not confused ...

Kim said...

I'm talking about the Non Arabic speakers back then who got confused on how to recite the Quran.

Kim said...

It's impossible to be born a sinner when you have committed no sin. Just because my father may have committed a crime that doesn't make his newborn a criminal.

curly said...

@Baron Eddie,
"By the way Uthman did not burn scraps but burnt other qurans because Muslims started to fight each other"
There are civil war during Uthman's time?? if yes, what name of civil war so I take a look at google..

Fernando said...

No kim... I was not borne a muslim, even though, latter in life, I became a muslim only to, years latter, return to Christianity...

to say that eberyone borns a muslim is like saying that eberyone bornes like a budhist, ou a xintuíste, or a Christian... yoy might belibe in what you say, butt you're totally wrong: no one can be a muslim unless he belives in your's pagan god and in yours delusional prophet...

another point: do you know islam's story? not the one you listen or read in comic books, rather in historical documented books an eben in muslim sources? I do not think so... that's the onlie way I figgur you can bee so naïf about your public posts...

Deleting said...

Kim you're born with a sinful nature. You are guaranteed to sin if you have a sinful nature.
sinful nature=sinner.
You. Are. A. Sinner. Kim.
Because you are born with a sinful nature.
Think about it. Lying is wrong. You would admit that, but who taught you how to lie?
Noone. You always knew how to do it and lying is a sin. You sinned when you told your first lie. You sinned when you took something that didn't belong to you (in other words stealing). You sinned when you took God's name in vain (blasphemy).
Did you ever look at another man (or woman I guess) and think some sort of sexual thought...even if only for a moment?
Sin. YHWH considered it adultery that you committed in your heart.
You're absolutely right in only one point-that just because your father committed a crime doesn't mean we punish the child.
But you're guilty because you sinned too.
And to in's all dirty, filthy sin.
And we've all done it. Every single poster on this board is a sinner.
And the bible says 'without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins'.
We need that forgiveness. You need that forgiveness.
YHWH is just and righteous. He will punish every. single. sin.
That means eternal punishment.
The difference is the cross. God's son laid aside devine priveleges of being omnipresent and receiving glory-what has forever and will forever be his-to come to earth as a servant, fulfill the law in its entirely and loved the father perfectly.
Then he allowed himself to be crucified, taking on the full wrath of God for our sins.
Those who believe on him will be saved from the wrath to come.
Those who don't see themselves as sinful and sinners will go to hell.
The sooner you admit you're a sinner, the better off you are.
Because we all are. That's the carefully....o-n-l-y thing we are when we are born.

My Two Sense said...

Kim said "And btw I was born a Muslim just like every single one of you were" and "It's impossible to be born a sinner when you have committed no sin."

My answer to both would be "depends". The first quote I am sure that many Muslims believe so and the second quote many Christians would retort with "original sin."

I would counter that it's impossible to be a Christian OR a Muslim at birth. I was NOT "born a Muslim". I was born like everyone else and like you Kim, a baby with no concept of language let alone religion. Everyone is taught those things as they get older...

Also, this is not Saudi Arabia where every child upon birth is "automatically" a Muslim.

Personally, I was born and raised in a Protestant Christian household. I have chosen a more Agnostic and Secularist viewpoint by choice as I got older.

If I was in fact, "born a Muslim", does that then make me an "Apostate" Of a religion I never in my life accepted?

John 8:24 said...


This is a copy-paste job - a terrible one at that. This is sadly something that I found with so many Muslim posts - just copying any stuff that is found on the Internet without bothering to really understand or verify. A quick search reveals the source of where you copied it from:

Kim said: "Yes there may have been different 'texts' because of the 7 ways the Quran was revealed in and nonArabic speaking persons were confused on how to recite it. But these 'variants' or 'differences' don't change anything. Again, that is why Uthman (ra) collected the Quran in it's perfect form and burnt the scraps (which every Muslim agreed to this event) that may have started Fitnah or corruption. That's the way I understand it."

You shot yourself in the foot with it! The text says exactly the opposite of what you understand from it! You can read some of the books from the noted archaeologist Arthur Jeffery that you quoted here:

A good book on this topic by Ibn Warraq which contain Jeffery's essays:

Kim said: "I read what I posted 4 times over before I posted it."

You mean to say that you read it 4 times and couldn't comprehend it? That's the problem with many Muslims - ever reading but never understanding. Almost all the Muslims that I know read the Quran in Arabic without understanding a single verse in it and would rarely use their reasoning to understand and analyze it. And they would never accept any criticism. This practice is prevalent in most of the Muslim world. I am not surprised when Muslims do with other texts what they do with the Quran! I am reallying starting to wonder if reading the Quran this way impacts their general comprehension and reasoning ability and actually makes them dumb! What do others think?

goethechosemercy said...

I was not born a Muslim.
I was born in the shadow of Original Sin, which was washed away when I was baptized.
All of us are born in sin, Kim.
Every single one.

donna60 said...

We were not born sinners. That is a heresy taught by John Calvin, who got it from Augustine, who got it from the gnostics.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
29 This only have I found:
God created mankind upright,
but they have gone in search of many schemes.”

Ezekiel 18
1 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
‘The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children’s teeth [a]are set on edge’?

3 As I live,” declares the Lord [b]GOD, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4 Behold, all [c]souls are Mine; the [d]soul of the father as well as the [e]soul of the son is Mine. The [f]soul who sins will die.

5 “But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, 6 and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period— 7 if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, 8 if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, 9 if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord GOD.

10 “Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be [h]on his own head.

14 “Now behold, he [i]has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise. 15 He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife, 16 or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, 17 he keeps his hand from [j]the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.

19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

donna60 said...

You are reasoning correctly in regards to the heresy of "original sin."

You reasoned correctly with David, when you agreed that the resurrection of Christ was the conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity.

You can do this! You can keep reasoning, and come to a calm conclusion of truth. I believe in you.

Isaiah 1:18
18 “Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.

curly said...

@ Fernando,
Hey, you was christian, Muslim, then return to christian?
Hey how long you was in Muslim, then return to christian?

Deleting said...

We were born with a sinful nature. The scripture also says 'there none righteous. No not one'.

We are born with sinful natures. Those natures came from the fall in the garden of eden. Not from God and not from gnostics.
FYI you're quoting Ezekiel 18 out of context. The whole point God was making was the children of israel were using the proverb as a reason not to change their ways not because they didn't have a sinful nature.
The jews during the babylonian diaspora had the attitude that they're fathers were doing this and that's why they were being punished. They saw no reason to stop because they had the attitude 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'.
He was telling them 'oh no, there's a good reason why you need to repent and stop doing these things.'
We are born with the nature to sin. We are sinners saved by grace.
Like it. Hate it. But it is what it is.
Go to Droakley1689 and look up the sermon 'Ezekiel 18: God's pleasure in repentance and punishment'. Dr. White does a good job explaining it.

Deleting said...

Rather what I should say on Ekeziel 18 is God outlining they (the Jews) should repent because he was holding each individually responsible for their own sins as well as punishing Israel for the prior sins of the fathers.

donna60 said...

My Two Sense,

In spite of the fact it chokes me to agree with Richard Dawkins on anything, I have to agree with him that there is no such thing as a "Catholic child," or a "Baptist child" or a "Church of Christ child", or a "Muslim child." or a "Hindu child."

These are adult decisions.

curly said...

@My two sense,
You mentioned "If I was in fact, "born a Muslim", does that then make me an "Apostate" Of a religion I never in my life accepted? "
hey, you are good thinking! I never think about it before. Apostate must be died in Islam's view.

Deleting said...

ugh...this is the problem with not reading comments through...
I meant to say 'christians are sinners saved by grace' and not we are sinners saved by grace.
If your not a christian then your not saved.

Royal Son said...


1. The Corpus Coranicum Project involves both the translations and the Arabic manuscripts which form the textual platform from which to translate.

2. Are you fluent in Arabic?

3. You mentioned the 7 modes of recitation. Can you please show us an example of a single verse with its 7 modes?

4. If all 7 modes of recitation came from Allah, what right did Uthman have to destroy 6 of them?

5. To my understanding, Uthman only ordered the burning of the qur'ans which contained these variant readings. If that is the case, can you show us all 7 of these variants in the Hadith collection?

6. Can you name these seven modes, who they were given to, and for what purpose?

Thank you.

donna60 said...


Ezekiel 18 is about the subject it states that is is about, and that is how God deals with mankind. The entire heresy that God imputes the sin of Adam into the offspring of Adam, is simply not found in scripture.

The scripture that you quoted, which is in Romans 3, by the way, is not in conflict with the passage I quoted to you that God made every man upright, but they have gone after many schemes.

Romans 3:9-12
9 What then? [g]Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,


All children are born perfect and loving righteousness. God Himself breathed the breath of life into our nostrils, and just as a matter of information, the term breath as used in Genesis is the same word used for spirit. "nĕshamah"

If you ask any little boy or girl what they want to be when they grow up, they never reply that they want to be liars, or thieves, or cheats, but by the time we are thirty, most of us are guilty of some form of this. (At least, I won't speak for anyone else, but I should say that about myself.)

Children want to be heroes. Little boys want to be policemen and firefighters, and courageous saviors of others in danger. Little girls want to be princesses. Not arrogant, mean little queen bees, but sweet and generous and heroic little princesses.

Another scripture I hope you consider is in Matthew and these are the words of our God.

Matthew 19:13-15
13 One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could lay his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” 15 And he placed his hands on their heads and blessed them before he left.

Jesus said this before John Calvin or the Catholics came around to baptize children or anything. Jesus stated, that children were perfect, and that we had to be like a child to enter His kingdom.

This subject is important to me for two reasons. It is slander against our Creator to say that He stained us with another man's sins. How just and righteous would our God be, if He smeared our souls with stench and filth that we hadn't been involved with, before we were even born?

Also, when you hold your children, and your grandchildren in your arms, you have a right to know with complete certainly that these precious souls are perfect.

How does it feel to have been born perfect, Deleting?

I want you to know that you really were born perfect, and that you have a soul that thirsts after righteousness, even as you have a flesh that resists the deepest longings of your heart. You deserve to know this.