Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Did the Umayyads Change the Qur'an?

Muslims tell us that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. Oddly enough, there isn't a shred of evidence for this preposterous claim. Indeed, a brief examination of the history of the Qur'an reveals significant changes to the text. In this video, L'Orientalist shows that changes were taking place even after Uthman produced his revised, standardized edition of the Qur'an.



For numerous ahadith on early changes in the Qur'an, click here.

And now, a blast from the past:

28 comments:

Samatar Mohamed said...

Just a quick correction David.

In the video at 4:15 onwards, it says, "the people have been guilty of deceit". However it is not in the original arabic, for more information, watch the debate between bassam zawadi and nabeel qureshi.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

I think you're confused about what constitutes a "correction." I have the book on my shelf. It says "the people have been guilty of deceit." It's from a Muslim translator and a Muslim publisher.

Your response is: "But I heard in a debate . . ." Yes. I heard it to, because I was there. But I never saw any actual evidence for this claim.

Radical Moderate said...

Whats really funny about Uthaman and his Revised Authoritive Koran.

Is taht Uthaman was considered a HERTIC, so much so that after he was killed in his own home by MUSLIMS. He converted to Judasim after he died.

No joke they wouldnt even allow him burried in a Muslim cemetarty lol

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"I think you're confused about what constitutes a "correction." I have the book on my shelf. It says "the people have been guilty of deceit." It's from a Muslim translator and a Muslim publisher."

But David, people also have the king james version of John 5:7, where it says that there are three that bear record in heaven..... It does not mean that it is in the original Bible just because it turns out in their bible. And you know as well as I do that if Bassam was lying or mistaken about this, then it would surely have come to light by now.

WhatsUpDoc said...

Original burn the Qur'an day my second favorite video. Excellent job David and Nabil LOL.

David Wood said...

Nice try, Samatar, but you've got things totally backwards. People add things (or take things out) of their Scriptures to try to defend their views. 1 John 5:7 was originally a note someone added on the side of a manuscript. Eventually, people wanted it in there because it helped them defend the Trinity. Note: They wanted it because it helped their case.

According to Bassam, the Arabic text of Ibn Sad (quoting Ibn Masud) doesn't call the Uthmanic text a "deceit." How does he know this? Because he looked it up in the Arabic.

The problem is that Bassam doesn't have the original text. He has a modern copy.

Now you tell me which claim makes more sense:

DAVID'S HYPOTHESIS: Ibn Sad originally called the Uthmanic text a "deceit." However, the Muslims who wrote the modern copies left this embarrassing passage out.

BASSAM'S HYPOTHESIS: Ibn Sad never called the Uthmanic text a "deceit." However, later Muslims added an embarrassing passage that convinced Muslim translators that he called the Uthmanic text a "deceit."

Which makes more sense to you, Samatar? Are Muslims more likely to (a) invent something that hurts their case, or (b) delete something that hurts their case?

I go with (b), and so would anyone else who isn't desperate to defend the absurd claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved.

Note: We also have a hadith where Ibn Masud told his companions to avoid copying the Qur'an of Zaid Ibn Thabit, so he obviously thought it was wrong. Whose view does this support, mine or Bassam's?

You're free to disagree, but can you really call Bassam's claims a "correction"? He uses a methodology we totally reject.

Samatar Mohamed said...

Thanks David. I'll look into what you said.

INDONESIA-MAN said...

Concerning "the people have been guilty of decit" thing, as i search in http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/bassam-zawadi-rebukes-nabeel-qureshi.html

THERE ARE 2 ALTERNATIVES TRANSLATION OFFERED:

1.(as presented by Zawadi)So going back to the narration, what is it actually saying? Well Ibn Masud is saying that the manuscripts are being taken away from them unjustly (i.e. Uthman demanding all the manuscripts to be burnt) and he feels betrayed by this

Ok, lets say if we agree Zawadi's perspective... but then notice when it is being arrange in full sentence "the manuscripts are being taken away from us unjustly, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”

Even when we follow Zawadi's translation, the meaning still imply negative situation where the MANUSCRIPTS WITH THE READING THEY LOVED MORE WERE BEING TAKEN AWAY UNJUSTLY

For me it sounds not so much different with "the people have been guilty of deceit" cause i think the authorities had executed a deceitful way in taking &burning manuscript with true reading& exchange it with uthman version

2.IslamResponses offers a correct translation for the relevant part of the narration:

“Hide the manuscripts, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”

Now this alternative give a whole different meaning, but it still describes a negative situation
Where we can notice the totalitarian nature of present religious authority that pushes they own version of Quran that Ibn Masud were forced to hide his version of Quran

From all interpretation that has been offered (Nabel,Zawadi &Islamresponse)ALL AGREE THAT THERE ARE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCES IN VERSION OF MUSHAF WHICH EVENTUALLY LEAD TO DRASTIC ACTION EITHER FROM PEOPLE (READING QURAN DECEITFULLY NOT ACCORDING TO TRUE MEANING) OR AUTHORITIES (TAKING&BURNING MASUD QURAN UNJUSTLY) OR FROM IBN MASUD HIMSELF(HIDING HIS QURAN)

Pointing nabeel's version is just an empty effort cause even with Azwadi's or islamresponse version the conclusion still the same QURAN HAD BEEN CHANGED

gbu

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

You never responded to these questions. You conveniently stopped responding!

Let's go to this hadith! And tell me what was the justification for attacking these people.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


And do not run from this question.

Would it be justified for the West and Israel to attack Iran because they are calling for the death of the West and Israel. And dont say they arent. You can watch videos!

Do not run from these two simple questions! to attack

kenmehms said...

Is there any chance of having this in text form with all the sources etc. this would prove invaluable?

Great work guys. I pray The Lord blesses your ministry.

Tom said...

No, No! It's not a..., a "change" or a redaction or a "resension", it's a..., it's a... ummm, Alaahu Ohyynkksmoor gave them something better.

Yeah! That's it. An "abrogation" that Alaahu Ohyynkksmoor sent down through da Muslims of old to help them 'butcher more Kuhfers'.

See? It was necessary 'cuz the Muz was not slaughterin' up to da quota. But now, thanks to the Caliphs or the ISBNs or the Ummayyadis (or sumbhaydis) da Jihadis is back on trayychkk!

Alaahu Ohyynkksmoor is just so thoughtful. "Have we not given thee something better?"

Alaahu Ohyynkksmoor!
Alaahu Ohyynkksmoor!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search4truth
In respone to your first question, it is dealing with Banu Quraiza, and here is a link as to why they were attacked.

http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_

and to your second question also yes, they do have the right to attack Iran. But that only proves my point that the prophet (pbuh) had the right to attack banu mustaliq.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar.

The hadith clearly states thatthe objective for Ali to attack them was to force them into Islam.


So we have the right to attack all Muslims now because Islam commands all Muslims to subjugate or kill all non Muslims. And the Quran commands it. So All Muslims are fair game sense the Quran clearly and irrefutably commands Muslims to fight all of us until there is a universal caliphate!

So We should be fighting all Muslims from now on. Thanks for informing us that it is ok to fight Muslims who are following the fascist, bigoted intolerant teachings of Mohamed and Allah!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar.

LOL! Sam Zatari not yourself have provided any evidence that the hadith I p-resented is attributed to the Quaresh.

So your excuse is unsupported by historical evidence!

Sam said...

Samatar, here is the refutation to your source on Banu Qurayza:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_banu_qurayza.htm

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/mo_qurayza.html

Search 4 Truth said...

I meant Quarayza.

And thanks Sam.

minoria said...

Hello Samatar:

I am glad you are reading us.In avraidire.com I have some debate,exchange of ideas with 2 Muslims.

In the end I actually had to write an article about how Islam says:

"There will be 2 JESUSES:and one will be the "Al-Masih-ad-Dajjal",the False Messiah,a False Jesus/the Antichrist, claiming to be Jesus"

It is here:

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/12/deux-jesus-en-meme-tempsouiselon-lislam-et-selon-joel-richardson/

YOU CAN TRANSLATE IT

By copying and pasting using "Google Translate"

http://translate.google.com/

Anyway I was reading an article by Williams of The Blogging Theology,where he saws the BIBLICAL JESUS in the END DAYS will be VIOLENT,KILLING his enemies.

HHMMMM

Yes,but AFTER showing his truth through the rapture and the evidence of the SIX,SIX,SIX number.

ABOUT HITLER AND THE NAZIS

If Hitler and the Nazis had been shown those 2 evidences that Christianity is true then Jesus killing them....is ALL THEIR OWN FAULT.

The same for the followers of the ANTICHRIST.Now in the comment section a Christian asked him:"What about the MAHDI who will KILL his enemies?"

ABOUT THE MAHDI AND THE ISLAMIC JESUS

Williams said he refused to answer the question.Wow!

In other words in ISLAM the MAHDI and also the ISLAMIC JESUS are going to KILL Islam's enemies.

So Williams' article CONDEMNING the BIBLICAL Jesus in the END TIMES was ALSO CONDEMNING the MAHDI and the ISLAMIC Jesus.
Yeah,I am going to have to write another article in French, with those ideas.

Rhology said...

BTW, this documented evidence about the Qur'an wouldn't be that much of a big deal (if understood and argued correctly) against Islam if only Muslims didn't constantly try to use the same kind of inane "Bible has been changed" argument against Christianity.

Sheldon said...

This has nothing to do with earlier manuscripts and God knows what....... the translator you are using translated it wrongly, that's all.


http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/bassam-zawadi-rebukes-nabeel-qureshi.html

goethechosemercy said...

What a fascinating video!
I really wish there were some Arabists out there who would translate these early Muslim writers into English.
What great work they have all done!

The Berean Search said...

Sheldon,

You need to think a little more deeply, and read the comments here a little more carefully. An airtight line of reasoning which shows that "wrong translation" cannot rescue Islam from the embarrassing narrations regarding Uthman and Zaid's Koran was just posted a few inches above your comment. I will reproduce the content here in case you missed it-

"INDONESIA-MAN said...

Concerning "the people have been guilty of decit" thing, as i search in http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/bassam-zawadi-rebukes-nabeel-qureshi.html

THERE ARE 2 ALTERNATIVES TRANSLATION OFFERED:

1.(as presented by Zawadi)So going back to the narration, what is it actually saying? Well Ibn Masud is saying that the manuscripts are being taken away from them unjustly (i.e. Uthman demanding all the manuscripts to be burnt) and he feels betrayed by this

Ok, lets say if we agree Zawadi's perspective... but then notice when it is being arrange in full sentence "the manuscripts are being taken away from us unjustly, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”

Even when we follow Zawadi's translation, the meaning still imply negative situation where the MANUSCRIPTS WITH THE READING THEY LOVED MORE WERE BEING TAKEN AWAY UNJUSTLY

For me it sounds not so much different with "the people have been guilty of deceit" cause i think the authorities had executed a deceitful way in taking &burning manuscript with true reading& exchange it with uthman version

2.IslamResponses offers a correct translation for the relevant part of the narration:

“Hide the manuscripts, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”

Now this alternative give a whole different meaning, but it still describes a negative situation
Where we can notice the totalitarian nature of present religious authority that pushes they own version of Quran that Ibn Masud were forced to hide his version of Quran

From all interpretation that has been offered (Nabel,Zawadi &Islamresponse)ALL AGREE THAT THERE ARE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCES IN VERSION OF MUSHAF WHICH EVENTUALLY LEAD TO DRASTIC ACTION EITHER FROM PEOPLE (READING QURAN DECEITFULLY NOT ACCORDING TO TRUE MEANING) OR AUTHORITIES (TAKING&BURNING MASUD QURAN UNJUSTLY) OR FROM IBN MASUD HIMSELF(HIDING HIS QURAN)

Pointing nabeel's version is just an empty effort cause even with Azwadi's or islamresponse version the conclusion still the same QURAN HAD BEEN CHANGED

gbu

December 14, 2011 7:23 AM"


Unless you can refute any of what Indonesia-Man said above, or show a flaw with his logic, then your explanation of "mistranslation" does not help Islam or the Koran. Better luck next time.

Search 4 Truth said...

Once again they do not come back to respond when they are clearly refuted and exposed of their deception. Several days later, and no Samatar>

And then when we speak to him again he will say it was his victory and we will have to go over it all once again. Until he gets refuted and then doesnt show up again, and then we have to do it all over again. Until he gets refuted, doesnt show up, and we have to do it all over again. Until he doesnt show up, he gets refuted, and we have to do it all over again!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search4truth

I am not running away at all. I do have a life you know and cannot come to this site everyday. Anyways, holidays are coming and i will visit more. Well, what we understand from the Banu Quraiza is that they had a treaty with the muslims, and then they betrayed the muslims and joined the pagans. Slice it any way you want but when the ally joins your enemy, they then become your enemy also. Ans sam says that Banu Quraiza was actually with the muslims all along. Then he needs to prove it historically, and also explain why the prophet (pbuh) would attack the group in a treaty with him. For the sake of argument Let me "assume" that The prophet (pbuh) did fight in offensive wars. But that would not show the logic behind the prophet (pbuh) attacking Banu Quraiza (especially when they already have an enemy in the Quraish) because having them as allies would definitely be beneficial for him even if he was a man who you claim he was. So historically and logically the prophet (pbuh) did not attack the Banu Quraiza except for them betraying him and the muslims. Also, remember that you are in the affirmative of the question that i posed to you and the burden of proof lies on you. I'll restate my question. Prove to me one time through the Quran and authentic hadith narrations that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever allowed and engaged in offensive wars in his prohetic career? And another question to Christians, is offensive war according to you morally wrong? Take these as gentle challenges from me.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search 4 truth

I am still waiting for a response from you about Banu Quraiza.

Naren said...

@David,

We are having an extended debate with a wellknown Islamic group here in India on the preservation of the Quran.

Would u please share your views and possibly additional sources of information on the "Sana Manuscripts" and how it affects the Islamic claim of "perfect preservation".

You can even send me the information on my email id: ephesians4.14@gmail.com.

In Christ


Naren

Diana said...

I don’t normally comment on this blog, but after enjoying today’s video so much, I do feel obliged to address the question of the Banu Qurayza. I actually thought Samatar’s comment about the political necessity of the situation was a good and logical one. However, his whole point assumed the premise that the Qurayza broke the treaty. If they didn’t - then the picture changes.

Mohammed is supposed to have made two treaties with the Qurayza. The first was the Compact of Medina made with all the tribes of Yathrib in September 622. We can reconstruct a lots of its text (although I doubt that the Jews would really have signed anything that openly labelled Mohammed as a prophet!). The second is a special treaty made only with the Qurayza (or with the Qurayza and Nadir together), but nobody seems to know either its date or its exact terms. If anyone can produce this document for me, I’d be very interested. Meanwhile, I’m only going to discuss the Compact of Medina for now.

What we need to address is what happened between September 622 and April 627.

(1) We know that between September 622 and January 624, Mohammed argued theology with the Jews and judged at least two criminal cases for them (on both occasions, in a manner that displeased both opponents). They also witnessed that he committed a series of armed robberies and was a man with two wives. Some of them had friends in Mecca, so they began to realise there was another side to the story of “persecutions” down south. All in all, they worked out that Mohammed was not the Messiah.

(2) The Compact of Medina ended with a clause that read something like: “The terms of this treaty shall not be interpreted to facilitate any act of injustice or crime or to protect anyone who has perpetrated an injustice or committed a crime, but only to maintain mutual loyalty and to protect every citizen of Yathrib against treachery.” From the Jewish point of view, Mohammed was such a person, so he had voided his own treaty. However, he wasn’t actually hurting them, and the united defence they were all supposed to launch against the Meccan invasion wasn’t happening because the Meccans simply weren’t invading, so they didn’t let it bother them.

(3) Early in 624, Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca. I doubt the Jews cared how anyone else prayed, but Mohammed’s decision was a public declaration that his religion was different from the Jews’, and they were no longer allied together against the pagans. He justified his attitude by accusing them of changing the content of the Torah, and even producing what he claimed was some original text that they had expunged. The Jews, who considered it a terrible blasphemy to tamper with God’s Word, would certainly have remembered how Mohammed and the Ansari had sworn never to accuse anyone falsely, and have concluded that Mohammed’s promises could not be trusted.

(4) In March Mohammed set out to rob a merchant in the ordinary way, only to find that the merchant had called in the Meccan Army to protect the caravan. The Muslims could have turned back to Medina, but they decided instead to chase the army around the desert and fight. (It’s only fair to add that most of the army was quite willing to engage.) The Muslims clobbered the Meccan army and arrived back in Medina with seventy prisoners and boasts of seventy corpses. Four additional prisoners were murdered after the battle because Mohammed had personal scores to settle (one of the four was guilty of purely verbal offences). The Jews were aghast at the brutality.

(TBC...)

Diana said...

(5) Several inhabitants of Medina started to criticise Mohammed. Mohammed assassinated two of them in the space of a week. There had never previously been any understanding in Arabia that criticising the government was a crime. Leaders had simply put up with the fact that if they oppressed the people over breakfast, the media would broadcast their misdeeds on the evening news. Mohammed was the Jews’ first example of a politician who killed his critics.

(6) In April, following a scuffle in the market, Mohammed, instead of dealing with the individuals concerned, challenged the Qaynuqa (another Jewish tribe) to convert to Islam. They refused, and Mohammed ordered them to leave Medina. This was a very clear violation of the Compact of Medina, which had guaranteed that the Jews would be allowed to practise their religion. Mohammed besieged their fortress until he starved them out, then gave the order to execute all the adult males. An old ally of the Qaynuqa talked him out of this, but the Qaynuqa still had to emigrate to Syria, while Mohammed distributed their possessions (80% for his friends, 20% for himself). I think it’s safe to say that by this stage, the Qurayza recognised that the Compact of Medina was a joke that wouldn’t protect anyone from anything. But they still continued to mind their own business and hope for the best.

(7) In August Mohammed assassinated another media personality. His only crime had been to criticise Mohammed (including a mildly risqué poem about Mohammed’s aunt) and to discuss the situation with the leaders of Mecca, presumably to plan what they could all do to defend themselves against Mohammed. We don’t actually know what they discussed because there was no evidence and no formal accusation. However, this time Mohammed’s victim was not only Jewish but also a person of consequence, a leader of the Qurayza’s brother-tribe, the Nadir. The next day, Mohammed announced to the Muslims: “Kill any Jew who falls into your hands!” The same day, a Muslim murdered his Jewish business partner.

(8) At this point the Qurayz leader, together with his Nadir counterpart, went to Mohammed to ask what on earth had happened to the Compact of Medina. I haven’t been able to find out what the outcome of this interview was – can anyone here give me the details? However, Mohammed told the Jews that they had better watch out, and at the same time, the Muslims stopped randomly killing any Jew in the pathway.

(9) For the next twelve months Mohammed was kept busy fighting the Meccans, raiding various Bedouin tribes, robbing caravans and getting married. In August 625, he accused the Nadir Jews of plotting to kill him. His only evidence was that “the angel Gabriel told me” – even the eight Muslim friends who had been sitting in the same room as the Jews hadn’t noticed anything suspicious. The Qurayza would certainly have recognised Gabriel’s accusation as a very odd one, as the murderous plot was alleged to be instigated by a calm, rational leader and an unimportant man who had recently insulted Mohammed in the street, and the plan only failed because a brave and impetuous young warrior wasted time urging caution and morality. However, Mohammed told the Nadir to leave Medina; they refused; Mohammed besieged their fortress and starved them out until they surrendered... Do you think the Qurayza might have recognised the pattern? The Nadir were banished from Medina, leaving their land and weapons behind for the Muslims.

(TBC...)

Diana said...

(10) It is thought that their new contract with Mohammed was the only thing that prevented them running to the rescue of their kin, which is why I’d like to know how it was worded. But Mohammed had also had a new contract with the Nadir, so how much was that new contract really worth? If it had been in any way an unjust contract, the Qurayza probably felt morally justified in breaking it. If it had been a just contract, it is certain that they no longer trusted Mohammed to keep his side of the bargain. However, for the next eighteen months, Mohammed was busy fighting Meccans and Bedouins.

(11) In March 627, the Meccans finally brought an army of ten thousand to besiege Medina. Their allies included several Bedouin tribes and some of the exiled Nadir. But the siege was a stalemate because Medina was so well defended. The Qurayza took no part in this defence (other than helping to dig the famous Trench). Now, after everything that had happened in the last four years, did anyone seriously think that anyone else was going to hearken back to the original Compact of Medina and remind them that they were supposed to defend Medina against an external invader? They considered the Muslims to be “invaders” and the allies to be their liberators.

(12) It is not surprising that the Qurayza’s old friends the Nadir begged them to sway the battle. All they had to do was open up the front door of their fortress and then turn a blind eye while the allies swarmed into Medina – and such a large army could easily polish off the Muslims. How long would it take the Qurayza to open that door? Perhaps one person might have taken ten minutes? Yet they did not open it. They remained neutral until bad weather intervened and the Meccans stormed off home in disgust.

In conclusion, what was Mohammed’s accusation against the Qurayza? It was that they had considered treating him the way he had treated them, and there was a danger they really might take sides against him in the future. So he killed them.

It was an effective political decision. It meant that Mohammed had no more opposition in Medina, and within three years, he was to conquer Mecca itself.

But it wasn’t one of those inspired ethical decisions that lights a beacon-example of mercy, wisdom and reconciliation the whole world.

(Really the end this time. But please contact me if you can answer my question about that second treaty.)