Answering Islam 8: Are There Scientific Mistakes in the Qur'an?

Here's Episode 8 of our "Answering Islam" series, where I answer the question: "Are there scientific mistakes in the Qur'an?" For the rest of the series, click on the playlist.

Here's the full text of the video:

Are There Scientific Mistakes in the Quran?

One of the most popular arguments for Islam is what we might call the “Argument from Scientific Accuracy.” Muslim apologists claim that the Qur’an contains numerous scientific insights that couldn’t have been known by Muhammad apart from divine revelation and that were only verified centuries later. Now I’ve debated Muslims on this argument, and I find it very strange, because the Qur’an is a scientific disaster. Everything Muhammad could get wrong, he got wrong.

The Qur'an claims that semen is formed between the backbone and ribs (Surah 86, verses 6-7), that the earth is flat (Surah 88, verse 20), that there are seven earths (surah 65, verse 12), that the sun and the moon chase each other around the earth (surah 36, verses 38-40), that human embryos are blood-clots (surah 22, verse 5), that the sky would fall on the earth if Allah didn't hold it up (surah 22, verse 65), and that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot demons who try to sneak into heaven (surah 37, verses 6-10, and surah 67, verse 5).

But I don’t want people to think I’m making things up, so let’s read a few verses. Passages about stars being missiles are interesting. Surah 67, verse 5:

And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps [lamps are the stars], and We have made such lamps (as) missiles to drive away the Shayatin (devils), and have prepared for them the torment of the blazing Fire.

Stars are missiles that drive away demons. How does this work? Surah 37, verses 6-10:

Verily! We have adorned the nearest heaven with the stars (for beauty). And to guard against every rebellious devil. They cannot listen to the higher group (angels) for they are pelted from every side. Outcast, and theirs is a constant (or painful) torment. Except such as snatch away something by stealing and they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness.

Demons who sneak into heaven to steal some information are “pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness.” Muhammad explained in the Hadith that this refers to shooting stars. When you see a shooting star, it’s because Allah or the angels caught a demon trying to steal something and hurled a star at the demon.

Now this is silly on multiple levels. Shooting stars aren’t really stars. They’re rocks that burn up when they enter the earth’s atmosphere. And how many Muslims really believe that when a rock hits the earth’s atmosphere, it’s to stop a demon from getting away with valuable information? Muslims today know more about stars than the author of the Qur’an did.

Let’s look at another passage. Surah 18, verses 83 to 86:

And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Dhul-Qarnain was apparently Alexander the Great. But whoever he was, the Qur’an says that he traveled so far West, he found the place where the sun sets. The sun sets in a muddy or warm pool.

Modern Muslims are embarrassed by this passage, so they say that what it really means is that Dhul-Qarnain saw the sun’s reflection in a pool, and it appeared to him as if the sun was setting in the pool. This obviously isn’t what the text says. But it’s important to note that Muslims who want to explain the passage this way are claiming to understand the Qur’an better than Muhammad, because Muhammad himself claimed that the sun sets in a pool. Let’s read Sunan Abu Dawud 4002. This is a sahih narration.

It was narrated that Abu Dharr said: “I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah while he was on a donkey, and the sun was setting. He said: ‘Do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said: ‘Allah and his Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘It sets in a spring of water.’”

Notice, this hadith doesn’t say anything about Dhul-Qarnain, so it’s not telling us about what he saw. This is Muhammad telling one of his companions where the sun goes when it sets, and Muhammad says that it sets in a pool. So the obvious meaning of the Qur’an is confirmed by Muhammad, and Muhammad and the Qur’an are simply wrong.

When we put the Quran’s scientific claims together with the scientific claims in the hadith, we get a really silly picture of the universe. Muhammad believed that there are seven earths, all of them flat, stacked on top of each other like pancakes, except with a long distance between them. Out on the edge of the top earth, which is our earth, is a pool where the sun sets. There are also seven heavens above the earths, and they’re like domes that will fall on us if Allah doesn’t hold them up. In the lowest heaven are the stars, which Allah uses to hurl at demons. And all of this is sandwiched between a giant fish at the bottom and eight giant goats on top. What did Muhammad get right?

Muhammad’s view of human reproduction is just as bad. According to Muhammad, semen forms between the backbone and ribs (that’s wrong), then it joins with the female semen (wrong), and whichever parent’s semen is discharged first determines which parent the child will resemble (wrong). The child spends forty days as a drop of sperm (wrong). Then the child spends another forty days as a clot of blood (wrong). Then the child becomes a lump (wrong). Then the child becomes bones (wrong). Then the bones are wrapped with flesh (wrong). After the final shape is determined, Allah finally decides whether the child will be male or female (wrong).

So here again, what did Muhammad get right? If this is the greatest evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad, we can only wonder why anyone believes in Islam.

Answering Islam 7: Are There Historical Mistakes in the Qur'an?

Here's Episode 7 of our "Answering Islam" series, where I answer the question: "Are there historical mistakes in the Qur'an?" For the rest of the series, click on the playlist.

Here's the full text of the video:

Are There Historical Mistakes in the Qur’an?

During the time of Muhammad, lots of stories were circulating in Arabia. Some of these stories were true, and some were false. Historians can often separate true stories from false stories by examining the evidence. They use the historical method. They ask, “What are our earliest sources for this story? Do we have multiple sources or just one? How reliable are these sources?” Things like that. But Muhammad didn’t know anything about historical investigation, and so he just couldn’t tell the difference between true stories and false stories. Let me give you a few examples to show you what I mean.

In Surah 18, Allah tells us that Alexander the Great traveled so far West, he found the place where the sun sets. Not only can I guarantee you that Alexander the Great never found the place where the sun sets, we know that this story was a popular story during Muhammad’s lifetime. The story was even circulating in a Syriac work titled “The Glorious Deeds of Alexander” towards the end of Muhammad’s life.

Earlier in Surah 18, we read about the “Companions of the Cave”—a group of people who supposedly went to sleep in a cave and woke up three hundred years later. This myth goes back to Bishop Stephen of Ephesus around the middle of the fifth century.

According to Surah 19, Jesus began preaching as soon as he came out of Mary’s womb. This story comes from the sixth-century Arabic Infancy Gospel.

The story of a bird teaching Cain how to bury his brother in Surah 5 comes from Mishnah Sanhedrin. The legend of Mary giving birth under a palm tree in Surah 19 comes from an apocryphal work called the History of the Nativity of Mary and the Savior’s Infancy, written in the early 600s. The account of Jesus giving life to clay birds in Surah 5 comes from a second-century work called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

It seems that Muhammad simply took the stories that were popular during his lifetime, gave them an Islamic twist, and included them in the Qur’an. What’s interesting is that even the pagans of Mecca were better at recognizing fiction than Muhammad was. Surah 6, verse 25 of the Qur’an says:

When they come to you to argue with you, the unbelievers say: These are nothing but fables of the men of old.

So according to the Qur’an itself, pagans were telling Muhammad that the stories in the Qur’an were known fables. They were myths. They were fairy tales.

From a Christian perspective, the most important historical error in the Qur’an is the claim that Jesus wasn’t killed and wasn’t crucified. In Surah 4, verses 157 to 158 we read:

They [“they” here are the Jews] said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Now there are multiple historical problems with this passage.

According to the Qur’an, Jews were boasting that they had killed “the Christ.” “Christ” means “Messiah.” I’ve never heard a Jew boast about killing the Messiah. The only people who would boast about killing Jesus were people who regarded him as a false Messiah.

The verse also says that Jews were boasting about killing “the Messenger of Allah.” Here again, the only people who would boast about killing Jesus were people who regarded him as a false prophet, not people who regarded him as a messenger of God.

Then we have the claim that Jesus wasn’t killed and wasn’t crucified. This is an amazingly inaccurate claim, because historians and New Testament scholars agree that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is one of the best-established facts of ancient history. And I don’t just mean Christian scholars. Even atheist and agnostic historians are certain that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann declares that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” John Dominic Crossan, of the infamous Jesus Seminar, says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” There are lots of Muslims nowadays who like to quote Bart Ehrman, because he criticizes the New Testament. But Ehrman writes: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”

These scholars aren’t simply saying that Jesus may have died or that he probably died. They’re saying that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is indisputable, that there’s not the slightest doubt about the crucifixion, that it’s one of the most certain facts of history. And again, these aren’t even Christian scholars.

So the Qur’an clearly contains historical errors, not only because it denies Jesus’ death by crucifixion, but also because it contains numerous fables, even stories that were recognized as fables by the pagans of Muhammad’s time. This makes it very difficult to accept what the Qur’an says about history.

Fun Islamic Facts 10: The Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring

While Muslim apologists often claim that the Qur'an contains miraculous scientific insights, the Qur'an is actually a scientific disaster. For instance, the Qur'an claims that the sun sets in a muddy spring, and that Alexander the Great visited the spring. Let's take a closer look.

Cataloguing a Few of the Historical Anachronisms in the Qur'an

Muslim apologists often contend that the Qur’an is free, in its entirety, from contradiction, inconsistency or historical inaccuracy. I have seen many Muslims assert that the historical and scientific accuracy of the Qur’an was what impressed them about this book and convinced them that Islam is true. In this article, I am going to focus specifically on the historical accuracy of the Qur’an. As we shall see, the claim that the Qur’an is historically accurate — particularly when it describes events hundreds of years removed from its writing — is not a tenable position.

Are There Fables in the Quran? David Wood vs. Shabir Ally

The Qur'an contains numerous stories that are known to be taken from ancient forgeries. The Qur'an even acknowledges that Muhammad's contemporaries repeatedly accused him of copying his stories from earlier sources (see Quran 6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13, etc.). Do these forgeries call into question the reliability of Muhammad? Here's my discussion on this topic with Shabir Ally in our debate on whether Muhammad gives the truth about Jesus.

Are Stars Missiles That Allah Shoots at Demons?

Our Muslim friends tell us that the Qur'an is confirmed by its miraculous scientific insights, which have only been confirmed recently by scientists.

Then we open the Qur'an, and we find some of the silliest scientific claims ever offered by anyone.

Take, for instance, the Qur'anic claim that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot at demons who try to sneak into paradise:

Qur’an 37:6-10—We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars—(for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (so) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming Fire, of piercing brightness.

Qur’an 67:5—And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and We have made such (lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

How can non-Muslims ever take the "Argument from Scientific Accuracy" seriously after reading these verses? At this point, our Muslim friends introduce us to another Qur'anic miracle: the Miracle of Reinterpretation. Amazingly, whenever the Qur'an says something that's obviously absurd (or obviously immoral), the Qur'an turns out to mean something completely different from what it actually says (even though the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear and fully explained).

Unfortunately for Islam's modern reinterpreters, Muhammad's companions explained what 67:5 means, and they learned the Qur'an (and its interpretation) from Muhammad himself.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3198—Abu Qatada mentioning Allah’s saying: “And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps . . .” (v. 67:5) said, “The creation of these stars is for three purposes, and they are: 1) as decoration of the nearest heaven, 2) as missiles to hit the devils, and 3) as signs to guide travelers. So, if anybody tries to find a different interpretation, he is mistaken and just wastes his efforts and troubles himself with what is beyond his limited knowledge.”

Hence, Muslims who want to say that the Qur'an doesn't claim that stars are missiles must first convince us that they are higher authorities than Allah, Muhammad, and Muhammad's companions.

Good luck with that.

Qur'an Error: Does the Sun Set in a Muddy Spring? (Surah 18:86)

According to the Qur'an (18:86), a man named Dhul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets. When he got there, he found the sun going down into a muddy pool. Muslim apologists commonly reinterpret the passage, but only because they're ignoring Muhammad's commentary.



Since Muslims in the West claim that science confirms the Qur'an, we should work diligently to explain to them what the Qur'an says, and how Muhammad obviously interpreted it. The following two quotations, when used together, are devastating and unanswerable:

Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

For more on Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the setting of the sun, here are some articles:

INTRODUCTIONS:
Sam Shamoun, "Muhammad and the Sun's Setting Place"
Cornelius, "The Sun in the Muddy Pool and the Prophethood of Muhammad"

LONGER WORKS:
Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz, "Islam and the Setting of the Sun"
Martin Taverille, "Dhu’l Qarnayn and the Sun Controversy in the Qur’an: New Evidence"

In case you missed the first entry in this series:

Muhammad's Flat Earth

Qur'an Error #1: Was Mary Both the Mother of Jesus and the Sister of Aaron?

Another Quranic Deficiency Mentioned in Bukhari

For those of you who have been following this blog since the end of last year, you may have noticed that the topic of Qur'anic preservation has been of utmost interest to me. As a Muslim, I had been utterly convinced that the Qur'an today is exactly the words that Muhammad had received from Allah. And, at least beyond the source of the words, I thought that the evidence was so strong that no one would even consider disagreeing.

Then I studied. I heard about Ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kab, the Uthmanic edition, Kitab al-Masahif, Aisha's goat, etc. All of that stuff has been outlined already on this website. Since my Muslim days, I've done a complete 180 on my position of Qur'anic textual preservation. I believe that there is no possible way to be confident that these are the words Muhammad told the scribes to write. I believe that it is highly likely that much of it is well preserved, but I think it is even more likely that some parts are lost and there's no reason to think that today's Qur'an has even the correct number of surahs, let alone the exact words it should.

Not too much of the information we have drawn from concerning Quranic preservation has come from Bukhari. The verse outlining the top Qur'an scholars does, the burning of the manuscripts does, and the verse of rajm does. Most of our other evidences are from the rest of the sahih sitah. But we have been informed of another one from Sahih Bukhari. It reads:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever."  Sahih Bukhari, Vol 6, Book 527

Here we see another indication that one of Muhammad's top teachers of the Qur'an, one of the ones Muhammad himself said we should turn to if we are to learn the Qur'an, says that he heard Muhammad reveal a verse that others have left out of the Qur'an.

Now we can look at this one of two ways:

1. Ubay was right about this verse, and it was left out of the Qur'an mistakenly
2. Ubay was wrong about this verse, and Muhammad did a poor job picking his top teachers (especially if, as Muslims usually purport, there were many huffaz at that time who could have corrected his false understanding)

So it seems we have a dilemma. Either the Qur'an is incorrect for sure, or Muhammad did a poor job choosing his top teachers and there's no way of knowing how correct the Qur'an is. In fact, this has been the conclusion here for months, this last evidence only continues to strengthen our conclusion.

What is not an option? The perfect preservation of the Qur'an.

Scientific Flaws in the Quran:Shooting Stars at Demons

Recently, I received an email from a Muslim friend who was adamant that there are no scientific errors in the Quran. I responded by saying that there is no plausible defense for the shooting star dilemma.

If this issue is new to you, allow me to explain. The Qur'an teaches that stars are fires set up in the sky to guard Heaven against demons. The demons want to hear what God is saying so they try to sneak up to heaven. If they are found, the guardians of heaven will hurl stars at them to chase them off.

In case you didn't catch it, there's a huge problem with this teaching: stars and shooting stars are not the same thing! Stars are giant balls of gas burning millions of miles away, and "shooting stars" are meteorites, or galactic debris that has entered the earth's atmosphere (i.e. much much much much smaller than stars!).

Truly, this is the book Muslims defend as scientifically miraculous! Don't believe that the Qur'an could actually say such horribly unscientific things? Look at the four passages below.

15:16-18

It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders; And (moreover) We have guarded them from every evil spirit accursed: But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

37:6-10

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.

67:5

And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

72:8-9

(Demons are speaking)'And we pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. 'We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.

My Muslim friend denied that the Quran was speaking about shooting stars, and he adamantly defended the fact that regular stars fit the bill for these ayaat. He said: "I can't possibly understand why you would state that the verse refers to shooting stars, meteorites, asteroids, comets or whatever else, unless you were not aware of this fact regarding stars (i.e. that stars move)."

Well, there are two reasons.

First, the ayaat support this interpretation. Let's take a look at 67:5. It says: "we have made such (Lamps [stars]) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones" On face value, this seems to say that stars can be used missiles made to drive away satans (demons). This implies shooting stars.

Why would God want to shoot demons? Surah 15 ayaat 16-18 explains that the stars were made as adornment for the skies, but also as a guard against jinn; if a jinn were to somehow "gain a hearing by stealth" then it would be pursued by "a flaming fire." Again, at face value, it seems that these stars serve at least two purposes: for adornment and for launching at jinn, and the second happens because the jinn attempt to hear something. 

Well what are the jinn trying to hear? Surah 37 tells us they are trying to hear "the Exalted Assembly". In surah 72, we see the jinn admit that they were trying to listen to "the secrets of heaven", but when they attempted to listen, they found guards with fires (stars), and those fires are now hurled at them if they try to litsen (presumably by the guards).

So, just reading the Qur'an for what it's worth, it seems as if it's saying that God (or angels) hurls stars (the ones that adorn the night skies) at demons when they try to hear the secrets of heaven. This implies that the stars go from being stationary to being launched, as we would expect a missile to work. The only thing that resembles a launched star is a meteorite.

Second, Muhammad supports this interpretation. Sahih al-Muslim #5538 informs us:

As we were sitting during the night with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling light.  Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “What did you say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)?”  They said:  “Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position), but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been born and a great man had died,” whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “(These meteors) are shot neither at the death of anyone nor on the birth of anyone.  Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, issues Command when He decides to do a thing.  Then (the Angels) supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in the heaven of this world.  Then those who are near the supporters of the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne:  ‘What your Lord has said?’ And they accordingly inform them what He says.  Then the dwellers of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches the heaven of this world.  In this process of transmission (the jinn snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with meteors.”

From this hadith in Sahih al-Muslim, we see that Muhammad agrees entirely with all the conclusions we drew from the Quranic ayaat, including that the stars in question are shooting stars.

What have we seen so far? We've seen:

1 - The ayaat, on face value, seem to say that the guardians of heaven hurl stars at demons. This equates stars with meteors.

2 - The hadith supports this interpretation.

Thus, the Quran is scientifically flawed, at least in regards to the issue of shooting stars. The hadith support this conclusion. This is incontrovertible and any argument against this conclusion twists the obvious interpretation and ignores Muhammad's own words.

* NOTE = After posting this, the Muslim friend with whom I was dialoguing took offense to my representation of his point of view. He says he was only commenting on 67:5, not all the verses, when made his conclusion. This note serves to clarify his position.

The Ibn Masud Problem: Muslims' Flawed Responses

If you've been reading this blog for the past few months, you must be very familiar with Ibn Masud and the arguments that issue forth from him against the modern Quran (i.e. the Zaid Standard Version, or ZSV). If you are new to this blog, welcome! Allow me to recap some of the information for you.

Ibn Masud and the Corruption of the ZSV

Ibn Masud is Muhammad's first choice of Quran teachers for his people:

Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96).

Notice Muhammad starts by naming Ibn Masud, and the narrator emphasizes this fact. Indeed, the narrator goes on to say that he loves Ibn Masud. We can safely infer that this hadith intends to convey Ibn Masud as the best teacher of the Quran.

Being a proud expert of the Quran, Ibn Masud would agree that his mastery of the Quran was unrivaled. Of his own prowess, he says:

''Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488). ''

However, Ibn Masud does not think highly of today's Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

''The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth". (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444)

As we can see, the differences between Ibn Masud's Quran and Zaid's Quran were not minor. Before even examining them, we can know that they were big enough for Ibn Masud to call the reading of Zaid's Quran "deceit". But when we examine the evidence, we find out why. 

According to Ibn Abi Daud's Kitab al-Masahif, we find out that Ibn Masud only includes 111 surahs in his Quran (as opposed to the ZSV's 114). In addition, chapters that were found in both codices often had many variants; within surat al-Baqara alone, 101 variants exist. Not all of these variants are differences in spelling. For example:

Surah 2:275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas'ud's text had the same introduction but after the last word there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, they would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection".

Naturally, since Muhammad told people to go to Ibn Masud if they wanted to learn the Quran, many Muslims studied under Ibn Masud. Ibn Masud's version of the Quran was thus perpetuated to his students. The aforementioned variant, for example, was included in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, one of Ibn Masud's students in Kufa.

The Muslim Responses

So far, there have been three Muslim responses on this blog to the above case.

1 - "Ibn Masud's codex was his own personal notebook; it is not to be taken as a variant codex of the Quran!"

The desperate nature of this response is so obvious I am amazed anyone would even utter it. But alas, this is the most common response I have seen so far.

The main problem with this is that it is demonstrably false! We know historically that Ibn Masud taught his version of the Quran to his students (as mentioned above). Therefore, we cannot possibly say that he just considered it his own personal notebook.

Another problem with this response is that it goes against the supporting evidence; we know that Ibn Masud did not want to give up his codex when it came time to burn the variants. Why would Uthman want a notebook to be burnt when everything else he was burning were manuscripts? Clearly, if Quranic manuscripts were what was being burnt, and Uthman wanted Ibn Masud's book burnt, it was probably not just a notebook!

But let's give the Muslim response the benefit of the doubt. We may just happen to find something like this in an archaeological dig:

Uthman's List of Things to Burn 

1 - All Quranic manuscripts

2 - Ibn Masud's notebook, which is definitely not a manuscript...

Even after finding such a chit, the Muslim response still has a huge problem: why on earth would Ibn Masud be so hesitant to give up his "notebook", even resisting the command of the khalifa? I doubt he would do so without good reason.

And this brings me to my final point: the supporting evidence from Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir makes the pieces fit. Ibn Masud must have considered Zaid's Quran such a deceit that he was willing to resist the command of the khalifa. Not only does this supporting evidence pass the historial method's criterion of embarrassing admission, it also makes all the pieces fit (i.e. the criterion of illumination). The Muslim response, on the other hand, makes no sense, ignores the criteria of historical investigation, and indeed just throws out historical evidence on a whim.

2 - "Ibn Masud was just one of many teachers of the Quran!"

This is true, but it's a distortion. At the very least, he was one of the top four teachers of the Quran. But if we are to trust Masruq (which we should, since he must be trustworthy if he is capable of transmitting a hadith graded sahih) then we would conclude that Ibn Masud is the best teacher of the Quran.

But again, for argument's sake, let's pretend he's just as good as the other 3 that Muhammad mentioned. We know that at least one of those other 3 teachers also had many variants in his Quran (Ubay ibn Kab)! So at least half of Muhammad's top 4 teachers of the Quran disagree with Zaid! And it's quite possible that the other 2 did as well, we just can't verify their codices since the variants were all burnt by Uthman.

Best case scenario? Even if the implications of the hadith are wrong and Ibn Masud is just one of the four best teachers of the Quran, we can be certain that half of Muhammad's top teachers of the Quran disagree with the ZSV. These disagreements include different whole chapters as well as different verses and different words.

3 - "The 'variants' in Ibn Masud's codex were no variants at all! They were part of the 7 ahruf, or perhaps just differences in qirrat!"

This, too, is a horridly desperate effort to save the Quran from having variants. No reasonable definition of ahruf or qirrat, no matter how broad, can encompass whole missing chapters! Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex, along with 2 others. The additional 2 surahs are prayers recited by Muslims even today which many believe to be divinely revealed, but not part of the Quran).

If Muslims continue providing this as a response to the Ibn Masud problem, I would simply have to ask "What is the definition of ahruf or qirrat?" Even while ignoring the abysmal failure of anyone in history to ever provide a good definition of ahruf, (a fact that even Muslim theologians have noted) there simply can be no reasonable definition which can include missing chapters.

As it stands, all Muslim responses to the Ibn Masud problem fail, and fail miserably. There is no solid Muslim response. If you think you have one, my Muslim friends, I'd love to hear it.

The Irony of the Qur’an—Surah 4:157-158

One of the most famous passages in the Qur’an is Surah 4:157-158.

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Qur’an, 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali)

There are several obvious errors in this passage. (Muhammad had an amazing knack for making numerous mistakes in one or two sentences.) For instance, non-Christian Jews would never call Jesus “Christ” (i.e. “Messiah”), for they reject Jesus as the Messiah. Similarly, very few non-Christian Jews would call Jesus “the Messenger of Allah.” Moreover, no Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah would boast about crucifying him. Of course, the most egregious factual error in this Surah is that it denies Jesus’ death by crucifixion. The Qur’an errs further in its claim that those who believe in Jesus’ death follow nothing but conjecture, when we have tons of historical evidence to follow. There’s also a massive theological problem, namely, that the standard Muslim interpretations of 4:157 present Allah as a deceiver who tricks people into believing false things for no reason at all. None of this is what I want to talk about, however. I simply want to point out the amazing irony I see here.

People who believe that Jesus died by crucifixion are said to be “full of doubts,” to have “no (certain) knowledge,” and to follow “conjecture.” The irony is that Muslims who read these words seem to have absolutely no clue what happened to Jesus. Some confidently proclaim that God disguised Judas and made him look like Jesus, then allowed Judas to be crucified. Other Muslims claim that Jesus was replaced by someone other than Judas. Still other Muslims (Shabir Ally and Shadid Lewis among them) argue that Jesus was crucified (contrary to what the passage claims), but that God kept Jesus alive throughout the tortures of the Romans. There are even some Muslims who say they don’t know what to make of this passage. Hence, Surah 4 criticizes non-Muslims for being “full of doubts” about what happened to Jesus, and yet it leaves Muslims full of doubts about what happened to Jesus!

Muslims will respond by saying that they at least know that Jesus didn’t die, and that they are sure of this. But how can they be sure? Muhammad couldn’t even read, let alone perform a careful historical investigation. All of the first century evidence is unanimous in reporting Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Virtually all Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross. Indeed, many non-Christian scholars consider Jesus’ crucifixion and death to be an indisputable fact!

So Muslims will say they’re “sure” because they read it in the Qur’an. But how does the Muslim, who believes that the Qur’an is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ survival, have fewer doubts than the Christian, who believes that the Bible is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ death? If the Muslim is at all concerned about evidence, he should certainly be full of doubts. For the Bible tells us that Jesus died, while the Qur’an tells us that he didn’t, and this is an area where we can test our holy books to see which is confirmed by the evidence. The Qur’an fails this test miserably, while the Bible passes with flying colors. So instead of saying, “I have no doubts that Jesus survived, because the Qur’an says he survived,” Muslims should instead say, “I have doubts about the Qur’an, because it denies Jesus’ death.”

Thus, even though this passage is supposed to give Muslims assurance of their beliefs, it (1) leaves them in doubt about what happened to Jesus, and (2) should cause them to doubt the entire Qur’an, because its claim in Surah 4 is thoroughly refuted by the facts of history. Additionally, Christians and Jews, who are said to be in doubt concerning Jesus’ death, find that our beliefs are fully confirmed by the evidence. History proves that we’re right!

How amazing, then, that so much irony and so many errors can be contained in such a short passage. Can this be the word of God?