Shabir Ally and the 1924 Qur'an

Here's a clip from Speaker's Corner on Sunday at which Jay Smith and I talked about Shabir Ally and the 1924 Qur'an.

Has the New Testament Been Substantially Edited Since It Was First Penned?

This is one of the most frequently-asked questions I encounter when attempting to explain to people the cumulative evidence which stands in support and corroboration of the Christian worldview. I probably actually get this question more frequently from the Muslim/Islamic community than I do from atheists, agnostics and other non-believers. The reason for this is not hard to see. The Qur’an not only claims that the gospels and the torah are revealed Scripture, but claims that the Qur’an and the Bible are consistent with one another (e.g. Surah 2:75; Surah 5:49; Surah 32:23; Surah 17:55). But any cursory reading of these books quickly reveals that this is not the case. And it is not merely on minor details that the Qur’an and Bible differ, but on close-to-all of their assertions. For example, the Qur’an (Surah 4:157) explicitly denies that Jesus was even crucified, though this is the core doctrine of the Christian faith. The Qur’an also explicitly denies the Triune character of God (Surah 4:171), though there is no evidence that Muhammad understood what this doctrine was, and it is substantially misrepresented in the pages of the Qur’an (e.g. Surah 2:116, 5:72-76, 5:119, 6:101, 19:35). The Qur’an also teaches that Muhammad is predicted in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures (Surah 61:6), though Muhammad is no where to be found in any of the Christian Scriptures.

Modern Muslims attempt to evade this dilemma by arguing that the Christian Scriptures were consistent with the Qur’an, in their original form, but that they have been substantially edited and re-written in the centuries thereafter. But this argument fails for at least two reasons. First, the Qur’an refers the Christians and the Jews back to their own Scriptures for confirmation of the message revealed by Islam (see my recent article here for a more detailed discussion). There is absolutely no suggestion in the Qur’an or Hadith literature, at least to my knowledge, that the Bible was regarded as having been edited in such a radical fashion.  Certainly this process of editing cannot have taken place after the Qur’an was written (we have entire copies of the New Testament which pre-date the Qur’an by hundreds of years, such as the Codex Sinaiticus). But what about before?

Yahya Snow Caught Asleep At the Wheel

The following is one of Yahya Snow’s favorite questions:

Yahya is so impressed with his question that he decided to turn it into at least three different posts over the course of three months, swapping out the title each time to contribute to the illusion of being more productive than he is and to help mask the still rather obvious truth that the vast majority of his posts are not about substantive issues but consist rather of personal attacks, one of the lowest of which is when he took a stab at Sam Shamoun on the occasion of his beloved Mother’s passing into glory. Here are the screenshots* of the two additional times Yahya posted the same thing under different titles:

In other words, most of Yahya’s attacks on the Trinity, the Lord Jesus, the prophetic and apostolic writings, etc., are just Yahya duplicating one or another of the handful of articles he has written on these topics, sprinkled in between thinly veiled defenses of terrorism, as well as outright defenses of pedophilia, tongue sucking, timeless erections awarded to Jihadis, and, most frequently, the scores and scores of new slander pieces he cranks out faster than Muhammad picked up other people’s wives and possessions. All of this seems calculated to hide the fact that Yahya doesn’t really have anything of consequence to say on the apologetic front; instead, he mostly spends his time reminding us that he doesn’t like certain people, as if that is a newsflash to those of us who know that Muslims routinely curse Jews and Christians in their hearts and prayers (q.v. Surah al-Fatiha, v. 7, and the commentary of Ibn Kathir).

Now, in answer to Yahya’s question, it would be easy to quote believing textual scholars like Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee and Daniel Wallace. Upon doing so I am only too sure that Yahya would, as usual, shift his ground and reject anything they have to say, even though he asked them for an answer, pretending all the while that the question was sincere on his part. In fact, I don’t have to guess that this is what Yahya would do since this is what he has done, deleting my responses to hide the answer from his readership, which is admittedly few in number.

Rather than repeat what I pointed out to Yahya before from Wallace and others, and rather than post this on his blog where I am sure it will not scrabble its way to the top of the muddy pond in order to see the light of day – at least not as long as Yahya has his finger on the “abrogate” button, something Allah and Muhammad also found quite useful when writing and redacting the “eternal” Qur’an, not to mention Uthman who committed additional unwanted Quranic material to the flames – I decided I would post the answer here on AM, and this time from Bart Ehrman, who so happens to be Yahya’s favorite unbelieving textual scholar.

In a revised presentation of his review and evaluation of the ECM project, originally presented to the NTC section of the Society of Biblical Literature back in 1997, Ehrman said the following:

19. In my opinion, we need to reconceptualize the task of NT textual criticism. If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we're not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are. Barring some fantastic manuscript discoveries (like the autographs) or some earth-shattering alterations in text-critical method, the basic physiognomy of our texts is NEVER going to change. I've been arguing this for several years now, sometimes to the discomfort of my colleagues in the field. But I have to say that this edition does nothing to disconfirm my view. There are masses of data now available for reconstructing the text of James--several times more witnesses than available, for example, over a century ago to Westcott and Hort. How much has this mass of evidence affected the textual complexion of the book of James? ALMOST NONE AT ALL. The two changes of the NA²⁷ text in this new attempt are completely minor. And I should point out, in both cases the text now reads exactly as it did in Westcott and Hort's edition of 1881.

20. A lot of textual scholars have fretted about this as if it were a problem. The concern seems to be that if we can't radically modify the original text, we have no business engaging in this line of work. This view strikes me personally as completely bogus. We can still make small adjustments in the text in places--change the position of an adverb here, add an article there--we can still dispute the well known textual problems on which we're never going to be agreed, piling up the evidence as we will. But the reality is that we are unlikely to discover radically new problems or devise radically new solutions; at this stage, our work on the original amounts to LITTLE MORE THAN TINKERING. There's something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that A MAJOR TASK HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, but there it is. (Bart Ehrman, “Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation,” pts. 19-20; italics original, uppercase and bold emphasis mine.)

The above is no different than what I told Yahya can be found in the teachings of Dr. Wallace and others, and it isn’t even something Ehrman recently changed his mind on after further study as is the case on other topics related to the fact that the original disciples and followers of Jesus were convinced by the resurrection and ascension that Jesus is God. As Ehrman says in the above citation, which itself was made as far back as 1997, “I’ve been arguing this for several years now…” Perhaps if Yahya didn’t spend so much time making excuses for terrorists and trying to attack the reputations of others he wouldn’t be so far behind the scholarly curve or get caught so often asleep at the wheel of his studies.

*The reason for posting screenshots rather than links is in part due to the fact that a number of Islamic apologists often take down or alter their original posts after exposure. After this maneuver they promptly deny that taqiyya has any place in Islam, and then they say that their critics have just made up the story because they are Islamophobes. 

"Miracles of the Qur'an" Part 1: An Introduction

In Christianity, there is one miracle upon which we hinge the truth of our faith: the Resurrection. If it did not happen, then Christianity is false. If it happened, and if Jesus truly is the Risen Lord, then Christianity is true.

In Islam, there is not one concrete miracle or event which determines the truth of the faith. If there is something that comes close, though, it's the Qur'an. Though not as objectively testable, a basic principle applies: if the Qur'an is from God, then Islam is true. If the Qur'an is not from God, then Islam is false. Thus, an examination of the Qur'an is certainly merited. What better place to start than to examine the Muslims' positive case?

The Positive Case for the Qur'an

The mainstay of the Muslim positive case is the stipulated "miraculous nature" of the Qur'an. Muslims argue that the miracles of the Qur'an prove it's divine origin. Here are the five miracles I have heard them use the most (in no particular order):

1 - The Numerical Miracle

2 - The Literary Miracle

3 - The Preservation Miracle

4 - The Prophetic Miracles

5 - The Scientific Miracles

Interspersed in our blogs throughout the next few weeks, we will examine these claims to varying degrees. The hope is to systematically address the positive case for the Qur'an. The deeper our investigation, the better, but depth will most likely be a function of the dialogue within the comments.

I pray that we will glorify God in this endeavour, keeping his glory at the center of our purpose.

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 Quran vs. the Bible: A Comparison of Textual Integrity

We've all seen it, and we've seen it all too often.  The topic of discussion might be Muhammad, Islamic theology, or the Quran.  When evidence that challenges the Muslim position is proffered, a regular response is: "But your Bible is corrupt...".  For examples of Muslims committing the tu quoque fallacy, you can click here, here, here, or here.  (All of these occurred on this blog in the last 10 days).

The Muslims who do this, though logically fallacious, do ultimately have a good point.  The New Testament and the Quran are the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam, and as such they merit some degree of comparison. This article compares the basics of textual integrity.  I will attempt to be as unbiased in my presentation as possible before concluding.  (+ or - denotes years from either Muhammad's death or Jesus' death).  NOTE: Detailed discussions concerning canonicity and inspiration are out of the scope of this article.

Inception of scripture:

Quran: -23 years (Recorded during Muhammad's life)

NT: +2 years (Creed from 1 Cor 15:3-8)

Number of Divinely Sanctioned Forms:

Quran: 7 ahruf (Sahih Bukhari 3.601)

NT: 1 form

Earliest Records of Corruption:

Quran: +0 (Some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39)

+12 (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817) 

NT: Uncertain, but late

State-Controlled Recension (revision) of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

State-Controlled Destruction of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

Importance of Textual Preservation for the Religion's Truth Claims:

Quran: Extreme importance (Muhammad's one sign for his truth)

NT: Peripheral importance (Jesus' main sign was his resurrection)

Discussion:

The New Testament had a period of about 3 centuries when it was not openly proliferating throughout the Roman empire.  This was because of edicts issued by Roman authorities which persecuted Christians and/or called for the destruction of the Bible (e.g. the Diocletian Edict).  During this time, a core of books was well known throughout Christendom while the rest of the books were better known in various regions.  

In addition to this, no one person controlled the manuscripts.  They were in the possession of individuals and churches who revered these scriptures and saw to their safe-keeping.  Later, when Constantine's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313 AD, people began openly assembling to officially discuss and agree upon the finer points of the Christian faith.  Thus the Council of Nicaea in 325, and later the Council of Hippo in 393 (which officially canonized the books of the NT).

Though at first glance this seems to be a mark against New Testament integrity, one thing is certain: there is extremely low possibility for textually undetectable corruption in the New Testament.  Here are the reasons:

1. If any errors crept into a manuscript being copied in, for example, Asia Minor, a manuscript from Rome would not contain those errors. Comparing the two (along with other manuscripts) would rectify the mistakes.
2. Since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the manuscripts.
   
3. Since there was no uniform revision of the all the manuscripts, surviving manuscripts can help us piece together the original text, not a revised version of that text.
4. There was no universal destruction of all the texts.  Though many attempted this, such as Diocletian, surviving manuscripts and historical accounts are proof that these attempts were unsuccessful.

The Quran, on the other hand, suffers severely on all four above counts:

1. It was controlled by one person, the khalifa (as evidenced by Uthman's ability to recall all the manuscripts).  
2. It was uniformly revised by Uthman.  
3. During this time, if any error crept into the manuscript which would serve as the official text, this error would only be detectable by comparing it to previous manuscripts.  
4. Unfortunately, all the previous manuscripts were put to the flames.
   

Thus, we can conclude the following:

1. It is virtually impossible for the New Testament to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.
   
2. It is extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.

Of course, this does not necessitate that the Quran was corrupt, it just means that it was extremely prone to textually undetectable corruption.  

But when historical data indicates missing verses as early as the death of Muhammad and the reign of Umar, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely plausible. 

 

When we add to this that Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Quran disagreed with Uthman's final product, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely likely.  

When topped off by quotations from early Muslims which say that "much of the Quran has been lost", the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes incontrovertible.

The coup de grace occurs when we realize that the Quran's textual integrity is central to the truth of Islam.  Muhammad offered the Quran as his most miraculous sign to vindicate his truth.  If the Quran is false about its protection from Allah (15:9), then Islam is false.  This is in contrast to the NT, which does not rely on its textual integrity as a sign for us.

Conclusion:

The history of the New Testament allows its text to be investigated and verified. The Quran cannot allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us such errors exist.  

When pitting the New Testament against the Quran, at least in terms of textual integrity, there is no possible way to vindicate the Quran.