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:

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:

The Original Burn the Qur'an Day

Quite possibly the greatest video ever made.



For more posts on the preservation of the Qur'an, click here.

Description: This September 11th, a church in Florida is protesting the growing influence of Islam by offending 1.5 billion people. Specifically, they're staging a "Burn the Quran" Day. But is this the first day of its kind? In fact, is today's Qur'an the Qur'an that Muhammad intended his followers to have? Let's take a look at the evidence!

Abdullah Kunde vs. Samuel Green: "The Preservation of the Bible and Qur'an"

Some of you may remember Australian Muslim debater Abdullah Kunde from his debate with James White. You should definitely know Samuel Green from his articles on Answering Islam. In these videos, Abdullah and Samuel debate the preservation of the Bible and Qur'an.

Samuel's Opening Statement


Abdullah's Opening Statement


Rebuttals


Cross-Examination

Those Who Live in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

It was asked on a previous thread (*) whether Surah 2:106 solves the problem of the missing verse on stoning. The short answer is, it doesn’t. For a slightly longer answer, see below (For those who need the back story on this issue, as well as more detailed treatments of the problems this poses for Muslims, see here)

Here is how Surah 2:106 reads in various translations:

“None of Our revelations
Do We abrogate
Or cause to be forgotten,
But We substitute
Something better or similar:
Knowest thou not that Allah
Hath power over all things?” (Yusuf Ali)

Such of our revelations as We
abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
We bring (in place) one better or the like
thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is
able to do all things? (Pickthall)

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do
We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
We bring a better one or similar to it.
Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things? (Hilali)

One problem with this would be that Muhammad never said anything to abrogate the verse on stoning, as is proven by the fact that it was only discovered to be missing from the Qur'an by Umar after the time of Muhammad’s death, and neither was it caused to be forgotten, as is once again demonstrated in the case of Umar. If Umar was nonplussed by the fact that the verse was not to be found in the Qur’an, then according to the testimony of Umar it was never abrogated. If Umar remembered the verse in order to make this observation, then the verse was not forgotten.

A second problem is that Surah 2:106 says that any verse/reveation that is abrogated or caused to be forgotten will be replaced by Allah with something better or similar. Once again this runs aground on the fact that Muhammad was dead at the time the verse on stoning was discovered to be missing. In other words, Muhammad was not around to replace the verse with another one.

In light of this, it is surely ironic that Muslims so often accuse the Jews of removing things from the Torah, such as the command to stone adulterers, and anyone familiar with Muslim commentators knows just how often this example comes up, when the command to stone adulterers is still there in the Torah to this day but is nowhere to be found in the Qur’an.

This is a prime example of the proverb, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Surely God catches the wise in their craftiness. (Job 5:14)

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.

"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.

Zaid ibn Thabit vs. Ubayy ibn Ka'b on Surah 33:6

Our Muslim friends (at least, those who have done the slightest bit of investigation) will acknowledge that there were variants among the earliest codices of the Qur'an. However, they will insist that these variants were nothing but dialectical differences, and that the perfect preservation of the Qur'an is therefore not in question. Is this the case? Let's consider a variant in Surah 33.

Surah 33:6, in the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an), reads as follows:

The Prophet is closer
To the Believers than
Their own selves,
And his wives are
Their mothers. Blood-relations
Among each other have
Closer personal ties,
In the Decree of Allah,
Than (the Brotherhood of)
Believers and Muhajirs:
Nevertheless do ye
What is just to your
Closest friends: such is
The writing of the Decree
(Of Allah).

In his popular translation of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali adds the following note.

In spiritual relationships the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer--closer to our real interests--than our own selves. In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zayd ibn Harthah by the appellation Zayd ibn Muhammad (33:40): such an application is really disrespectful to the Prophet.

Thus, according to Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's top reciters), the Zaid Standard Edition is missing the words "and he is a father of them." Ali even notes that other Qira'ahs agreed with Ubayy's! (Ali also seems to find Ubayy's version more theologically satisfying.)

Such a difference cannot possibly be attributed to dialectical issues. The question for us is this: How many variants are required if we are to reject the astounding claim that the Qur'an has been miraculously and perfectly preserved? I'd say one (though, as we've seen, there's certainly no shortage of textual difficulties for Muslims).

Aisha's Missing Prayer

Surah 2:238 of the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an) reads as follows: "Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah."

So we have (1) "prayers," and (2) "the middle prayer."

According to Aisha, something is missing from this Ayah in the ZSEQ.

Jami At-Tirmidhi 2982--Abu Yunus, the freed slave of Aishah, said: "Aisha ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: 'When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat.' So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: 'Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.' She said: 'I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.'"

Thus, according to the Mother of the Faithful, when Muhammad recited this Ayah, it referred to (1) "prayers," (2) "the middle prayer," and (3) "Salat Al-Asr." The Ayah we have in the Zaid Standard Edition, then, is not the same as the Ayah that Muhammad recited. And yet, somehow, the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved!

Ibn Mas'ud on Zaid's Mushaf

According to Ibn Mas'ud, Muhammad's top teacher of the Qur'an, Muslims are to "avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation" of Zaid ibn Thabit. Unfortunately, that's all Muslims have today!

Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104--Az-Zuhri said: "Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'"

The Bible, the Qur'an, and the Impact of Textual Change

As we've seen in recent posts, the text of the New Testament is on much firmer ground than the text of the Qur'an. While Christians in the third century had temporary disagreements on minor books of the New Testament (e.g. 3 John), we find disagreements among Muhammad's closest followers as to which books should be included in the Qur'an. Moreover, we find that individual verses, sections of Surahs, and entire Surahs are missing from the Qur'an. Beyond this, when Christians are confronted with textual variants, we are able to investigate these variants using the principles of textual criticism, along with our manuscript tradition. Muslims, on the other hand, systematically destroyed their manuscript tradition, which means that textual critics can't investigate the significant variants at all. Further, as Nabeel pointed out, universal corruption of the Qur'an was possible, since all copies of the Qur'an were at one point in the hands of Uthman. That is, at one point in Islamic history, a human being had the power to make changes in all future editions of the Qur'an. Universal corruption was never possible in Christianity, however, since no Christian ever had all manuscripts of the New Testament.

Thus, Muslims who claim that the textual transmission of the New Testament is somehow inferior to that of the Qur'an simply don't know what they're talking about. Nevertheless, there is an even more important point here, which Nabeel alluded to in his last post. Textual variants don't have the same implications in Christianity as they do in Islam. Allow me to explain.

The core of the Christian message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is primarily a message about Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Notice, however, that all three of these issues are a matter of historical investigation. Jesus' death by crucifixion was a historical event. His resurrection from the dead was a historical event. His claims to divinity were historical events. The core of Christianity, then, is open to historical investigation. Even more significant is the fact that this core of Christianity is independent of whether the New Testament was perfectly preserved or even inspired. To put the matter differently, Christianity is true if certain historical events occurred. To know that these events occurred, we need reliable records of what happened in the first century. To know that Christianity is true, then, we simply need to know that the New Testament is historically reliable when it reports Jesus' death, resurrection appearances, and claims to deity. While Christians still believe in inspiration, it is important that we recognize that inspiration is not essential to this historical core.

So what's the significance of textual variants in Christianity? These variants are only significant if they cast doubt on Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Do any textual variants do this? Not at all. I challenge Muslims to find a manuscript that does not present Jesus as the risen Lord. Our manuscripts are completely consistent on the core of Christianity, and we have numerous early witnesses who testify to the historical core of the Christian message. (Note that our belief does not rest on the word of a single person, as in Islam). We may conclude that textual variants do not affect the truth of Christianity.

Is the situation the same in Islam? Hardly. Muhammad claimed that he received the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel. According to Surah 15:9 (supposedly given to Muhammad by Gabriel), God would perfectly preserve the Qur'an. Do Muslim records of missing verses, missing sections of Surahs, and missing Surahs affect the truth of this claim? Absolutely. Does the fact that Muhammad's most reliable followers couldn't even agree on the correct number of Surahs affect this claim? Absolutely. Does the fact that Aisha's goat ate the Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling affect this claim? Absolutely.

Thus, textual variants falsify Surah 15:9, and this shows that Muhammad did not receive this verse from God. And if Muhammad did not receive this verse from God, why should we believe that he received any of the Qur'an from God? When we add to all of this the fact that Muhammad claimed, on at least one occasion, that he had delivered a revelation from the devil, that his first impression of his revelations was that they were demonic in origin, and that he was admittedly the victim of black magic, do we have a problem here? Undoubtedly.

To show that Christianity is false, Muslims need to show that the core of the Christian Gospel was completely corrupted, and they just can't do this. To show that Islam is false, Christians simply need to show that Allah didn't perfectly preserve the Qur'an, and what could be easier than this? Of course, Muslims will continue, in spite of the evidence, to proclaim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, just as they will continue, in spite of the evidence, to proclaim that Jesus never died on the cross, rose from the dead, or claimed to be divine. But this simply shows that Muslims have very little concern for truth. The facts speak for themselves.

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.

Manuscript Genocide and the Illusion of Harmony

In the comments section of our last post, Islam2009 said: "Is Mark 16:9-20 the word of God, David? Have a guess!"

I'm absolutely astounded when Muslims make these sorts of comments, not only because of their ignorance of NT criticism, but also because of their utter inconsistency.

In Christianity, we can actually investigate whether Mark 16:9-20 was originally part of the Gospel of Mark. We can examine early manuscripts (which suggest that the ending of Mark was not part of the original) and literary style (which suggests that the ending of Mark was not part of the original). Are scholars "guessing" when they say that Mark 16:9-20 wasn't part of Mark's Gospel? Not at all. Christians have the evidence, and people are free to examine it.

Let's compare this with the situation in Islam. What happens when we examine the earliest codices of the Qur'an? Nothing, since Uthman burned them all to end disputes about all the differences! We can't examine the differences between Zaid's codex and Ibn Masud's codex, since Muslims have deliberately and systematically destroyed the evidence.

I have a few questions for Islam2009.

Are Surah 1, Surah 113, and Surah 114 supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Ibn Masud (Muhammad's top choice as a teacher of the Qur'an) says no. Zaid says yes. Who's right? Have a guess, Islam2009 (though my money's on the man Muhammad believed was more reliable; feel free to go against your prophet on this one, though).

Are Ibn Ka'b's two additional Surahs supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Ibn Ka'b (Muhammad's top choice as a reciter of the Qur'an) says yes. Zaid says no. Who's right? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Aisha and Ibn Ka'b, two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Were these missing verses supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Aisha, after she wrote down the Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling and laid them under her pillow, a goat ate them. The Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling aren't part of the Qur'an today. Were they supposed to be? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Sahih Muslim, the early Muslims used to recite entire Surahs that they later forgot. Were these Surahs supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

Ibn Umar told Muslims that they shouldn't say that they have learned all of the Qur'an, since much of it is missing. Were these missing parts supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

Notice the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christian scholars are doing everything in their power to find earlier manuscripts. Christians want the earliest data, so that we can examine the evidence and make reasoned evaluations. We know that we have nothing to fear from the evidence, since the evidence always confirms what we believe. By contrast, Muslims burn their evidence, and whenever history shows that Muslim beliefs are false, Muslims reject or radically reinterpret the evidence and stubbornly cling to their falsified beliefs. Then they point a finger at Christians and say, "Look how bad the situation is in Christianity!" Yes, shame on us for respecting the evidence and going where it points. I suppose I could just deny all the evidence the way Muslims do, but I can't bring myself to embrace that sort of closed-mindedness.

The Fogg is Lifted

Due to Uthman's systematic destruction of the early Quranic manuscripts, very little evidence remains of what the great pre-Uthmanic Quran teachers taught. Much of what we know has been saved through quotations and traditions faithfully recorded by early Muslim authors such as Ibn Abi Daud (none other than the son of Abu Daud, compiler of one of the collections of sahih sittah). As fortunate as we are to have these records of early variants, very little can replace the power and poignancy of manuscript evidence.

As fate would have it, however, a palimpsest was discovered which contained a few notable similarities to the supposed Ibn Masud manuscripts. (A palimpsest is a manuscript which has been washed out and written over; the original text can still be examined, however, via UV light imaging methods). Within this manuscript are no less than seven types of variances from the standard texts of today:

1 - Different sequences of words
2 - Omissions
3 - Different words
4 - Orthographical variants
5 - Scribal errors/corrections
6 - Explanatory additions
7 - Different contexts which are a result of omitted words.

Below is an image of Fogg's Palimpsest. Notice that the scripto secunda, or the overlying text of the palimpsest, was made to match the standard text; the scripto prima, or the older text, had different wording.



Why do Muslims continue to deny the existence of Quranic variants from early Islamic history? Well, it's because they must if the Quran's claim in 15:9 is to be defended. But just how long can Muslims continue to deny the existence of variants while staring at variants? Only time will tell.

More Lost Surahs of the Perfectly Preserved Qur'an

We've seen that early Qur'anic codices contained a different number of chapters from the Qur'an we have today, and that there were numerous other differences among these early Qur'ans, including spelling differences, different words, different phrases, etc. We've seen that, according to both Aisha (the Mother of the Faithful) and Ubayy ibn Ka'b (Muhammad's greatest reciter), approximately two-thirds of Surah 33 went missing. Aisha even notes that the Verse of Suckling was eaten by a goat. Ibn Umar declares that Muslims shouldn't claim that they know the Qur'an, since much of it has been lost. And yet Muslims maintain, in spite of the evidence, that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved.

But there are other problems. In Sahih Muslim we read about entire Surahs being forgotten. One of these Surahs was about as long as Surah 9, which contains more than a hundred verses. And yet Muslims remembered practically nothing from it.

Sahih Muslim 2286: Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi. 2) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13).

This Hadith raises some important questions. Why were entire chapters of a perfect book abrogated? Since Allah promises that he will only abrogate a verse if he gives something better in its place (2:106), what did he offer in place of these perfect Surahs? Further, Muslims typically claim that abrogation only refers to changes in practice, yet we can see that there were verses in these Surahs that had nothing to do with practice. Why were these passages abrogated?

The compilation of the Qur'an was clearly a very human process involving trial and error, educated guesses, faulty memories, fallible opinions, disagreements, mistakes, ignorance, and bad decisions. And we can't forget, of course, the pile of manuscripts reduced to ashes by Uthman in his desperate attempt to destroy all evidence that the Qur'an hadn't been perfectly preserved. The early Muslim community left modern Muslims with a huge mess to clean up if they want to cling to the false belief that the Qur'an was perfectly preserved. Perhaps dedicated Muslims should follow the example of Uthman and burn all of their ahadith, commentaries, and other writings which prove, conclusively, that Allah failed to protect his revelation (as he promised he would do in Surah 15:9).

Quranically Confused: Muhammad's Chosen Teachers Against Zaid's Text

When I was still a Muslim, I had no doubt about one thing: the Qur'an was incontrovertibly perfectly preserved. I told any who asked me that there were plenty of huffaz who had memorized the Qur'an as Muhammad had revealed it. When it came time to collect the Qur'an in one codex, the verses were all well-known in the memories of the Muslims. Zaid bin Thabit just had to verify them and record them in his codex. Even the order of the surahs was known by command of the Prophet! This was a clean process, no room for error, and indisputably accurate.

Or so I thought. Having outgrown much of my chidlish naivete, I later realized that one thing must be true: if the accounts regarding the compilation of the Qur'an are much later than the compilation itself, then there is plenty of room for embellishment and sterilization of the accounts. Conversely, if an early account reports some snare in the compilation of the Qur'an or some disagreement, then this is very likely to be a true account, for three reasons: It fits the historical method's principle of early testimony, it fits the historical method's principle of embarassing admission (for what Muslim would want to invent a story which makes the transmission of the Qur'an appear sloppy?), and it would be the only logical explanation of such an account. Thus, when I read early Muslim accounts of the Quran's compilation and find that they disagreed with perfect preservation, my interest was piqued:

Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down … nor were they found with even one (person) after them.
-Ibn Abi Daud Kitab al-Masahif

After investigating the issue further, I was shocked by the preponderance of early evidence against Zaid's text. In fact, it would be accurate to believe that Muhammad himself would not consider Zaid's text to be 100% accurate! According to Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad's chosen teachers were four:

Narrated Masruq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' "
- Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61

First among Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Qur'an was ibn Masud. Yet Ibn Masud is well known to have disagreed with Zaid's text of the Qur'an. The disagreements were not limited to qirrat or minor word variations, but even the number of surahs was not something they agreed on! Ibn Masud, Muhammad's preferred teacher of the Qur'an, did not include al-Faatihah, al-Falaq, or al-Naas in his text! Ibn Masud's text contained only 111 surahs. About Zaid's text (the modern Qur'an), Ibn Masud is reported to have said the following:

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

To settle this dispute between Zaid and ibn Masud, why not turn to someone else who Muhammad chose as an excellent teacher of the Qur'an? One of the other four Muhammad hand-picked was Ubay bin Ka'b. But when we turn to Ubay, we find out that he disagreed with both Zaid and ibn Masud, and he included 116 chapters in his Qur'an! However, we do find agreement between his text and ibn Masud's text against Zaid's text (such as the ordering of the surahs) and between his text and ibn Abbas's text (such as verses that Zaid did not include). Beyond this, we find in Ubay's Qur'an verses that Umar considered part of the Qur'an (the Verses of Rajm, or Stoning) which Zaid left out, much to Umar's chagrin.

So what of the modern text of the Qur'an? Without having to make any conclusion myself, I can simply recount the data and say the following:

- Muhammad's chosen teachers disagreed with it
- They disagreed with the number of chapters
- They disagreed with the order of the chapters
- They disagreed with the content of the verses
- Even Umar agreed with Muhammad's teachers against Zaid's Qur'an

The evidence is strong, and the conclusions are overwhelming. It seems that those who gloss over these facts or deny them will remain Quranically confused.

Islam's Amazingly Unfalsifiable Claims--Part One: The Preservation of the Qur'an

Suppose my friend Bassam presents the following hypothesis: "There are undetectable aliens living on Pluto." Suppose I travel to Pluto in search of these aliens. I set up all kinds of instruments to see if there is any evidence of aliens. I return empty-handed. "Bassam," I say. "You said there were aliens on Pluto. I checked. But there aren't any." "Well," Bassam replies, "I said they're undetectable, didn't I?"

Here I would have a difficult time understanding Bassam's meaning. He's making a positive claim, namely, that there are aliens on Pluto. But at the same time, by saying that these aliens are undetectable, he's ruling out our ability to test his claim. His claim is unfalsifiable, meaning there's no way, even in theory, that we can prove his theory false via experiment or observation. How useful are such hypotheses?

Consider now the following claim made by Bassam and other Muslims: "The Qur'an has been perfectly preserved." At first, it seems like such a claim is falsifiable. That is, it seems that we can test the claim by doing some historical research. So we do a little research and we learn that Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, two of Muhammad's top reciters of the Qur'an, had a different number of Surahs in their versions of the Qur'an. One would think that this falsifies the Muslim claim. "Not so," says Bassam. "Abdullah and Ubayy were simply wrong. The Qur'an we have today is, by definition, the correct one. Hence, everyone who has a different number of chapters must be wrong." So, given such a claim, even if we were to find out that every single one of Muhammad's companions except Zaid ibn Thabit had a different number of Surahs, this wouldn't count as any evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, since, by definition, only the Qur'an we have today is the correct one.

So we do a little more investigation. We find that there were all kinds of textual variants among early Qur'anic texts. That is, if we were to turn to Surah 2 in the Qur'an of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, this Surah would differ from that in the Qur'an of Ibn Masud, which would differ from that in the Qur'an of Zaid ibn Thabit, etc. These Qur'ans have spelling differences, different words, different phrases, etc. Surely this will count as evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, won't it? "No, it won't," replies the Muslim. "You see, there were seven [or ten, or twenty] different readings of the Qur'an, and all of them were correct." Here we find that there can be all sorts of differences among copies of the Qur'an, and yet this doesn't at all affect the hypothesis that the Qur'an we have today is a perfect copy of the tablet in heaven.

We dig deeper in search of the truth, and we find Muslim sources reporting that massive sections of the Qur'an have been lost. We find Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b reporting that more than a hundred verses of Surah 33 are missing. Surely this will count as proof that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved. "Not so," says the Muslim. "Whatever verses are missing from the Qur'an have been abrogated (despite the fact that the Qur'an contains other verses that have been abrogated). You see, Allah changed his mind quite a bit, and he often gave us verses, only to take those verses back." Thus, we find that no matter how much evidence there is that numerous verses are missing from the Qur'an, this will never count as any evidence whatsoever against perfect preservation.

Here non-Muslims are quite confused. Were the missing verses of Surah 33 part of the tablet in heaven? If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is very different from the Qur'an in heaven. If not, then why were they revealed as part of the Qur'an? While we're at it, does the perfect Qur'an in heaven contain all seven readings (this would be quite an odd book). If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is quite different from the Qur'an in heaven, since Uthman destroyed most (but not all) of the different readings. If not, weren't the variants corruptions of the original, which contained no variants?

In the end, no matter what the evidence says, Muslims will continue to claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, for they have insulated themselves from the evidence (and this is extremely common in Islam). But non-Muslims are left asking ourselves, "What is the difference between, on the one hand, a perfectly preserved book whose early copies contain different numbers of chapters, different verses, different spellings, different words, different phrases, a different order of chapters, and which, at different times, contained completely different passages (for some were abrogated), and, on the other hand, a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved at all?" As far as evidence is concerned, there is no difference between the Qur'an and a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved, which is why the Muslim claim makes so little sense to anyone who isn't a Muslim.

Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b on the 100+ Verses Missing from Surah 33

Muslims claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. They can only make this claim, however, by employing their standard apologetic strategy--namely, rejecting their own sources and calling the early Muslim scholars "liars." As I argued here, such an approach will ultimately lead to skepticism about Muhammad. But if this is how Muslims want to argue, so be it.

Indeed, I'd like to see my Muslim friends reject even more commentary from early Muslims, who were in a better position to know what really happened. Let's consider two passages in which Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's most trusted reciters of the Qur'an) and Aisha (the "Mother of the Faithful") declare that approximately two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Both passages are taken from Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fada'il-al-Qur'an.

Ibn Abi Maryam related to us from Ibn Luhai'a from Abu'l-Aswad from Urwa b. az-Zubair from A'isha who said, "Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today."

Isma'il b. Ibrahim and Isma'i b. Ja'far related to us from al-Mubarak b. Fadala from Asim b. Abi'n-Nujud from Zirr b. Hubaish who said--Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three," I answered. Said he, "Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the verse of Stoning."

I brought up Aisha's claim in a debate with Bassam, and Bassam, if I recall correctly, confidently proclaimed that the passage had been "fabricated." I hereby ask my friend Bassam to provide evidence that the Muslims in the chains I've presented were inventing false claims about the Qur'an. I would also like Bassam to say that Abu Ubaid (who was called "the ocean of knowledge" by his fellow Muslims) was ignorant and sloppy in his investigation of these passages.

(Note: If you ever wondered what happened to the "Verse of Stoning," which was supposed to be part of the Qur'an but instead came up missing, Ubayy ibn Ka'b says above that it fell out with the other 100+ missing verses of Surah 33).