Answering Muslims: Manuscript Genocide and the Illusion of Harmony

Home

Sunday, January 11, 2009

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.

Posted by David Wood at 1:07 PM

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Labels: Qur'an (Preservation)

83 comments:

Matthew said...: I make a prediction, using a magic book which lacks so much eloquence that it must be from God:

All those statements are derived from unreliable sources, because early islamic scholars just love to make up absurd statements to test the faith of good muslims.

Let's see what will happen.; January 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: That's a good prediction, Matthew.

Here's another one:
"We can't trust these statements - only Muslims are trustworthy, and no Muslim would say this kind of thing! ... Oh, wait, Muslims said these things? Well, they are not from early Islam! Th... these are from early Islam, hmmm... Okay, then these are from apocryphal, untrustworthy people! ..wait, these are reputable sources. Well, they're not from the sahih sittah! ... what? Some of them are? Oh, then they're not from Bukhari or Muslim! ... What, Bukhari and Muslim say this kind of thing, too?! Well darn, how can I possibly deny these evidences? Aha! I got it: these words must mean something other than what they mean! Yeah! See, you Christians are dumb."; January 11, 2009 at 2:38 PM
David Wood said...: Here's the ultimate response:

(1) The Qur'an is our highest authority.

(2) Accounts of Qur'anic variants and disagreements about the text don't occur in the text of the Qur'an.

(3) Surely, if stories of variants and disagreements were authentic, Allah would have told us about them in the Qur'an.

(4) Thus, we don't have to believe that there have ever been variants or disagreements concerning the Qur'an.

(5) Hence, since we have no evidence of variants or disagreements, we can conclude that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved.

(6) Surely any text which has been perfectly preserved must be the word of God.

Wham! Pow!; January 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Bryant said...: Thanks David and Nabeel. You both make me so proud and unashamed to be a Christian. I cannot wait to see the crown God will give to you both.; January 11, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Matthew said...: Accounts of Qur'anic variants and disagreements about the text don't occur in the text of the Qur'an.

Have you ever compared Surah 15:28-38 with Surah 38:71-81?; January 11, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: Not to interupt the flow of the topic, but Nabeel is it a rumour or is it true that you studied apologetics at Biola? Would you recommend the course? Did study in Biola or on a distance?; January 11, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: Elijah--

I did study at Biola. I did my MA through the modular program, where we spent part of the summer in CA taking classes and we'd write papers and do discussions online the rest of the year.

I think Biola was a great school. If I had the choice, I would have studied there full time instead of through the modular program. But if you cannot do that, the modular program is great.

Are you thinking about an MA in apologetics?; January 11, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: I am doing MA already in Christian Origins and the Historical Jesus, but I have considered the distant study at Biola. They have considered to open a summer seminar in UK. I guess time is the only problem. This year its gona be an Mphil hopefully in New Testament Textual criticism, I just don't know how much is left for anything else, and I am pretty much drowning in work due to my dissertation already.
How many hours per month were you required to work on for example assignments, reading, discussion?; January 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: oh sorry yeah, I was thinking about the MA program or the modular, but as I understand the modular is also an MA degree, or am I wrong?; January 11, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Nakdimon said...: Nabeel: "Here's another one:
"We can't trust these statements - only Muslims are trustworthy, and no Muslim would say this kind of thing! ... Oh, wait, Muslims said these things? Well, they are not from early Islam! Th... these are from early Islam, hmmm... Okay, then these are from apocryphal, untrustworthy people! ..wait, these are reputable sources. Well, they're not from the sahih sittah! ... what? Some of them are? Oh, then they're not from Bukhari or Muslim! ... What, Bukhari and Muslim say this kind of thing, too?! Well darn, how can I possibly deny these evidences? Aha! I got it: these words must mean something other than what they mean! Yeah! See, you Christians are dumb."

Lol! Let me add my $0.02.

Usually when they finally come to the "Bukhari and Muslim" argument, they go: "well, that story is either weak or fabricated".

The fabricated-argument I get all the time on Paltalk!

Nakdimon; January 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Nakdimon said...: David, Nabeel (and all who make this blog a success as well), just as an act of encouragement, here is what I got in my message box on my youtube page. I thought that it might be to you as an encouragement as well:

BECAUSE OF YOU AND DAVID, SAM, AND JAMES WHITE, YOU GUYS HAVE CHANGED MY LIFE I MEAN THAT FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, I WAS ONCE MUSLIM BUT BECAUSE OF U GUYS I GOT TO KNOW CHRIST, THANK YOU

HaKadosh, baruch hu! (The Holy One, blessed be he!); January 12, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Matthew said...: well, that story is either weak or fabricated

Would anyone like to have a guess what kind of muslim would fabricate the satanic verses, a surah eaten by a goat or muhammed's favored teachers disagreeing with each other?; January 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Islam2009 said...: Hi David,

Thanks for dedicating a whole new thread on your website just for me..

I’m flattered. :-)

You wrote:

<< 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. >>>>

So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best. Very good..

Now with that methodology in mind , lets look at your questions:

<< 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 >>>

How many recites/ MANUCRIPTS of the Quran miss these suras??... ZERO. So it’s a FACT not a guess.

<<< 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. >>>

How many reciters/MANUSCRIPTS of the Quran contain these extra ‘suras’..ZERO. So it’s a FACT not a guess.

Do you understand the difference now David???

When I point to a variant in your NT, I do so DIRECT FROM YOUR MANUSCRIPTS.

Yet every single “variant” you point to in the Quran regarding different Sura counts comes merely from apocryphal 10th century **REPORTS** that you have failed miserably to historically authenticate.

You best attempt was this:

<< Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of one of the most renowned collectors of ahadith, has given us a tremendous list of differences in the early copies of the Qur'an. >>

Now how desperate can you get?

So because someone’s dad is a decent scholar, then they must be too? What kind of comical historical methodology is that? Most Americans think that George Bush Snr was a smart guy, but think that his son is a complete idiot. You cant judge someone by their parents. Even Jesus admitted his father was greater then he was in John 14:28. ;-)

And for he millionth time David, Ibn Dawood HIMSELF states multiple times -such as on P.12- that the companions of the Prophet all agreed with the Uthmanic Quran, so even your own source refutes you!

Now If you can’t read that in Arabic for yourself, then I suggest you refer to your so-far mythical online translation of it by Jeffery of it that you claim exists.

So to drum this in again for you once more David, both your favourite apocryphal source of ibn Dawood AND every MANUCSRIPT of the Quran we have confirms a 114 sura Quran with not a single verse added or removed by any scribe, unlike with the NT whose own MANUSCRIPTS prove its corruption.

As for all your other claims, its not exactly a big secret that verses were cancelled given that the Quran mentions abrogation, so that’s no problem at all for us since we believe that God can cancel his own words. Don’t you believe that?

Oh, and by the way, how many rectires/Manuscripts of the Quran contain ANY of these abrogated verses?? ..ZERO!

Hence yet again we have PHYSICAL PROOF from the 7th century itself onwards of the outstanding Muslim unity regarding what the Quran is and is not.

So yet again David, your failure as a debater on this topic is quite luminous.

Now back to your NT guess.

You say that Mark 16:9-20 is NOT the word of God.

Interesting guess David!

Then why is it in my King James Bible as the word of God? If its such an obvious forgone conclusion that it is so blatantly not original as you make out, then why is it not removed altogether?

Why should the corruption of a scribe sit alongside the word of God?

Could it be because – amazingly David- not every Christian today guesses the same way you do ?

Including some of your fellow Evangelicals who actually think it IS the ‘Word of God’?

After all, how can you blame them for thinking that given that it is in most of your MANUSCRIPTS of Mark?

And didn’t Christians like you believe that it was the Word of God with out question for HUNDRENDS of years during the years of the Texus recptus/King James version?

The only reason you GUESS it’s not in the NT is on the basis of manuscripts that were not discovered till only about 100-150 years ago, so BEFORE you happened to STUMBLE upon these MSS by chance, how were Christians supposed to know that it was not the ‘Word of God”??

This is all your NT is, my friend.

A corrupted text that is constantly ‘updated’ and amended based upon the chance discovery of the manuscripts you just so happen to find- and even when you find them, you STILL cant agree on how to regard them.

Now were is the Holy Spirit in all this?

So much for “scripture cannot be broken” and “my words will never pass away”. Looks like Jesus’s words in Mark 16 passed away after 1,900 years when you discovered Codex Sinaticus.

If I live to be a million David, I will never understand how Christians who know this can still believe that such a book is the ‘Word of God’.

That is truly “absolutely outstanding”.

Please open your eyes, brother.

All of you here.

Best Regards.; January 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Javier said...: Islam2009 said,

So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best. Very good..

No. Thats not at all what David said:

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.

You misrepresented David totally in what he said. You should actually go back and re-read the blogpost.

Astounding the level of twisting and turning a Muslim will stoop to.

And on top of that you created arguments from the position that David doesn't even hold! Truly, Muslims have to be deluded.; January 12, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Fernando said...: Javier said: you created arguments from the position that David doesn't even hold!... Mie friend Javier... the probleme is thate muslims like Islam2009 (I still believe this's not his true name... but I have seen more imbelibeble things in mie life...) don't habe a clue aboute christian theology or scientificd hermeneutics, so, since they don't grasppe christian arguments, they sticke to whate they beliebe we christians are saying and buide an amayzing cloud castle from there, juste to beggine shoutting out loud: «I defeated you withe mie astonoshing powers of invesible inteligence...»; January 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Islam2009 said...: JAVIER

<< So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best. Very good..

You misrepresented David totally in what he said. You should actually go back and re-read the blogpost. >>

What on earth are you talking about??

So are you saying Textual critics DON’T look at which manuscripts contain mark 16:9-20 and which others don’t in arriving that their decision as to its authenticity?

How is what I said a misquote?

I sure hope David can muster a better ‘rebuttal’ than that Javier.

Isn’t he supposed to be some kind of hot-shot, world class, Evangelical apologist?

Doesn’t seem like it so far..

And BTW Javier thanks for answering my questions at the end.

Still, lets wait for your ‘main man’ David to reply.

Regards; January 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Moi said...: Islam2009: where did professor Wood, like you said he did, said that «Mark 16:9-20 is NOT the word of God»?; January 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Ibn said...: Brother Islam2009.
Even in the face of insults and ridicule, you have kept your cool.May Allah bless you for being patient with a people who are not interested in the truth.

You might enjoy reading the debate I had with Nakdimon on Muhammad(saw)'s marriage to Zaynab.
It is in the comments section of the topic "Response to Javier".; January 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: islam2009 wrote:

How many recites/ MANUCRIPTS of the Quran miss these suras??... ZERO. So it’s a FACT not a guess.

<<< 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. >>>

How many reciters/MANUSCRIPTS of the Quran contain these extra ‘suras’..ZERO. So it’s a FACT not a guess.

Do you understand the difference now David???

Elijah replies:

Good grief is there any oxygin on this man's planet???

To answer your question, obviously not a single manuscript or reciter after Uthman's suppression of the Qur'anic original material contains it.

Muslims worldwide are following a revised standard version composed of a multiple number of variant Qur'ans that preceeded it.

Somehow you completely missed the point that these very preceeding Qur'ans included these variants, not the corrupt Uthmanic revised standard version which Muslims today adhere to.

So is it a fact that the Uthmanic version and the copies or reciters of it does not include the two extra suras? YEAH, but it does not solve the problem that preceding Qur'an's that differed from Uthamn's revised version included them.

Just contemplate over your response for a moment, you seem to mix up the pre-Uthmanic era of Qur'anic flexibility with the post-Uthmanic era of Qur'anic textual and recital suppression.

Anyway I will let Wood give you a more detailed response.; January 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: islam2009 wrote:

When I point to a variant in your NT, I do so DIRECT FROM YOUR MANUSCRIPTS.

Elijah replies:

Exactly, good point, where are these manuscripts you otherwise could have assessed? Burned! Exactly Burned!!! Does it not smell a bit odd!!! If you can burn the Word of God, I am pretty sure you can corrupt too!!!; January 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Matthew said...: So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best.

When someone horribly misrepresents the field of textual criticism, that should be a warning sign.; January 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: Islam2009: So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best.

Wow, Islam2009. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. It seems to me that you're dead set on twisting arguments. Did David say we determine the original text based off of "what we like best"? Absolutely not. There are criteria! Well known criteria.

You know that. You are intentionally misrepresenting his argument to make it appear as if your argument is better. That is pride, not honesty.

I have not been in ministry long enough (even though I haven't even been a Christian for more than 3.5 years) to know this: don't allow anything to consume inordinate amounts of your time. It's too precious. You are doing just that. You deliberately misrepresent our arguments, ignore our main points, called me a liar three times (twice after we specifically pointed out to you that this is taken offensively, and after your accusations were proven wrong by everyone in attendance!) and distort history to suit your own interests. In the face of the amount of time it takes to respond to you and your apparent insincerity, I will cease responding with long responses to your posts.

I pray that God will take you into His hands as a special project, showering his guiding wisdom and refining love upon you, my friend. I hope he will take malice and slander out of your heart and replace it with His Spirit. I pray to the Most High of this universe that you will be filled with the joy of the truth, my friend.

Shall I continue trying to reach your intellect? No, you have walled it off. I will turn you over to the hands of the living God. You are in my prayers.

Sincerely,
-Nabeel; January 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Matthew said...: Maybe we should elaborate on textual criticism:

We can't just pick any manuscript we want and say "This is 100% like the original!"
We have to look at the language, the handwriting and other manuscripts. If the evidence shows "This is different than the original", we have to accept it.

But this is also true for the Quran. And muslims usually reject textual criticism out of hand and/or try to keep things silent (does the name Gerd R. Puin come to mind?).; January 12, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Bryant said...: People like Islam2009 debate just for argument sake. It is not about trying to come closer to God, or help others come closer to the truth. Its about winning an argument and frustrating the apposing view in the process. When someone's heart is like this, their pride will never allow them to see the error in their reasoning. They may hide under the banner of "defending Islam" or "defending Christianity" but its really about their own ego.

Just think of how Satan fell. He was in the midst of pure truth. He was in the midst of God Himself. Yet, his pride blinded him and he chose death. If Satan saw God face to face and chose death because of his pride, how much more will certain men who never saw or knew God from the start choose death because of their pride.; January 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Nakdimon said...: "You deliberately misrepresent our arguments, ignore our main points, called me a liar three times (twice after we specifically pointed out to you that this is taken offensively, and after your accusations were proven wrong by everyone in attendance!) and distort history to suit your own interests. "

Yeah, to think that Ibn just called Islam2009's post "truth". These guys have a very skewed view of "truth".

But hey, when history blatantly contradicts Islam, they still pronounce Islam to be the "truth".

So no matter what we can prove, no matter what the evidence tells you, evidence to the contrary must give way when it comes to the "truth".

Nakdimon; January 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Javier said...: What on earth are you talking about??

What you said.

So are you saying Textual critics DON’T look at which manuscripts contain mark 16:9-20 and which others don’t in arriving that their decision as to its authenticity?

Please, do I have to quote what you said now? You obviously are aware that you created a strawman and then tore it down to champion your anti-Christian buffonery. David clearly outlined a means of establishing the text, its not that we merely compare one manuscript with another, but that we compare earlier with latter and he listed more criteria. In your poorly constructed summation of his argument you implied that Christians simply chose arbitrarily what is to be contained in the text. But that is not the case. If you would *listen* to what David said, and then proceeded to argue on this basis you could, perhaps, formulate a consistent argument. Of course, in the Circus of Islamic apologia there is nothing more we can expect.

How is what I said a misquote?

See above.

I sure hope David can muster a better ‘rebuttal’ than that Javier.

A rebuttal to what? You didn't attack his position. That is my point.

Isn’t he supposed to be some kind of hot-shot, world class, Evangelical apologist?

If I were a 'hot-shot apologist' I wouldn't condescend to your level of foolishness.

Doesn’t seem like it so far..

How would you know? You haven't engaged him.

And BTW Javier thanks for answering my questions at the end.

What questions?; January 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Javier said...: You might enjoy reading the debate I had with Nakdimon on Muhammad(saw)'s marriage to Zaynab.
It is in the comments section of the topic "Response to Javier".

Response to me? Where is this?; January 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM
The Fat Man said...: Dont forget the Jew's aka Joosh, aka zionist. We all know they corrupted the muslims books :); January 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Javier said...: For the sake of clarity, I know better than to justify child brides with pointing out the opponents use of child brides. I'm not that fallacious.

I am not that Javier.

(I didn't know my name was so common); January 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM
jeeijoe said...: "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."

Well, you aren't much better yourself given your grossly ignorant rantings on Quranic studies. Your entire case is built upon a grand conspiracy theory involving Uthman -- a follower/companion of Muhammed and someone within his inner circles and who actually enjoyed widespread support at the time -- half truths, misrepresentations and gross exaggerations.

"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!"

This is based on the unstated presumption -- for which you have presented not a shred of proof -- that Uthmanic copies were radically or substantially or massively different from what went before them. Therefore, you are comparing the NT situation with an exaggerated misrepresentation of the what the sources have to say about Quranic compilation under Uthman.

The fact that we are told that the Uthmanic copies were composed on the basis of the earlier writings is conveniently ignored. The fact that Uthman was himself one of Muhammed's closest companion and confident, his son in law, is ignored. The fact that numerous other close companions of Muhammed were working closely with Uthman is ignored. The fact that Uthman enjoyed widespread approval at this time and from Muhammed's companions is ignored.

A similar situation in Christianity would be as follows: Jesus' closest disciple, for example Peter, decides to collect a book containing nothing but Jesus' authentic teachings and words. In this task he is assisted by many other disciples of Jesus, such as James, John, Matthew and others. They all are pleased with the outcome, being sure it represents accurately Jesus' teachings and words. The followers of these disciples also openly accept the end product. The group of disciples, led by Peter, now decide it is best to get rid of the earlier fragments and incomplete copies – which represent ones individual efforts, containing minor mistakes/slips, often being incomplete fragments, occasionally containing material other than Jesus’ words/deeds, thus having the potential of misleading or confusing new members of the church, who did not personally witness Jesus. Moreover, these earlier fragments, scraps and books were used as a basis for the authoritative copy, with their authentic material being incorporated within it, the product the outcome of the combined efforts of multiple close disciples of Jesus belonging to his inner circle. Thus, there is no need for the previous material any more. Now suppose you have one odd follower of Jesus who is upset. He is upset as he was not included in this activity and, moreover, he is requested to submit his own private collection of Jesus' words and deeds. We will call this disciple Jonathan Mann just for the sake of giving him a name. J. Mann does not ever doubt the reliability of the collection composed by Jesus' disciples led by Peter, but he is very upset for having to part with his own book and feels upset at not being involved in the project.

I think it is highly unlikely you as Christians would doubt the authenticity of the material collected by the combined effort of multiple disciples of Jesus DESPITE an odd disciple’s protest, who, nonetheless, does not raise doubts over the reliability of the end product. You have a bunch of Jesus' close disciples giving their seal of approval to their collection. So, there is no reason for us to be hyper sceptical in this instance.

But these reasonable considerations you are not willing to give to Uthman's project, even though Ibn Masud never raises a word of doubt over its authenticity.

"We can't examine the differences between Zaid's codex and Ibn Masud's codex, since Muslims have deliberately and systematically destroyed the evidence."

But what reason is there to suppose from the outset that the two were supposedly radically, substantially, or majorly different, particularly when Ibn Masud is among the
reciter/transmitter of the current Quran and particularly when he did not question the authenticity of the Uthmanic copies? You have merely presumed that the two were substantially different without offering any argumentation for this a priori conclusion.

There are other problems with your approach. Once we consider all the variants attributed to Ibn Masud, we note that in fact there are not substantial differences between the Uthmanic copies and Ibn Masud's codex. The two are overwhelmingly the same, except for minor differences and difference in surah order (for which there are reasonable explanations).

Moreover, not every variant attributed to Ibn Masud, or to his codex, is authentic. The vast majority are secondary for a variety of reasons (details I might give later as I am in a rush right now).

So your entire feat is based on gross exaggerations, inaccuracies and blatant disinformation.

"Are Surah 1, Surah 113, and Surah 114 supposed to be part of the Qur'an? "

Yes.

"Ibn Masud (Muhammad's top choice as a teacher of the Qur'an) says no."

Actually this is disputed. You are presenting a highly disputed issue as if it were a "confirmed fact", thus indicating your ill-intention. Arguments can be (and have been) made for both positions. Al-Nadim points to copies attributed to Ibn Masud lacking these surahs, including one containing the Fatiha (these alleged copies of Ibn Masud are almost certainly much later forgeries). Ibn Masud's followers recited them and do not report their teacher dismissing them as non-Quranic. Ibn Masud's friends, such as Ubay and all the rest, accepted these surahs as well. Thus the claim that Ibn Masud, going against this tide, did not deem these surahs to be Quranic is unlikely and an odd report. It is unlikely how Ibn Masud could not have known that these two most common surahs were a part of the Quran.

But, for arguments sake, let us suppose Ibn Masud did believe they were not part of the Quran. What do we do with the tonnes of other companions of Muhammed who did not doubt their authenticity? By what logic should Ibn Masud's verdict override the verdict of all the rest? Could it not be that Ibn Masud was mistaken?

"Zaid says yes. Who's right? "

It isn't just Zaid who said 'yes'. You have close companions of Muhammed such as Uthman, Ubay, and all the rest giving an affirmative reply as well. We have one odd individual -- even then it is unlikely this was his view -- going against the unanimous verdict of all the rest. So we need not make a "guess" here; we can confidently state that both surahs have always been an integral part of the Quran.

"though my money's on the man Muhammad believed was more reliable"

Where does Muhammed say that Ibn Masud was "more reliable" -- thus implying more reliable than, say, Uthman, Zaid, Ubay etc? Nowhere as far as I can tell.

Yes, Ibn Masud was an authoritative Quran teacher, but so were others, such as the ones named above. Hence, we have one authoritative teacher going against multiple equally authoritative and reliable teachers. Who is more likely to be right?

And again, is there really evidence to show that Ibn Masud likely did not accept these surahs? There isn't.

"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."

More distortions. No one needs to "guess" here. There are no "two additional" surahs accepted by Ubay. Note he is one of the companion working closely with Uthman. Why are the two "additional surahs" absent in the copies he prepared with Uthman? Ubay is also a transmitter of the current Quran, which obviously lacks the two Qunut prayers. Ubay transmits only that which we find today. The two "additional surahs" -- for which there is no evidence that Ubay regarded them to be a part of the Quran -- are popular prayers, known as 'Qunut', which Muslims still recite.

So, Ubay, Ibn Masud, Zaid and all the rest do not include the Qunut as part of the Quran.

But again, for arguments sake, let us say that you are right. In this case, why does the evidence of one obliterates the evidence of all the rest? How does the argument work? Why pick one odd fellow, who is going against the masses, and conclude he is right and all the rest wrong? This does not seem very scholarly.

"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."

I do not know about the authenticity of the above report, but there is still no need to "guess." Muslims accept that not every revelation became a permanent part of the Quran. That some sections eventually ceased to be a part of the Quran. This is known as naskh, or abrogation of the recital. Thus, assuming the above report is authentic, we would say that the two-thirds was revealed by God and was a part of the Quran -- but only for a temporary period. Its recitation was later abrogated though God's order and it is no longer deemed a part of the Quran. Ayesha, Ubay, Ibn Masud, Zaid, Uthman, and all the rest, do not regard it as part of the Quran any more or lament its loss.

"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."

This is abrogation. God abrogated these parts and the community very quickly collectively forgot them – a miracle of God. Therefore, these forgotten surahs used to be a part of the Quran but no longer as their recitation was abrogated by God.

"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."

Also abrogation. Yes, these parts used to be the Quran, but for a temporary period, until their recitation was abrogated by God. So no longer are they a part of the Quran.

The current Quran represents the final recitation by Muhammed and contains within it all the bits meant to be a permanent part, lacking only the bits whose recitation God abrogated. Therefore, not all of the revelations became a permanent part of the Quran.

Having said this, the authenticity of specific instances of alleged recital abrogation is disputed among scholars.

"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."

Which "evidence" is supposed to "always confirm" what you "believe"? That's a bizarre comment. Do elaborate upon this. Historical Jesus studies, which consider and critically evaluate the earliest sources, severely undermine the historicity of your beliefs about Jesus. But you do not accept these results. Instead, you chose to stick with your misguided beliefs.

Now, sticking with textual criticism, the past 2-3 decades have seen a significant change in textual criticism and made things far more confusing. Today there is talk about the "multivalence" of the term "original text" and a realization that the earliest period, the first 100-150 years of transmission, were the most creative, so much so that the vast bulk of variations in the NT mss tradition are believed to have emerged in this period, a period from which no NT mss evidence survives. Unlike earlier generations of textual critics, modern textual critics have realized the NT texts were altered also for theological reasons and that there are variations in the NT text which have theological significance.

"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."

Many problems here:

1. the burnt bits were used by Uthman and his team to compose the multiple Quranic copies -- the former were a basis for the latter; a comparison of all variants attributed to the individual copies of companions do not reveal a substantially different Quranic form and most variants, btw, have been deemed to be secondary by scholars (including Noldeke); and we know of no companion of Muhammed who doubted the authenticity of the contents of the Uthmanic copies, INCLUDING IBN MASUD. So no point exaggerating here. You cannot do much here apart from repeating your bogus mantra of burning like a parrot.

2. Which "history shows" precisely which "Muslims beliefs" as allegedly "false" which Muslims then allegedly "radically reinterpreted" or "stubbornly" clung to? Be specific here instead of launching angry vague assertions. Write like a sober minded Phd student for a change please.

Now let me be specific, you continue to stubbornly regard the NT as inerrant when scholarship has proven their errancy for a long time; you regard GJohn to be fully historical even when almost all of scholarship, including many conservatives, have shown it to be a later interpreted account; you stubbornly stick to your evangelical Jesus when historical Jesus studies have overwhelmingly gravely undermined its historicity.

"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."

Yes, the situation is astonishingly bad for the bulk of your falsified beliefs. I would say shame on you for NOT respecting the evidence and going where it points. I so wish you would just follow the evidence, as it would lead you away for the falsity of your beliefs.; January 13, 2009 at 3:14 AM
Nakdimon said...: This is based on the unstated presumption -- for which you have presented not a shred of proof -- that Uthmanic copies were radically or substantially or massively different from what went before them.

Jeeijoe,

Can you name me a few plausible reasons why someone would burn the preceding (including the original) manuscripts of a copy that he made of a perfect book if those preceding manuscripts were the same? I will ask 3 questions and any Muslim can answer if he feels called by his god to do so.

1) If they weren’t the same as the original or the preceding copies they how can you make the claim of “perfect preservation”?

2) If it’s not necessary identical to the original, then to what extend can the copies differ from the original to be considered either “perfectly preserved” or “corrupted”?

3) Muslims make a whole lot of textual variants in the Bible, and are quick to point us to those variants to try to back up their claim that the Bible is corrupted. But, as said before, from your own sources we know that:

a) Mas’ud had 116 surahs in his codex
b) Ka’b had 111 surahs in his codex (God knows how many others had in THEIR codices)
c) Today’s Qur’an has 114 surahs
d) The verse of Suckling is missing
e) The verse of Stoning was missing
f) Ibn ‘Umar says that the first Muslims couldn’t claim that they had memorized the entire Qur’an
g) Certain verses could only be found with one particular person. Which poses a problem with the battle @ Yamama, where a great number of reciters were killed. Since some verses could only be found at one particular person, who weren’t even among the best reciters of Muhammad, who can tell if there is not much more of the Qur’an was lost that could only be found in the memory of the reciters that died at Yamama?
h) Hafsa had the earliest “complete” copy of the Qur’an we have today. What happened to that manuscript?
(brothers, if there are more points that I missed feel free to add to the list)
Therefore, taking all this into consideration, why use double standards and claim corruption when it comes to the Bible, but when it comes to the Qur’an which, given it’s background as listed above has a much weaker textual transmission, it suddenly is “perfectly preserved”?

And if you want to hide behind the “Ahruf”-argument, then we can also make the claim that the Gospels as we find them in the NT are 4 “Ahrufs” in which Yeshua revealed the Injeel to his disciples.

So Muslims give it your best shot!

Nakdimon; January 13, 2009 at 4:40 AM
Nakdimon said...: Oops! I should have wrote that Mas'ud had 111 and that Ka'b had 116 surahs.; January 13, 2009 at 4:49 AM
Fernando said...: Goode work brother Javier... I've been saying the same fore a lott of time... muslim apologists consider "arguments" everything that emerges in their minds even if it doesn't have a single connection with the reallitie or with the truth... I'me makking an anthologie of the lies and scientific errores presented in this blogg by muslime bloggers... If it was going to bee published, it woulde have to be done in, at least, 2 volumes...; January 13, 2009 at 4:53 AM
Matthew said...: Well, you aren't much better yourself given your grossly ignorant rantings on Quranic studies.

Even if a choir of angels would start singing "Gerd R. Puin", muslims would still ignore him, which makes this rather ironic.; January 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Islam2009 said...: Greetings all!!

Well since David has done an “abracadabra! Presto!” disappearing act, i respond to his apprentices instead..

To Mathew, Javi, Nabeel, Hogan...

You all accuse me of misquoting David’s stated ‘criteria’ regarding how NT textual Critics decide whether Mark 16:9-20 (to use one example of many) is part of what the ‘inspired’ gospel author originally wrote.

This is what David Said:

<< 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). >>>

This is what i said:

<< So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best. Very good.. >>

Now when a decision is reached as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is original and hence the Word of God or not....

Are manuscripts of Mark that both contain and omit that passage compared in their Quality and dating??

YES OR NO?

And are not individual manuscripts then assigned a ‘weighting’ as to how important their testimony

YES OR NO?

Have not one of you Christians heard the popular first rule of thumb of NT textual critism that “manuscripts are weighted and not counted?”

So no misquote here at all. Only empty accusations designed to avoid the issues you cant handle..

Now the only other ‘criteria’ that David mentioned was “literary style” that he suggests says it is not the ‘original’.

Really??

How so???

Please enlighten me as to your exact brake-down of how the “literary style” of Mark 16:9-20 doesn’t quite live up to your expectations.

And don’t some NT scholars consider that John 1:1-18 is not part of the original Gospel of John on the sole basis of its odd “literary style”?

So don’t you think we should toss that passage out too??

But, oh wait!!... Let me guess!!

You’re going to now tell me that because John 1:1-18 is found In EVERY **MANUSCRIPT** of John, then these scholars have no argument, right??

That brings me so neatly onto my whole point...

The sole point i was making here is that a decision as to what constitutes the Word of God or not is based on ***MANUSCRIPTS***

Now If David were consistent in that methodology and criteria, he would not have embarrassed himself by asking all the questions he did about whether there are 114 or 116 or 111 Suras in the Quran because every single one of our **MANUSCRIPTS** from the very FIRST CENUTIRY onwards says 114 suras. Period.

So that is not even a question for textual critics and David’s analogy is a bogus one that lies in tatters on the floor...

Now Hogan wrote:

<< So is it a fact that the Uthmanic version and the copies or reciters of it does not include the two extra suras? YEAH, but it does not solve the problem that preceding Qur'an's that differed from Uthamn's revised version included them. >>

Hogan where have you been for the last few days?

Please try and keep up here because you are falling behind the rest of the class, my friend.

Read the other thread on the 7 dialects..

1) What did Uthman Burn?? READ THAT SAME HADITH. He burned any MSS that was not in the DIALECT of Qurash to united Muslims on ONE DIALECT.

Now are the other non-Qurashi manuscripts (like Ibn Masuuds) more the word of God than the Qurashi version??? No, because the hadith that your buddy Nabeel posted PROVES from the prophet himself that ALL seven dialects are equally from God.

2) Now Do we KNOW what type of variants uthman destroyed??? YES! From palempset manuscripts (also courtesy of your Friend Nabeel! He’s so helpful you know... sometimes i wonder whose side he’s on!), that PROVE there were merely paraphrases of the same verse- just as the hadith said they were!

[ hence the fact that none of you have the guts to translate it, because you KNOW how minor it is ]

3) Did all the other companions agree with uthman on this?? YES!...according to David’s and Nabeels favourte source of Ibn Dawood!

4) As Myself and JeeIJoo point out... You seriously want to believe that an eyewitness disciple of Muhammad stabbed him in the back? Then give me a single reason as to why i should not belive that the gospel authors did the same to Jesus. Dont the gospels themselves say they already did many times before??

Finally... Isnt it funny how despite all the noise that has been made by Christians on this, not a single one of you has answered the questions i put to David at the end of my last post?

Shame..

Best regards.; January 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM
VJ said...: Now were is the Holy Spirit in all this?

So much for “scripture cannot be broken” and “my words will never pass away”. Looks like Jesus’s words in Mark 16 passed away after 1,900 years when you discovered Codex Sinaticus.

If I live to be a million David, I will never understand how Christians who know this can still believe that such a book is the ‘Word of God’.

wow islam2009 u dont even believe your own book???
here is a quote from your own book

10:94. And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers
Pickthal's Quran Translation

and also this

10:95. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers.

Pickthal's Quran Translation

lol islam2009 your own book contradict you

A corrupted text that is constantly ‘updated’ and amended based upon the chance discovery of the manuscripts you just so happen to find- and even when you find them, you STILL cant agree on how to regard them.

where does it say in your book that the book before islam are corrupted???

Please open your eyes, brother.

All of you here.

our eyes are open dear..maybe you need to open yours now..
its high time.
you are like the one mentioned in the following verse

Ac 28:26
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive

Ac 28:27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

PEACE; January 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Islam2009 said...: Nacdimon..

<< And if you want to hide behind the “Ahruf”-argument, then we can also make the claim that the Gospels as we find them in the NT are 4 “Ahrufs” in which Yeshua revealed the Injeel to his disciples. >>

LOL!!!

Man, that's classic comedy gold at its best!

JEEIJOO, can you see how desperate the missionaries are getting now, bro? So sad..

That’s not even the same topic, Nacdimon!!

We are not talking about the fact that you have 4 gosepls! Thats for another thread.

We are talking about the fact that the text of each of these 4 gospels THEMSELVES (and the NT in genral)cannot in several places be accurately ascertained because your manuscripts of them are in such a sorry and contradictory mess.

Now did Jesus ever say that such contradictory variants of his word to the point where you dont even know what His Word is supposed to be are acceptable??

NO!...

He said the exact opposite!

He said: “scripture cannot be broken” and “my words will never pass away”.

Now compare that with your 27th Edition of the Word of God!

So nice try Nacdimon... but try again...; January 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Islam2009 said...: Hi VJ,

<< So much for “scripture cannot be broken” and “my words will never pass away”. Looks like Jesus’s words in Mark 16 passed away after 1,900 years when you discovered Codex Sinaticus.

If I live to be a million David, I will never understand how Christians who know this can still believe that such a book is the ‘Word of God’.

wow islam2009 u dont even believe your own book???
here is a quote from your own book

10:94. And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers
Pickthal's Quran Translation >>>

Can you not see how desprate that is?

Rather than addressing the issue youre just changing the subjcet (which i will not fall for) with a ridiculous 'non sequitur".

You saying:

"Yes, my NT is hopless corrupted, but your Quran tell you to follow it too!!" Haha!

Please read my next statemnt very carefully.... All the Chrsitians here..

The day i ever find a single verse in the Quran that tells me that the *NEW TESTAMENT* or the *FOUR GOSPELS* are the Word of God is the day that i become an atheist... Not a Chrsitian.

**THAT** would be my proof that the Quran is false.

Now go and think about why..; January 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM
VJ said...: The day i ever find a single verse in the Quran that tells me that the *NEW TESTAMENT* or the *FOUR GOSPELS* are the Word of God is the day that i become an atheist... Not a Chrsitian.

u call me desperate islam2009..but u dont believe ur own scripture
and then u say:

The day i ever find a single verse in the Quran that tells me that the *NEW TESTAMENT* or the *FOUR GOSPELS* are the Word of God is the day that i become an atheist... Not a Chrsitian.

this shows that Ac 28:26 and Ac 28:27 were right about you.
you don't want to believe in the truth..fine.
may god bless your soul.

PEACE; January 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Javier said...: islam2009, please stop and read, and re-read and *understand* what we're saying. You demonstrate a naive and total inability to comprehend what you're reading. So slow down, have some coffee and read.

Well since David has done an “abracadabra! Presto!” disappearing act, i respond to his apprentices instead..

I'm sure David will respond to you on his own timetable, you're just another performer in the circus of Islamic apologists anyway. Don't fluff your egotistical pillow too much.

You all accuse me of misquoting David’s stated ‘criteria’ regarding how NT textual Critics decide whether Mark 16:9-20 (to use one example of many) is part of what the ‘inspired’ gospel author originally wrote.

We didn't just accusee you but aptly demonstrated it. Again, the criteria was set up by David and your misrepresented him by suggesting that one arbitrarily decides what is authentic and what is not. Yet David provided more types of evidences which are used to determine the veracity of a given text.

<< 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). >>>

This is what i said:

<< So what you’re saying is that you examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best. Very good.. >>

Now when a decision is reached as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is original and hence the Word of God or not....

I'm amazed that you can quote both sources and then pompously assert that you represented the proper view. How hard is it to see that David was giving us the basic means by which a textual critic establishes the authenticity of a text? While you sheepishly assert that one chooses to compare manuscript a vs manuscript b and then arbitrarily decides what they would like to keep and reject. This is an example of Islamic honesty.

Are manuscripts of Mark that both contain and omit that passage compared in their Quality and dating??

YES OR NO?

Are you hard of hearing or perhaps blind? Did you read what he said? Let me quote it and actually demonstrate that I understand what David said.

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).

1. There are early manuscripts, which implies that there are more latter manuscripts which contain the passage. Meaning primacy is given to those text that are closer to the time of inscripturation.

2. Literary style, if I wrote a book on proper english and years later it contained a chapter on ebonix and the early copies of my books didn't contain the chapter on ebonix. And arguments were made regarding the fact that I would not write a chapter on ebonix given that the book was on proper English. And critics then compared it to other earlier copies. Would you conclude that I merely quote:

examine MANUSCRIPTS that do contain it, versus the MANUSCRIPTS that don’t contain it, and then decide which MANUSCRIPTS you like best.

No. Any honest person would not. Which is why you are being dishonest when you attempt to summize what David said.

So no misquote here at all. Only empty accusations designed to avoid the issues you cant handle..

Your respect for language usage shows your ability to thoroughly understand what David said. I did not say you misquoted David, I said you misrepresented his position. And I have demonstrated this, you are again creating strawmen.

And don’t some NT scholars consider that John 1:1-18 is not part of the original Gospel of John on the sole basis of its odd “literary style”?

So don’t you think we should toss that passage out too??

This doesn't follow. Can you demonstrate this is a actual argument? Perhaps you'd like to show me how reject passage x, means we must on this same basis reject passage y?

The sole point i was making here is that a decision as to what constitutes the Word of God or not is based on ***MANUSCRIPTS***

Well. No. We're debating variations not inspiration, so that the Word of God remains inspite of manuscripts. Do you understand the Christian doctrine of scripture? I'll bet you dont.; January 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Fernando said...: Javier askede the question for whiche we all know the answer: «Do you (Islam2009... and I could put anie bett that this is not his name...) understand the Christian doctrine of scripture?»...

In no way or forme... Ande he still thinks he has a pointe... he doesn't have a singlle clue how we Christians understad the formation of the NT books not as an authomatic process (like supposedely happened with the Qur'an... and that's wie it's devastating to muslims to admit the existence of variations that refutes its supposed incorruptibility...)but as one inserted in a tradition who precedeed, and acompanied it...

Now, Islam 2009... don'te be a magician of desapearing and answer, if you habe de courage, these simple cuestion that can explaine all your statements so fare in this blog:

a) do you muslimes habe to beliebe in what fools beliebe (surah 2:13)? وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ آمِنُواْ كَمَا آمَنَ النَّاسُ قَالُواْ أَنُؤْمِنُ كَمَا آمَنَ السُّفَهَاء أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ السُّفَهَاء وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ

Best wishes to you Islam2009... bie the wai is this youre true name?; January 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Nakdimon said...: "We are not talking about the fact that you have 4 gosepls! Thats for another thread."

Oh ye Muslims! When will ye learn that we do not have 4 gospels? Refrain from such saying after 1400 years of rebuke to get thee on the right path concerning our teachings. Ye surely err greatly by such sayings.

When will Muslims learn that we DO NOT have 4 gospels. We have 1 Gospel and 4 witnesses to the Gospel!

Now that thou hast seen the clear description of our teaching, to serve to thee as a clear sign from thy fellow, refrain thee then from henceforth to err in like manner that thou hadest erred in the past!

Nakdimon; January 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM
jeeijoe said...: Reply to Nakdimon:

I’ll begin by saying you are merely repeating some of the issues which I already addressed in my initial post. Instead of dealing with my responses, you’ve conveniently ignored the bulk, introduced a few new issues and repeated points I already answered.

Nakdimon’s words in italics followed by my response.
This is based on the unstated presumption -- for which you have presented not a shred of proof -- that Uthmanic copies were radically or substantially or massively different from what went before them.

”Jeeijoe,

Can you name me a few plausible reasons why someone would burn the preceding (including the original) manuscripts of a copy that he made of a perfect book if those preceding manuscripts were the same?”

“Burn the preceding” and “including the original”? What does this mean? The original text is contained in all – in what was burnt including the copies made by Uthman. Now to the plausible reasons:

I already hinted at the plausible reasons for burning the earlier materials when I mentioned: “The group of disciples, led by Peter, now decide it is best to get rid of the earlier fragments and incomplete copies – which represent ones individual efforts, containing minor mistakes/slips, often being incomplete fragments, occasionally containing material other than Jesus’ words/deeds, thus having the potential of misleading or confusing new members of the church, who did not personally witness Jesus.”

So then, the burnt items consisted of: mostly incomplete books/fragments containing varying portions of the Quran; material with surahs in varying order (the chief difference), some material containing notes besides the Quranic text; material containing bits no longer a part of the final Quranic recitation (abrogated revelations); material which may contain possible unintentional errors here and there. Therefore, a group of Muhammed’s close followers, people such as Uthman, Zaid, Ubay and others, decided to work together in going through all the material to reproduce the Quran in copies in a proper order, lacking all of abrogated bits, and containing all of the Quran. Besides this, they also take into account the community’s constant parallel oral recitation of the Quran. Thereafter, once the Quran has been reproduced in multiple copies, they collectively decided to burn the earlier material because it had the potential of misguiding newcomers to Islam and those not well versed in the Quran. Therefore, while the preceding material also contained the Quran, it was not exactly the same at every point to the Uthmani copies or 100% exact; some differences also existed, primarily in the ordering of the surahs and in terms of completion. One should not exaggerate the differences.

In other words, we have a team of Muhammed’s close followers, who have spent years under him and are well conversant with the Quran, working on a joint project and agreeing upon a certain course of action. We have one single follower of Muhammed who is upset, but even then he is not known to have questioned the integrity of the work carried out by his colleagues. Uthman here is enjoying widespread approval.

So I ask again, a question you conveniently ducked, would you have dismissed the work of a group of Jesus’ closest disciples who had spent a lot of time under him and were familiar with his words and teachings and who then produced a book containing Jesus’ words and deeds by going through all the material in existence at the time? This is highly unlikely. Your immediate/natural reaction would be to accept their work as authoritative. You just wish you had such a work in your hands; but sadly you do not.

“I will ask 3 questions and any Muslim can answer if he feels called by his god to do so.”

Given this mockful and blasphemous manner of addressing Muslims, I am sure you wouldn’t mind me reciprocating your behaviour upon you and your god as I answer your questions (talk with respect and you will be respected, but if you be mockful then prepare to face your own mocks):

“1) If they weren’t the same as the original or the preceding copies they how can you make the claim of “perfect preservation”? “

They were not 100 percent alike for reasons discussed above. “Perfect preservation” means perfectly or fully preserving and reproducing the final recitation of the Quran lacking all abrogated material and containing nothing but the revelations meant to be a permanent part of the Quran. We know of no companion of Muhammed who challenged or doubted the authenticity of the Uthmani copies.

“2) If it’s not necessary identical to the original, then to what extend can the copies differ from the original to be considered either “perfectly preserved” or “corrupted”?“

Ok, the entire presentation here is wrong. We do not say that the burnt material contained the original whereas the Uthmani copies did not contain the original. All of this material contained the original Quran. Uthmani copies reproduced the original content of the burnt material, merely rearranging it in the correct surah order and only leaving out the original revelations which God had abrogated. Thus, they contained only the non-abrogated recitations and tallied with the community’s already existing collective public practise of Quranic recitation.

To what extent a copy needs to differ for it to be regarded as corrupted? It is not so much the extent that matters. If even a word cannot be shown to go all the way back to Muhammed in an unbroken chain of transmission, then it can never be accepted as the Quran. All differences are deemed legitimate and of equal authority if they can be shown to go back to Muhammed in an unbroken chain of transmission (tawatur). This is the most basic and fundamental criterion. Besides this, normal scribal errors in the copying/recopying process – such as spelling mistakes, accidently copying a line twice etc – whatever the extent of the error, are deemed as just that, scribal errors. They are unintentional scribal corruptions/errors and cannot be deemed as the Quran. The underlying principal here at this level would be the same as in NT textual criticism.

”3) Muslims make a whole lot of textual variants in the Bible, and are quick to point us to those variants to try to back up their claim that the Bible is corrupted.”

First, it is not a “Muslim claim” that the Bible is textually corrupted. This is the verdict of all textual critics whether you like it or not. Any standard book on textual criticism will explain to you the reasons how the Biblical text suffered from corruption, both intentional and unintentional. Muslims didn’t “make it up.”

As for making a “whole lot” of textual variants in Biblical mss, a “whole lot” of them has been made by a number of modern textual critics, who have more closely studied scribal copying tendencies and explored the theological and dogmatic reasons which caused some to alter the text at times. But true, on occasions Muslim polemicists do make a whole lot of little matters, just as Christian polemicists such as yourself.

Personally, I regard the NT text to be overall generally well preserved. But I recognize the important points raised by modern textual critics, regarding the “original” text and the fact there are some variants of theological significance as well.

”But, as said before, from your own sources we know that:

a) Mas’ud had 116 surahs in his codex”

(Ibn Masud or Kab? Anyway, lets proceed…) No we do not know this. What we do know is that Ibn Masud is one of the transmitters of the present Quran, that he is not known for complaining about some “missing surahs”, that his students transmit nothing but the current surahs, and that once we compare all the variants attributed to him – most of which are inauthentic, but for arguments sake lets treat them as authentic – we see that overwhelmingly they are the same as the Uthmani Quran, except for minor differences which does not radically/substantially alter the text. That is why the late Jeffery decided not to venture further comparing the two since he could not find any significant changes and why some non-Muslim scholars have wondered why on earth Ibn Masud was upset to begin with given the minor nature of the differences.

The mistake you (and others) make is uncritically utilise reports of varying authenticity. If something agrees with your presupposition and you feel it makes good ammunition to fire upon the Quran, then you will instantly treat it as authentic with no questions asked. All I am asking is we treat all reports critically in a scholarly manner, putting aside our presuppositions. That’s all. Once this is done, the secondary nature of many of the reports you are summarising will become clear.

“b) Ka’b had 111 surahs in his codex”

(Kab? Or is Ibn Masud alleged to have had 111? 111 or 110? Be that as it may, lets proceed….)This is blatantly false because Ubay WAS WORKING WITH UTHMAN AND HE INCLUDED 114 SURAHS and not 111 and his students also transmit 114 surahs and not just 111.

Now let us treat as authentic, for arguments sake, the claim that Ubay allegedly had 111 surahs in his Quranic codex. Could it not be that this was an INCOMPLETE codex? Why is this an impossibility, particularly when we can know Ubay happily got along with Uthman and copied the Quran for him containing 114 surahs?

Moreover, just because a particular codex contains, say, 111 or 12 surahs, then that by itself does not follow that its owner believed only these and these alone to constitute the Quran and non other. This is basic commonsense. Given the way the Quran is said to have been revealed, it is VERY reasonable and understandable why a number of people would have incomplete Quranic notebooks and in varying surah orders.

“(God knows how many others had in THEIR codices)”

Why is “their” capitalised here? Every codex/notebook would have to belong to someone, right? Indeed, only God knows how many others had their notebooks, but we can reasonably state that many dozens had their own notebooks containing varying portions of the Quran and in different surah order, as the Quran was not revealed in a chronological order and the process or revelation continued close to the time of Muhammed’s death. So we can see the reason why Uthman and other close disciples of Muhammed wanted to have the Quran reproduced for all Muslims in multiple copies, arranged in the proper order and lacking all abrogated bits.

(On a side note, besides the written material, there is also the parallel oral transmission/recitation of the Quran. The early Muslim community used them both).

“c) Today’s Qur’an has 114 surahs”

Of course, something agreed by Zaid, Ubay, Uthman, Ali, Hafsa, Ayesha and all other disciples of Muhammed.

“d) The verse of Suckling is missing
e) The verse of Stoning was missing”
f) Ibn ‘Umar says that the first Muslims couldn’t claim that they had memorized the entire Qur’an”

This is getting desperate now as you are only repeating issues I already answered in my initial post. Why don’t you learn to read attentively and avoid firing already answered questions?

All the above refers to abrogation. Muslims accept that not every revelation became a permanent part of the Quran. So the verses of sucking, stoning and whatever is referred by Ibn Umar were revealed by God and once formed a part of the Quran. But later God abrogated their recitation so they no longer form a part of the Quran. They were once a part of the Quran but we do not regard them to be a part of the Quran any more. What is difficult to grasp here? This is not akin to passages getting lost due to purely scribal activity at a secondary stage in textual transmission. The above refers to an earlier stage, the period when Muhammed is around and is telling the community what is permanently meant to be within the Quran and which revelations, through God’s command, are meant to be only temporary therein.

“g) Certain verses could only be found with one particular person.”

A massive exaggeration, without which your polemic cannot proceed an inch forward. There are only 2 verses which are definitely known to have been in writing with one individual (Khuzaimah), though they were memorised by many and familiar to the other disciples of Muhammed.

”Which poses a problem with the battle @ Yamama, where a great number of reciters were killed. Since some verses could only be found at one particular person, who weren’t even among the best reciters of Muhammad, who can tell if there is not much more of the Qur’an was lost that could only be found in the memory of the reciters that died at Yamama?”

This is a poor method of argumentation where one engages in baseless speculation. Just consider the wonders this can do when applied to the Bible: who can tell how much is missing from the OT given its very poor mss attestation (the earliest being the DSS); who can tell how much is missing or was added to the gospels in the most fluid period of their transmission – the first 100-150 years – from which no mss evidence survives? Indeed, who can tell? No one! It is best not to proceed with this bogus method of argumentation.

Now to the Yamama issue: you need to present the text so we can critically evaluate it and then come to a judgement. Given your sloppy use of the material thus far, you will understand why I would be sceptical of your claims. But just on the face of it, assuming your summary is accurate of a particular report, I would very much doubt its authenticity. Uthman and Zaid, just to name two, were complete memorisers of the Quranic text. So simply between themselves they could easily reconstruct the Quranic text. This makes it highly unlikely that there were those martyred in Yamama who happened to be the “only” ones familiar with “some verses.” This is the case of an odd aberrant report going against the undoubtedly authentic multiple reports which say otherwise (that there were those who had completely memorised the Quran and who existed after Yamama).

“h) Hafsa had the earliest “complete” copy of the Qur’an we have today. What happened to that manuscript?”

It was used by Uthman and the companions of Muhammed, along with other material, to reproduce the Quran in multiple copies. We do not know for sure what happened to it just as we do not know what happened to the material composed before Luke wrote his gospel narrative or to the manuscripts circulating in the first 100-150 years after the writing of the NT. According to some reports, and I am typing from memory here – the suhuf of Hafsa were burnt much later, during the time of Hajjaj (I think). But we cannot be entirely sure.

Nonetheless, what we can be sure of is: Hafsa happily co-operated with Uthman and with all companions of Muhammed and had absolutely no objections or doubts whatsoever towards the contents of the Uthmani copies. Given Hafsa approved of them, as did Ayesha, Uthman, Zaid, Ubay, Ali and all the rest of Muhammed’s disciples, how does the fate of Hafsa’s suhuf impinge upon the authenticity of the Uthmani copies?

”(brothers, if there are more points that I missed feel free to add to the list)”

You did “miss” reading a lot of what I initially said thus requiring you to ignore the bulk of my initial response and rehashing already answered points. Hope you do not repeat the same mistake again.

”Therefore, taking all this into consideration, why use double standards and claim corruption when it comes to the Bible,”

I don’t see how the alleged “double standard” works. Whether you like it or not, the Biblical text did undergo textual corruption during its transmission. This is an observable fact. Now you can put aside Islam completely; it still remains the Bible underwent textual corruption. The two are unrelated topics and need to be discussed in their own context.

“but when it comes to the Qur’an which, given it’s background as listed above has a much weaker textual transmission, it suddenly is “perfectly preserved”? “

You have not shown that the Quran has “much weaker” textual transmission. From the time of Uthman forward, not even many Western scholars doubt the reliable transmission of the Quranic text. So the question is only about the period between Muhammed and Uthman – no more than 25 years, when so many disciples of Muhammed were still alive. But consider the situation from Uthman onwards: Our earliest documentary evidence, in the form of manuscripts, fragments, folios and inscriptions, goes all the way back to well within the first Islamic century, just a few decades after Muhammed. To see the state of the Quranic text prior to Uthman, when we consider all the variants attributed to all disciples and all codices (irrespective of their authenticity), we see they do not significantly diverge from the received Quranic text. Overwhelmingly they are the same. No “different” text form can be seen therein (the authentic variants are accepted by Muslims as genuine). In sharp contrast, you have NOT A SINGLE fragment of any part of the NT from your first century and there are far more serious textual variations in your earliest mss. In terms of sheer quantity, quality of content (uniformity of text) and geographical spread of mss, the Quranic mss tradition very easily beats the NT mss tradition. So if I were a Christian I would not be very eager to venture down such a comparative judgement.

What I argued, and what you conveniently ignored, is that Uthman is one of Muhammed’s closest companion, belonging to his inner circle, and he is presiding over a group of other very close disciples of Muhammed. Thus, a team of Quranic experts and disciples of Muhammed painstakingly go through all the material, as well as the parallel oral transmission, and produce Quranic copies which the community welcomes. We know of no companion of Muhammed who doubted their authenticity. Given the fact that we have Muhammed’s closest companions/disciples working on a joint project, what reason is there to doubt that the end product does not faithfully represent the uttering of the revelations by Muhammed himself?

Now the parallel scenario in Christianity (which again you ignored):

Peter, decides to collect a book containing nothing but Jesus' authentic teachings and words. In this task he is assisted by many other disciples of Jesus, such as James, John, Matthew and others. They all are pleased with the outcome, being sure it represents accurately Jesus' teachings and words. The followers of these disciples also openly accept the end product. The group of disciples, led by Peter, now decide it is best to get rid of the earlier fragments and incomplete copies – which represent ones individual efforts, containing minor mistakes/slips, often being incomplete fragments, occasionally containing material other than Jesus’ words/deeds, thus having the potential of misleading or confusing new members of the church, who did not personally witness Jesus. Moreover, these earlier fragments, scraps and books were used as a basis for the authoritative copy, with their authentic material being incorporated within it, the product the outcome of the combined efforts of multiple close disciples of Jesus belonging to his inner circle. Thus, there is no need for the previous material any more. Now suppose you have one odd follower of Jesus who is upset. He is upset as he was not included in this activity and, moreover, he is requested to submit his own private collection of Jesus' words and deeds. We will call this disciple Jonathan Mann just for the sake of giving him a name. J. Mann does not ever doubt the reliability of the collection composed by Jesus' disciples led by Peter, but he is very upset for having to part with his own book and feels upset at not being involved in the project.

You know what, you and all other Christians would instantly accept the work of such a group of Jesus’ close disciples and treat it as genuine, with no reason to suspect its historicity!

If close intimate disciples of Jesus, working in a group, went through all the material, leaving out only errors, mistakes, perhaps some unreliable details, and then produced their joint findings in a volume which they all agreed accurately represented Jesus’ words and teachings, then you would have jumped in delight and accepted it without question, without bothering to ponder over the fate/contents of what went before (which, btw, was all consulted by this group of Jesus’ disciples)!

You can only be sad that you do not have this, whereas Muslims are delighted to know that Muhammed’s closest disciples reproduced the Quran in multiple copies jointly, with no one doubting its contents!

Also, your use of the material has been sloppy: you exaggerated; made sheer uncritical use of reports (your unstated methodology: whatever you feel you can use to attack, consider it authentic, and whatever goes against your presuppositions, dismiss it); underlying your entire presentation is a grand Uthman conspiracy; and you clearly do not wish to learn the subject outside of a polemical mindset.

“And if you want to hide behind the “Ahruf”-argument, then we can also make the claim that the Gospels as we find them in the NT are 4 “Ahrufs” in which Yeshua revealed the Injeel to his disciples.”

You have the right to make all bogus arguments, including this silly one. If scholarship is to go in the dustbin, then you can make any “argument” that enters your mind irrespective of its absurdity. Now tell us where Jesus is reported to have said he will speak in 4 harfs known as Matt, Mk, Lk, and Jn? How is Matt a ‘harf’ or John a ‘harf’? How do the textual variants within the individual gospels, which came about later in textual transmission process, fall into your ahruf hypothesis? What textual basis do you have for this hypothesis? You literally made something up from thin air! This isn’t an “argument”; its imagination going wild. Where do the authors of these writings make claims about ahruf? How does it work? These gospels are ancient biographical types of writings, with probably one (Mk) used as a base by two (Lk, Mt.) who changed it in various ways, with Jn coming even later and being widely recognized as a much more interpreted account. This is not in any way shape or form even remotely similar to the totally unrelated topic of the ahruf in Quranic studies.

And no one is “hiding” behind the “ahruf argument.” Ahruf is a legitimate topic of study in Quranic studies and is mentioned in numerous historical reports. Scholars of Quranic study, for being scholars, have the absolute legitimate right to comment upon it and present their arguments on its basis. You have to do this if you wish to treat the subject in a scholarly manner.

Now putting aside your absurd “argument,” why not do this: treat both the Quran and the Gospels in a serious scholarly manner by considering with a sober mind the evidence for them in its own context?; January 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM
jeeijoe said...: "and that's wie it's devastating to muslims to admit the existence of variations that refutes its supposed incorruptibility...)"

You are just living on some distant planet in a world of your own far removed from the orthodox Muslim position. No one denies variations. This has never been denied. On the contrary, we accept variations in recitation. So there are legitimate variations, of equal authority, despite the differences. This causes no problem (though not all claims of variants are authentically reported).

Next are the variations which come about at a later secondary stage when a text is being transmitted by scribes. Here we do not believe that lightening came down from the heaven if a Quranic scribe made a scribal error in a ms, such as a spelling mistake for example. But unlike NT mss tradition, things here are different when it comes to Quranic mss tradition. That is because, thanks to the parallel oral transmission, the variations which come about at the secondary copying stage are limited and restricted to specific mss. They are easily identifiable and do not spread like wild fire once a ms is copied and recopied. In sharp contrast, due to a lack of a rigid oral transmission tradition, mistakes in NT mss spread rapidly from mss to mss, with new mistakes coming about in the copying stage. Besides the unintentional mistakes, NT mss were also open to deliberate distortions. In the case of the Quran, I have thus far not come across any scholarly writing on deliberate alterations in any Quranic mss.

You are just heading towards a head-on disastor if you attempt to compare the Quranic and NT mss tradition. Both in terms of quality and quantity we are in a much better position, with restricted variations in mss, which cause no notable doubt on the integrity of the text.; January 13, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Claude said...: What a jumble, my friends. Just read again Manuscript Genocide and the Illusion of Harmony. This is clear, simple and evident.
"’Umar said to Abu Bakr, ‘I suggest you order that the Qur’an be collected.’ Abu Bakr said to him, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s messenger did not do.’ Then Abu Bakr accepted his proposal and came to Zayd and said to him, ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any doubts about you. So you should search for the fragments of the Qur’an and collect it.’ Zayd said, ‘By Allah if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it wouldn’t have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an."’
And all is said. Muslims who keep on arguing are just trying to save their face or to drown the fish as we say. Their cause is untenable. This is evident even for a mentally deficient.; January 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM
jeeijoe said...: “What a jumble, my friends. Just read again Manuscript Genocide and the Illusion of Harmony. This is clear, simple and evident.”

It is clear and evident that Wood has produced another jem of a jumble on this occasion, as was demonstrated above in a point by point critical examination of his half truths, exaggerations and distortions.

”"’Umar said to Abu Bakr, ‘I suggest you order that the Qur’an be collected.’ Abu Bakr said to him, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s messenger did not do.’ Then Abu Bakr accepted his proposal and came to Zayd and said to him, ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any doubts about you. So you should search for the fragments of the Qur’an and collect it.’ Zayd said, ‘By Allah if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it wouldn’t have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an."’
And all is said. Muslims who keep on arguing are just trying to save their face or to drown the fish as we say. Their cause is untenable. This is evident even for a mentally deficient.”

That Wood produced such a colossal jumble is also clear, simple and evident by the fact that none of his fans, including yourself, are willing to seriously engage with the counter response. Instead all you can do is make bravado declarations and pass off sarcastic remarks. Very desperate.

Now what is supposed to be “confusing” or “troublesome” in the above? Where is the “face saving” in the above? I can understand that a mentally deficient person with an axe to grind will be very tempted to take your words for granted, but those who like to use their brains ans think critically would very much like you to explain your underlying “logic” (if any exists). Don’t just string words together; try to get into the habit of also explaining how your mysterious “reasoning” works.

What the above partial paraphrase of Bukhari (Jami al Qur’an, hadith no. 4986) tells us is the honest intentions of these Muslims. Both Abu Bakr, and particularly Zaid, are initially hesitant for a simple reason: they felt they could not do something which Muhammed had not done in his own lifetime. This is the burden and trouble which Zaid is initially facing, to which he refers to by commenting that moving a mountain would have been easier for him (“I asked them how they could undertake what the Prophet had never done… ” -- left out in the above paraphrase). Why was Zaid selected? Not only because he was wise, young with good character/morals, but also because he was one of Muhammed’s scribe, an intelligent individual, and also a complete Quran memoriser. From other sources we also know he was one of the individuals who witnessed Muhammed’s last recitation as well. And what happens next? The same reports mention that Zaid then successfully completes his task with consultation with both the memorizers and taking into account all the material transcribed under Muhammed’s supervision.

So again we have the case of a very close companion of Muhammed, himself a complete memorizer of the Quran, working with other disciples of Muhammed to collect the Quran.

You can just WISH this was the case with Christianity i.e. Jesus’ close intimate disciples working together to preserve his words, deeds and teachings.; January 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM
El-Cid said...: jeeijoe said: "none of his fans, including yourself, are willing to seriously engage with the counter response. Instead all you can do is make bravado declarations and pass off sarcastic remarks. Very desperate."

That is an excellent summation of a great deal of the behavior from from specific Muslims the past few days (Islam2009 I am looking in your direction).

...Certain people whose words are practically dripping with sarcasm, rancor, and thinly veiled insults. I spent some time becoming mildly impressed with how effective Islam2009 is at irritating and prodding his opponents. Unfortunately, that is not the objective that should be intended here.

jeeijoe said: "You are just heading towards a head-on disastor if you attempt to compare the Quranic and NT mss tradition. Both in terms of quality and quantity we are in a much better position..."

Not really. The Quranic mss tradition can only be traced back as far a Uthman. You see, you have no concrete way of providing visual historical EVIDENCE for your claim. The textual history of the Quran was AMPUTATED. It was sliced at the neck by Uthman. Now, you can CLAIM that Uthman's compilation matched what was "revealed" to Muhammad, but you cannot PROVE this claim. At best you are forced to rely on the good intentions of compilers, and quality of memory of fallible humans (Qurra). The Quran we have today is Zaid's codex, authorized by Uthman. Essentially, without believing Zaid and Uthman were somehow "inspired compilers" there is no way to prove the Quran is the perfectly preserved "revelation" given to Muhammad (as the Quran rests it's claim on). I am not comfortable putting my eternal destiny behind a claim whose systematic investigation ends at a dead-end.; January 14, 2009 at 3:24 AM
Matthew said...: And don’t some NT scholars consider that John 1:1-18 is not part of the original Gospel of John on the sole basis of its odd “literary style”?

No.; January 14, 2009 at 4:24 AM
Fernando said...: And don’t some NT scholars consider that John 1:1-18 is not part of the original Gospel of John on the sole basis of its odd “literary style”?

Oh mie, Oh mie... this is worst than sayingue that the earth doesn't move... (surah 27:61)...
أَمَّن جَعَلَ الْأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَجَعَلَ خِلَالَهَا أَنْهَارًا وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزًا أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

it's amayzing!!! pure nonsense...; January 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM
Ibn said...: Fernando:Oh mie, Oh mie... this is worst than sayingue that the earth doesn't move... (surah 27:61)

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. What did you hope to achieve by posting the Arabic verse? To deceive the readers into believing that you know the language of the Quran so that more credence is lent to your claims?

The verse doesn't say the planet earth is immovable. It says the earth is a "qaraarun". According to John Penrice's dictionary of the Quran, "qaraarun" has the following meanings: secure place, repository, place of abode. With this information, it is obvious that 27:61 refers to the habitability of earth.; January 14, 2009 at 7:20 AM
Ibn said...: Prove me wrong Fernando.; January 14, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Nazam said...: To name a scholar who dose not consider the prologue of John's Gospel (1:1-18) to be written by the same author is Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus. In his two volumes commentary to John's Gospel, Raymond Brown also holds to the view that the prologue was not authored by the same author. The reasons for holding the prologue as being authored by some anonymous hand is due to its style of literacy being different from the rest of the fourth Gospel and thus it must have been written by someone else. The prologue is basically a hymn whereas the rest of John's Gospel is not.

Please don’t reply back by saying ‘liberal scholars’ as this is not an argument. In a under-graduate course you would actually get ‘F’ for failed if you used the same sort of argument.; January 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Claude said...: Zaïd considered the task impossible.He did what he could but the results had been exactly what is described in the article above a total jumble.
You can’t compare the Gospels with the Quran. Gospels are supposed to be inspired, not dictated word by word so,what is primordial in the Gospels, is the spirit, not the exact words. Nobody can tell with certitude if such words or such sentences is exact or had been added or not and by whom etc. This is not so much important. You must take the Christian faith as a spirit. John 1-18, is inspired by platonism or by gnosticism ? So what ? “Truth” is not a monopoly. Christianism evolved, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul and John,whoever he may be, this is not important, had great insights which determined christian faitht as we know it today. All Muslim’s critics are void and irrelevant. Knowing of God can become deeper and deeper with time and it is a thing that Islam is unable to achieve.God, for Muslims will always be the ludicrous caricature we all know. Very sad. Islam is a fossil.
Quran is the confirmation of Gospels or it is not. The Gospels we know today are the same one that exist in Muhammad’s times. Paul’s letters are the same. Muhammad denied crucifixion and death of Jesus-Christ. Muslims say Paul is a crook and a forger etc. So,Quran does not confirm Gospels. Muslims show us their great lack of spirituality and intelligence. They can’t understand what is beyond their capacity of understanding. They can’t understand the greatness and soundness of incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. For Muslims, Allah is a despot eager for men’submission. What a shame for Islam ! Christians beleive that God is a loving father who had compassion for men’s sufferings. A part of his spirit came on earth, became a man, teach them love and foregivness , suffered like all men, died of the worst manner, showed to men the way to bear their own cross and teach them hope in god’s Kingdom. This is the core of Christianism, and Muhammad abrogated it. He did not confirm Gospels. He negated them.
What is God’s kingdom, nobody knows exactly. Christian faith is “espérance” not blind faith. It is Trust in God. This is not the same thing at all as blind faith and fear.Doubts are part of faitht. It is what make faitht intelligent.Blind faith is stupid and drive mad, as Muslims show it to the entire world. Blind faith is an interior war against doubts which impose themselves inevitably in all faitht. Muslims try to deny their own thoughts and this leads to insanity. Christianism is religion. Islam is politic and brainwashing by means of fear of hell and enticement of sensual paradise. Christianism is religion and spirituality, would it be “true” or not.
Muhammad’s pretention to confirm Gospels is contradictory, dishonest and it is an insult to Christians. He did not confirm Gospels and could not do so.How can such a gross individual could CONFIRM or abrogate what he did not know and what was far beyond his spiritual understanding. Muhammad abrogated the very core of the Gospels, because he was an ignorant and also because Jesus-Christ, as described in the Gospels, was an obstacle to his own glorification. Christians ARE NOT polytheists. Muhammad’s accusations are false. Theologically speaking, Islam is a shame compared to Christianism. And I repeat what I said, it is not necessary to believe. If you understand clearly, on the philosophical ground and on the ground of simple humanism, what christianism is, compared to Islam, it is evident that Islam was a huge regression of the notion of God. And Islam was a negation of humanism. That is why muslims societies and muslims peoples are in such a mess. There is so much to say !; January 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: To name a scholar who dose not consider the prologue of John's Gospel (1:1-18) to be written by the same author is Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus. In his two volumes commentary to John's Gospel, Raymond Brown also holds to the view that the prologue was not authored by the same author. The reasons for holding the prologue as being authored by some anonymous hand is due to its style of literacy being different from the rest of the fourth Gospel and thus it must have been written by someone else. The prologue is basically a hymn whereas the rest of John's Gospel is not.

Elijah replies:

Yeah but this was quite a common trend in ancient writings. Authors would start of with a significant literate masterpiece and then turn to normalcy; Luke does the very same in his own Gospel.

On the other hand I shall not deny the possibility that John 1: 1-18 is a source John has utilized. However, that such a source was as early as first century and was used by an apostle provides it with apostolic authority testifies that apostolic authority recognised its validity, also it does not the deny the fact that John himself wrote this so called hymn as a communial creed of memorization which then in style would differ greatly from the rest of the Gospel. Furthermore, we find the style of John 1: 1-18 in the first epistle of John. Which certainly combines two styles under one author.; January 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Islam2009 said...: Hello JAVIER..

<< I'm sure David will respond to you on his own timetable, you're just another performer in the circus of Islamic apologists anyway. >>

Ahhh David Wood.. I almost forgot about that guy!

The man with enough time in his busy “timetable” to start a whole thread attacking the Quran against the NT, but not enough time to defend himself once his propaganda gets dismantled, and his NT exposed before his very eyes.

If you wish to cheerlead for such a man Javier, then go right ahead.

But it seems your master has forsaken you, so if I were you, I’d put your pom-poms down for now.

<< We didn't just accusee you but aptly demonstrated it. Again, the criteria was set up by David and your misrepresented him by suggesting that one arbitrarily decides what is authentic and what is not. Yet David provided more types of evidences which are used to determine the veracity of a given text. >>

You demonstrated noting but your own ignorance and desperation.

My point was solely that a decision as to Mark 16 is based on MANUSCRIPTS. How you look at them, how you regard them, how you value them is all irrelevant to my point that David’s criteria was MANUCSRIPTS TESTOMONY- (which is still INCONCLUSIVE on Mark 16 according to Evangelicals themselves). Now if David had also applied that same criteria to the Quran he would have all answered all his stupid questions by himself over “how many suras are there?”, "if this verse should be in" etc

<< While you sheepishly assert that one chooses to compare manuscript a vs manuscript b and then arbitrarily decides what they would like to keep and reject. This is an example of Islamic honesty. >>

That is what you do! Mark 16:9-20 is found in the vast majority of NT MSS of Mark.

Now If you believe it should be in the NT, you accept those MS at the expense of the few others.

If you think it should NOT be in the NT, you accept the few others at the expensive of the majority.
Your REASONS for doing that are irrelevant to my point.

<< 2. Literary style, if I wrote a book on proper english and years later it contained a chapter on ebonix and the early copies of my books didn't contain the chapter on ebonix. And arguments were made regarding the fact that I would not write a chapter on ebonix given that the book was on proper English. And critics then compared it to other earlier copies. Would you conclude that I merely quote: >>

Any mention of Mark 16 there??
NOPE!

Try again please.

Why should Mark 16 be excluded on its literary style?

<< This doesn't follow. Can you demonstrate this is a actual argument? Perhaps you'd like to show me how reject passage x, means we must on this same basis reject passage y? >>

Because your methodology, reasoning and logic would be is the same in both instances.

Are there any other passages in the NT that, if isolated, would show an odd “literary style” from other passages by the same author?? Should they be excluded too?

<< Well. No. We're debating variations not inspiration, so that the Word of God remains inspite of manuscripts. >>

Lol!

“We're debating variations not inspiration”

That’s classic!

And which “Manuscript” of Mark’s end was inspired?? The ones that have it in? Or the ones that don’t?

And please tell me how AND WHEN Christians arrived at that conclusion, and whether all Christians agree with it today?

<< Do you understand the Christian doctrine of scripture? I'll bet you dont. >>

Yep, I understand it perfectly thanks...

In theory “scripture cannot be broken” and Jesus’ words “will never pass away”.

In practice, a passage in the NT is the “Word of God” for
centuries.....

But Then....

Someone accidently stumbles over an earlier manuscript that doesn’t contain that passage, and a brand new, shiny, “hot-off –the-press”, 28th Edition of the “Word of God” is published with the previous “Word of God” bit taken out the main text and dumped in a footnote at the bottom of the page.

Then of course Christians start arguing with each other about whether that new, updated “Word Of God” version, or the old “Word of God” version is the actual TRUE “Word of God”, whilst simultaneously trying to lie to all Muslim on the “answering Muslim” blog about how the NT text is so well defined and preserved.

Yes, Javier, i understand “Christian doctrine of scripture” perfectly.

But thanks for asking anyway..

Now since you have such a “personal relationship” with God and the Holy Spirit “dwells inside you”, could you do me a favour and ask him whether he “breathed” out Mark 16:9-20 on to some author all those years ago?

And how the current mess that is the NT text fits into his view of “Christian doctrine of scripture”??

After all, he is supposed to “guide you into all truth” so this shouldn’t prove too taxing for him.

I think this would be a great help to all the Muslims and Christians here.

Best Regards.

P.s. And could you also ask him where David Wood is?; January 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Alforreca said...: Islam2009 said: «The man with enough time in his busy “timetable” to start a whole thread attacking the Quran against the NT»... I thought it was professor Nabeel who did so... either you're blind, or you're malicious, or both things...; January 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Javier said...: Islam2009,
Mark 16:9-20 is the Word of God. What now?; January 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Islam2009 said...: Alforra

<< Islam2009 said: «The man with enough time in his busy “timetable” to start a whole thread attacking the Quran against the NT»...

I thought it was professor Nabeel who did so... either you're blind, or you're malicious, or both things... >>>

Go and check whether it was Nabeel or David who authored the original post on this thread please..

You done it??

You must be SO embarrassed right now..

If its any consolation i don’t think your blind or malicious.

Just a little ignorant.

Regards.; January 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Islam2009 said...: JAVIER

<< Mark 16:9-20 is the Word of God. What now? >>

Now I ask you why you disagree with David on that and indeed most other Evangelicals?

Then, after i watch two Evangelicals argue back and forth for a bit about what their “Word of God” is supposed to be, I then ask which one of you has the ‘Holy Spirit’ and which one of you the Holy Spirit is failing to "guide into all truth” over the very words that he allegedly inspired.

Then, id probably ask how you reconcile such a sorry situation with Jesus’ own words of “scripture cannot be broken” and “My words will never pass away”?

Finally, id point you to the Quran and ask why a supposedly satanic book that prophesied its preservation 1,400 years ago has been so much better preserved than the actual “word of God”, and why you ignore that?

Regards.; January 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Fernando said...: Ibn... I thoughte thate the Picktal translation was a goog onne: «Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!»... my arabe is not as good as youres... that’s why I plassed the arabic text… can you understande thate?

of course you can make a parafrasis of every surah... but I don't thinke that your translation is verie correcte... specialy when in surah 33:33 (وَقَرْنَ) the same verb is crearlie used, in the imperatibe forme, as sinonimous of "stay still", unless you want us to say it commandes women to BE (and note to BE IN...) a «secure place, repository, place of abode»... nor you can saie that, for instance, Psalm 104:5 says the same, since it only sais that the earth is firmely supported by it’s foundation, i.e., God…

but if the muslim translators needed to make paraphrais, and there translations are so different, isn't it an evidence that the text is not "obvious"? Is not the Qur’an who sais thate Allah didn’t spoke in poetry? (surah 36:69) but all of his words are clear (surah 22:16)? But then it also says the opposite (sura 3:7)… Yes, you can saie it’s clear in arabic (surah 43:3), but then it’s not an intrisique impotence for the arabic language to be correctlie translated by arabic speaking persons?

But then, please Ibn, clearify this to me: is not “qaraarun” also synonymous of a “fixed thing”?

I’ll be waiting for your answer…; January 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Alforreca said...: Islam2009 first said: «to start a whole thread attacking the Quran against the NT», then asked me to see if it was «it was Nabeel or David who authored the original post on this thread please»... this is the epitome of muslim apologists... saying one thing and then twisting there own words, to say they’ve said another thing...

1) since Javier said, rightly or not, that professor Wood didn’t have time, after “this” topic was created, what can be understood by «to start a whole thread», unless if it’s referred to a brand new topic?
2) the person who starts a thread (even if it not the first person who places the first commentary) is the one who creates a new topic… in the context explained in 1), it was clearly doctor Nabeel who did so…;
3) in “this” thread the first post was made by Matthew…

Keep dreaming in your completely absence of desire to be truthful, Islam2009…; January 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Ibn said...: Fernando:I thoughte thate the Picktal translation was a goog onne: «Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!»... my arabe is not as good as youres... that’s why I plassed the arabic text… can you understande thate?

"Fixed" is an appropriate rendering of "qaraarun" so long as it is understood to mean security.

Fernando:of course you can make a parafrasis of every surah... but I don't thinke that your translation is verie correcte... specialy when in surah 33:33 (وَقَرْنَ) the same verb is crearlie used, in the imperatibe forme, as sinonimous of "stay still", unless you want us to say it commandes women to BE (and note to BE IN...)

Highlighting 33:33, John Penrice gives the meaning of "qarra"-the derivative of "waqarun" as "to remain quiet." (p.116, A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran)

As long as you do not ignorantly understand "waqaranu" to mean immobility, "stay still" can be regarded as one of the correct renderings.

Fernando:nor you can saie that, for instance, Psalm 104:5 says the same, since it only sais that the earth is firmely supported by it’s foundation, i.e., God…

What a fallacious argument! By saying that I shouldn't interpret Psalms 104:5 as a scientific error since it can be subject to the same defense as the one I applied on Surah 27, you commit an ad hominem of the circumstantial kind.

You can't speak English. You obviously don't know much about the Quran. And as demonstrated above, you don't know how to argue. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

Fernando:but if the muslim translators needed to make paraphrais, and there translations are so different, isn't it an evidence that the text is not "obvious"?

What nonsense are you talking about? Sher Ali and Shakir have translated 27:61 according to the meaning I presented.; January 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Fernando said...: So... Ibn... all your argumentes are based in words like: "so long as"... what an amaizing defense...

that can go either way... "so long as" we wante to defende the indefensable, or "so long as" we want to see the truth... myself, by my side, have allreadie decided to chose the latelly...

"As long as you do not ignorantly" can goes, also in bothe ways... "ignorantly" as an expession off going against the muslims interpretations (who bie the way, were not allways the one you defended... but that you know better than me...); or as an expression of going agains the truth... one again, myself, by my side, have allreadie decided not to chose the latelly...

About the contrast I made by the similiar passages in the Psalms/Qur'an that I presented, it's not a matter of interpretation in the first case, but as we have seen it's precisely that in the second...

Do you want another exemple or your falsity? John Penrice (page 180), before your amputtated quote, firstly says that “qaraarun” means "stability, a fixed place"... why did you do that unless you wantted to be false?

now for the translations (I was not onlie speakin if they agreed with you, but also if they agreed between each others...):

Literal:
Or Who made/created the earth/Planet Earth (as) a settlement/establishment , and made/created in between and around it rivers/waterways, and made/created for it anchors/mountains , and made/created between the two large bodies of water/seas a barrier/hindrance , is a god with God? But most of them do not know.

Yusuf Ali:
Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

Pickthal:
Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!

Arberry:
He who made the earth a fixed place and set amidst it rivers and appointed for it firm mountains and placed a partition between the two seas. Is there a god with God? Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.

Shakir:
Or, Who made the earth a restingplace, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier. Is there a god with Allah? Nay! most of them do not know!

Sarwar:
(Are the idols worthier or) the One who has made the earth a resting place, the rivers flow from its valleys, the mountains as anchors and a barrier between the two seas? Is there any lord besides God? In fact, most people do not know.

Khalifa:
Who is the One who made the earth habitable, caused rivers to run through it, placed on it mountains, and created a barrier between the two waters? Is it another god with GOD? Indeed, most of them do not know.

Hilali/Khan:
Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water).Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.

H/K/Saheeh:
Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but most of them do not know.
Malik Just think who has made the earth a place for your residence, caused in it the rivers to flow, set mountains upon it and placed a barrier between the two seas? Is there another god besides Allah? Nay, most of them have no knowledge.[61]

QXP:
Nay, who is it that has made the earth a fixed habitat, and caused rivers to run through it, and has set upon it firm mountains, and has set a barrier between two great bodies of water - any god beside Allah? (25:53). Nay, most of them do not use their knowledge.

Maulana Ali:
Or, Who made the earth a resting-place, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains, and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a god with Allah? Nay, most of them know not!

Qaribullah:
Who has established the earth a fixed place and set therein rivers; and set for it firm mountains and placed a barrier between the two seas, is there a god with Allah? No, most of them are without knowledge.

George Sale:
Is not He more worthy to be adored, who hath established the earth, and hath caused rivers to flow through the midst thereof, and placed thereon immovable mountains, and set a bar between the two seas? Is there any other god equal with the true God? Yet the greater part of them know it not.

JM Rodwell:
Is not He, who hath set the earth so firm, and hath made rivers in its midst, and hath placed mountains upon it, and put a barrier between the two seas? What! a god with God? Yet the greater part of them have no knowledge!

Asad:
Nay - who is it that has made the earth a fitting abode [Lit., "place of rest" (qarar). But see also 77:25-26 and the corresponding note.] [for living things], and has caused running waters [to flow] in its midst, and has set upon it mountains firm, and has placed a barrier between the two great bodies of water? [See 25:53 and the corresponding notes.] Could there be any divine power besides God? Nay, most of those [who think so] do not know [what they are saying]!

Yes... mie english is poor, my arabic is also poor, my argumentations skills may also look poor due to that, but I don't hate or run away from the truth...

regards...; January 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Ibn said...: Fernando:So... Ibn... all your argumentes are based in words like: "so long as"... what an amaizing defense...

that can go either way... "so long as" we wante to defende the indefensable, or "so long as" we want to see the truth... myself, by my side, have allreadie decided to chose the latelly..."As long as you do not ignorantly" can goes, also in bothe ways... "ignorantly" as an expession off going against the muslims interpretations (who bie the way, were not allways the one you defended... but that you know better than me...); or as an expression of going agains the truth... one again, myself, by my side, have allreadie decided not to chose the latelly...About the contrast I made by the similiar passages in the Psalms/Qur'an that I presented, it's not a matter of interpretation in the first case, but as we have seen it's precisely that in the second...

Pure rambling.

Fernando:Do you want another exemple or your falsity? John Penrice (page 180), before your amputtated quote, firstly says that “qaraarun” means "stability, a fixed place"... why did you do that unless you wantted to be false?

Which version of Penrice's dictionary are you using? My one doesn't even have a hundred and eightieth page!

Moreover, you are again ignorantly insisting that stability denotes immobility. It doesn't. Besides, there are other verses in the Quran that allude to a rotating earth.

Fernando:now for the translations (I was not onlie speakin if they agreed with you, but also if they agreed between each others...):

Lol! Do all the translations agree with each other and me?; January 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Claude said...: Jeeijoe, Let me answer your last commentary. I am sarcastic, yes, and I apologize.
My friend, where did you learn to think logically.Your logic is the logic of all Muslims, illogic. Listen carefully please ! Zaid was a complete Quran memorizer so why, when he was asked to write down Quran he did not simply said :”No problem, man, next month I bring you all the Quran written and ready for printing ? HE MEMORIZED IT ALL and he just had to write it. This is not what happened, he said that it was an impossible task.
Scribe AND memoriser ? A scribe, a man of writing who does not write ! This is pure nonsense.If he knew how to write he MUST have write all revelations immediately after they occurred.He did not ? Come on ! There is something extremely illogic here. Jeeijoe, explain this to a stupid man like me who don’t understand evidence.
You just said that writing down Quran was “something Muhamad had not done in his own lifetime.” And immediately after you speak about “material transcribed under Muhammad’s supervision!”. Here is a contradiction. And if Muhammad transcribed a part of the Quran in his lifetime, why he did not transcribed it all ? Quran was not important enough ? Words of God, direct, and such carelessness !!!!!! Think a little bit my friend!
“The same report mention that Zaid succesfully completed his task”, SUCCESFULLY? Read your own scriptures ! All the great Zaïd’s success is completely denied. Why burn parts of Quran, where are verses on lapidation etc. Please, answer directly to the objections mentioned in the article obove.Say this for exemple :verses on lapidation were not revealed and they are not part of the Quran. All disciples of Muhammad and Aisha are liars. If you say they are part of the Quran, explain why they are not in the Quran. And do the same for all objections. Try to convince. That is what we hope you will do. We have the longing to be overwhelmingly convinced. Make us feel ashamed of our lack of intelligence, please.
Why Jesus did not write his teachings ? I really don’t know. This is not important for Christians. But the fact that the Quran, “the ultimate revelation of Gog to humankind”, had not been written immediately, word by word as it was possible, like you just told us, is a proof that Quran is a forgery. Muhammad did not take his duty seriously because God was not the one who was speaking. The crafty Muhammad was.; January 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Javier said...: Now I ask you why you disagree with David on that and indeed most other Evangelicals?

So the question is primarily theological. Next time be more explicit and clear. Its irresponsible to assume in debate that we can read your mind. Use clear words, and we'll understand you clearly.

Secondly, If I did hold to this position, it does not follow that one must hold to uniformity in beliefs. What exactly does a rejection or acceptance of Mark 16:9-20 have to do with the truth of Christian claims?

Then, after i watch two Evangelicals argue back and forth for a bit about what their “Word of God” is supposed to be,

So then the question is theological in nature and not textual. And again, how does it follow that this is an attack against the Christian faith?

I then ask which one of you has the ‘Holy Spirit’ and which one of you the Holy Spirit is failing to "guide into all truth” over the very words that he allegedly inspired.

When does having the Holy Spirit imply that Christians cannot disagree? Also, what does being 'guided into all truth' have to do with disagreeing over the veracity of a particular text? This isn't a debate on the Trinity or the deity of Christ its on snake handlers and poison drinking.

Furthermore, its beyond me that someone would cite passages, not even passages but portions out of context to argue his position. I don't do this with the Quran, don't do this with me.

Then, id probably ask how you reconcile such a sorry situation with Jesus’ own words of “scripture cannot be broken” and “My words will never pass away”?

Who said that the scripture was broken? Can you demonstrate how debating a text implies a brokeness in the inspiration of scripture?

Also, what does this have to do with Christ's word not passing away?

In fact, if we can argue that these passages are not in the original then its inapplicable and your argument fails.

Finally, id point you to the Quran and ask why a supposedly satanic book that prophesied its preservation 1,400 years ago has been so much better preserved than the actual “word of God”, and why you ignore that?

I don't reject the Quran on the basis of its 'preservation' or lack of, but rather on the basis of its inspiration. Its claims fail in light of the scripture. Furthermore to argue evidentially does not ever amount to certainty regarding ispiration.; January 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM
El-Cid said...: Islam2009 said: "...but not enough time to defend himself once his propaganda gets dismantled, and his NT exposed before his very eyes.

If you wish to cheerlead for such a man Javier, then go right ahead.

But it seems your master has forsaken you, so if I were you, I’d put your pom-poms down for now."

Cut the crap, Islam2009. Your bad manners, empty rhetoric, and sophomoric chiding is NOT impressing anyone.

Quite the opposite, it denegrates any portion of your comments that are actually meant to have substance. Neither David Wood, nor Nabeel, nor anyone else are at your beck and call. You may be that important in your mind, but you must concede that you are not destined to be the focal point of other people's lives (or this blog).

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit disapointed if David and Nabeel just choose to ignore you altogether. Your demands for response are borderline narcissism.; January 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Nazam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 14, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Nazam said...: David Wood had mention one of the reasons why he does not regard the ending Mark’s Gospel to be original is because we can examine it on the bases of its literacy style which seems to suggest that it was added later by someone other than the original author. It is this same criteria that scholars, such as Raymond Brown and others, use in determining John 1-1-18 on the bases of its literacy style being different from the rest of John’s Gospel as not being original but appended at a later stage.

Just as the ending of Mark’s Gospel contains vocabularies which do not appear in the rest of Mark’s Gospel so to does John 1-1-18 contains vocabularies which do not appear in the rest of John’s Gospel, which seems to suggest it being authored by someone else other than the person who first wrote this Gospel.

Other reasons of the prologue of John thought not to be original is that the central theme of Jesus as the Word made flesh occurs nowhere else in the entire Gospel.

Most scholars do not regard the epistles of John and the Gospel to be authored by the same author due to “the writing styles not being the same”, pg 187, The New Testament, 4th Edition (2008), Bart Ehrman.

Most scholars regard the author of John to be anonymous. For example, we read in the Gospel,

“It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them and we know that his testimony is true” (Jh 21:24).

If this Gospel was written by the apostle John it would not need to be authenticated anyone else it would be self evident since the apostle John was reputed as one of the pillars of the church.; January 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: David Wood had mention one of the reasons why he does not regard the ending Mark’s Gospel to be original is because we can examine it on the bases of its literacy style which seems to suggest that it was added later by someone other than the original author. It is this same criteria that scholars, such as Raymond Brown and others, use in determining John 1-1-18 on the bases of its literacy style being different from the rest of John’s Gospel as not being original but appended at a later stage.

Just as the ending of Mark’s Gospel contains vocabularies which do not appear in the rest of Mark’s Gospel so to does John 1-1-18 contains vocabularies which do not appear in the rest of John’s Gospel, which seems to suggest it being authored by someone else other than the person who first wrote this Gospel.

Elijah replies:

The conclusion is not that simple, as I have already pointed out.

An author can be writing two pieces of different literature. Early hymns were meant to be memorized, they were not necessarily written in the same way as an epistle or narrative Gospel.

As to Mark. Mark's Gospel is a dictation of Peter's sermons in Rome (that is what the sources tell us; there is no reason why to deny it). The style of Mark is certainly not literarte, in other words, it is written as a speech, much opposite to e.g. MAtthew and Luke.

That the end of Mark was not written by Mark himself cannot be proven, yet that it is a separate source from the dication of Peter's Gospel account, is a fact yeah.

For some reason the particular sermon did not contain the post resurrection experience, even though it alludes to it.

Some scholars contemplate that leaving the reader thinking was a typical trend seen elsewhere in the Gospel; I more or less agree with that.

Did it matter to the Roman community in 60 AD that Mark did not have an ending? No the community was using the the Gospel account (with sayings in narrative) by means of Chreiai, that is with methods of memorization and oral transmission; at this time, when the eyewitnesses were still alive Mark was (believe it or not) secondary, the priority was the living and abiding the voice of the apostles, that it the oral transmission spoke from the mouth of the eyewitnesses themselves.

It very much possible that the Gospel of Mark when sent to Alexandria did not contain the ending, but the Gospel when sent to Asia Minor and Syria may indeed included the ending, possibly by Mark's own hand; that needs of course to be proven, but it cannot be denied.

In any case the ending is early and presents the view of the earliest church.; January 15, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Nazam said...: Answers to Hogan;

Critical analysis of the fourth Gospel has made it difficult for scholars to accept the view that the Gospel of John was written by one person. Scholars have concluded that this Gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this Gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, “amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century”, pg. 1742.

Examples of homogeneous material being added to a shorter original are John 7:21-24 where the impression is given of continuing the conversation of chapter five, in spite of the intervention of chapter six; 14:31 which does not lead, as one might expect, to any departure from the house; Chapter 21 seems to have been added because like the prologue of John, it to exhibits different vocabularies and literacy style to the rest of John.

It is these reasons and others that have led scholars to believe that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form. It is possible that John 1:1-18 could have been written by the same author using two literacy styles but the opposite can also be true. However, based on the above stated reasons and others scholars believe that this seems improbable and it would appear that the prologue of was added to an original.

On the source of Mark’s Gospel, could this have been the apostle Peter? This seems to be improbable as this Gospel lacks important details about Peter, such as; Peter walking on water or Jesus declaring Peter as the rock to whom he will build his church. In discussing Mark’s version of Jesus walking on water, the Abingdon Bible commentary says, “In view of the tradition that Peter is Mark’s source, and that in this Gospel Peter usually appears in an unfavourable light it is curious that Matthew and not Mark should tell of Peter’s failure to walk to Jesus”, pg 1008.

In addition the writer like the other three Gospels does not claim to be an eye witness or base his Gospel on the preaching of Peter. If anything it seems to have been written to downplay the importance of Peter’s role which he occupied during Jesus’ ministry (St Paul vs St Peter: A Tale of Two Missions by Michael Goulder.

You seem to disagree with David Wood regarding the ending of Mark’s Gospel and believe that it is possibly original to Mark? And I agree with you that not all Christians believe that the ending of Mark was added. But this goes against David’s original point which was we can actually investigate and know whether the ending is original or not. Some Christian believes that Jesus spoke those words other believes he did not.; January 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM
jeeijoe said...: To Matthew:

Well, you aren't much better yourself given your grossly ignorant rantings on Quranic studies.

Matthew replied:

“Even if a choir of angels would start singing "Gerd R. Puin", muslims would still ignore him, which makes this rather ironic.”

And if a choir of angels would start singing “Bart Ehrman, David C. Parker, Helmut Koester, William Petersen” – just to name a few who have said things about NT textual integrity you would never accept – Christians such as yourself would ignore them, which makes this even more ironic? 

And what about Puin’s own acknowledgement in a public letter that in the past his views have been represented in a distorted form (by Lester) and distancing himself away from them? We can ignore that I guess. And what about those experts who have reviewed the same evidence and come to a positive conclusion regarding Quranic textual authenticity (N. Neuwirth to mention one)? We can ignore them as well, I suppose, even if angels sang their names in a choir?

So thanks for affirming my comment about grossly ignorant Christian rantings on this thread.; January 16, 2009 at 11:04 PM
jeeijoe said...: Response to Calude:

“Zaïd considered the task impossible.He did what he could but the results had been exactly what is described in the article above a total jumble.”

Where does Zaid say that the task was “impossible”? If you can read attentively, something which is not evident at the moment, Zaid offered the reason behind his initial hesitation as follows (this is a direct quote): "I asked them how they could undertake what the Prophet had never done …" So there we go. He did not say “but that’s impossible”. What does this tell us? It shows Zaid’s honesty and tells us that he is the type of person whose mission would be to accurately reproduce what Muhammed had recited. In the same (and other) reports, we are informed that Zaid, and his team – also consisting of Muhammed’s close disciples – went about successfully completing the task.

As for the “jumble”, only the author of the essay has produced a jumble as I demonstrated in my detailed reply. It was such a jumble that none of you can deal with the counter response apart from repeating answered issues and introducing new polemics.

”You can’t compare the Gospels with the Quran.”

I agree we cannot since the gospels are way below the standards by all means.

”Gospels are supposed to be inspired, not dictated word by word so,what is primordial in the Gospels, is the spirit, not the exact words.”

This is your modern 21st century spin on the subject. It is another way of saying “it does not matter if the gospels suffered from many textual corruptions” and of giving a secondary status to the literal wording. But if the words were changed, then how can we be sure that the changed words are inspired? Are both inspired (the original and the subsequent alteration, in which case how are you reasonably sure that the scribe was “inspired”) or is only one of them inspired (the original wording? Or the subsequent scribal change?)?

”Nobody can tell with certitude if such words or such sentences is exact or had been added or not and by whom etc.”

I agree with this and do not have a problem here. But since you raised the issue of “inspiration”, we need to ask if the changed form of the wording is inspired or not? Anyone can make a change to the text. How do we know that the change is “inspired”?

”This is not so much important. You must take the Christian faith as a spirit. John 1-18, is inspired by platonism or by gnosticism ? So what ? “Truth” is not a monopoly. Christianism evolved, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul and John,whoever he may be, this is not important, had great insights which determined christian faitht as we know it today.”

If it does not matter who the authors were, if it does not matter what they wrote, then why even bother thinking they were inspired? There has to be reasoning behind thinking why one is probably inspired.

Moreover, change of wording can result in a significant change in meaning as well. Such textual variations do exist in the NT. In the face of this, how does inspiration work?

To clarify my position, I do not deny the substantial or general textual reliability of the NT text, although not in all instances do we have the “original” text. And, personally, I do believe that there are inspired teachings in portions of the NT, though not everything within the NT is inspired.

I will now ignore some of your blasphemous statements, completely irrelevant comments, and your weird angry sermons, and just respond to the ones relevant to the subject:

“The Gospels we know today are the same one that exist in Muhammad’s times. Paul’s letters are the same.”

It does not matter if they were the same in Muhammed’s time. The important question is: were they the same in the first Christian century? This is where problems arise. Based on literary criticism, a number of passages in the Pauline epistles have been argued by various scholars to be later additions even though we have no mss evidence for it. The same is the case with John’s chapter 21. You will find a wealth of discussion on this subject, including counter arguments. More importantly, textual critics are agreed that the texts underwent most changes in the earliest period of their transmission. It is widely agreed that the vast majority of changes were made in this period. But we have no mss evidence from this time period. How can we then ascertain the amount of changes the texts underwent in a period from which no mss evidence survives? We cannot be sure here. I deliberately take a conservative position on the NT text, assuming it is unlikely that the text suffered very radical changes in this period. But I cannot be certain. Though I think it is probable that the current form of the text contains alterations which are now its permanent part, as these cannot be exposed since we wholly lack mss evidence from the most critical period of transmission. Then there is also a discussion among modern critics about what the “original text” means. This is in light of our better understanding of scribal habits of copying texts, reasons behind deliberate changes, and the much more increased amount of variations in the earliest witnesses.

The rest of what you say is just a convoluted angry sermon on Islam as a whole riddled with mocking tirades. So I am ignoring that.

We now move back to the period of Abu Bakr. In your second “response” you wrote:

“Zaid was a complete Quran memorizer so why, when he was asked to write down Quran he did not simply said :”No problem, man, next month I bring you all the Quran written and ready for printing ? HE MEMORIZED IT ALL and he just had to write it. This is not what happened, he said that it was an impossible task.”

First of all Zaid did not say “it was an impossible task.” So don’t make things up as you go along. Zaid initially hesitated for the same reason Abu Bakr hesitated. The reason being: they did not want to do something which Muhammed had himself not done. This neatly explains the attitude of the disciples of Muhammed. Even if the act in question is good, they would hesitate doing it simply because Muhammed had not done it. In this instance Zaid was asked to collect the Quranic material in suhuf form and he hesitated simply because Muhammed had not done it, not because the task could not be accomplished. This is Zaid’s own reason which you had left out in your summary: “I asked them how they could undertake what the Prophet had never done …” The reaction of Umar was “It was permissible and good.” Umar did not say “oh no, it is possible, you can do it” because Zaid had not said “oh no I cannot; it’s impossible!” Zaid’s comment that “had they asked me to move a mountain it could not have been weightier” was not a statement towards the impossibility of the task, but to the fact that the Muhammed had not done it and due to the weight of the responsibility upon him. To do something, including this good work, which the Prophet had not done was more difficult than moving a mountain.

Do you get it now? I doubt it.

Now to the second point, if Zaid was himself the complete memoriser of the Quran, why did he not just go about writing it all down himself? The reasons are 1. The primary reason is the rule of witnessing. Witnessing is particularly of paramount importance when it comes to collecting God’s own Word or the benefit of the community. Therefore, Zaid was required to work with other disciples of Muhammed – who would all act as witnesses. Ibn Dawud records Abu Bakr as saying to Umar and Zaid: “Sit at the entrance to the Mosque. If anyone brings you a verse from the Book of Allah along with two witnesses, then record it.” Through this method, you have many witnessing to the authenticity of the Quranic text and playing a role in its collection with Zaid, giving it the highest level of trustworthiness. You do not just have one man going about the task privately, without any witnesses. As a result of this public witnessing, there could be no possible reason for doubting Zaid. Here no disciple of Muhammed objected and all were pleased with the end result, with no reason to suspect Zaid. 2. One person can err, say from fatigue. But if others are present, the error can be captured. Thus Zaid worked with other disciples of Muhammed.

In Abu Bakr’s time Zaid’s responsibility was simply to collect together the materials on which the Quran had been transcribed under Muhammed’s presence, rather than to write something afresh. For all material, witnesses were required as well.

“Scribe AND memoriser ? A scribe, a man of writing who does not write ! This is pure nonsense.”

In fact, what you have just written above is pure nonsense and shows you know nothing about the subject apart from your imaginations about it. Zaid, the full Quranic memoriser and scribe of the Prophet (there is no disagreement in any of the sources on this as far as I can tell), is collecting as loose sheets (known as suhuf) material on which the Quran was written, checking it against two witnesses to affirm its accuracy via witnessing. Why is this supposed to make “nonsense” the indisputable fact that Zaid was a memoriser and scribe? I guess this is your “magic logic” at work again?

“If he knew how to write he MUST have write all revelations immediately after they occurred.”

Um…yes. He did when he was available. Muhammed had a team of scribes, so whenever he said he had received a Quranic revelation, he had it written down by a scribe. This scribe could be Zaid, if he was available at the time, or another fellow scribe.

“He did not ?”

He did. You clearly are totally unfamiliar with the subject/

”Come on ! There is something extremely illogic here.”

The illogical thing here is you making silly comments based on a total ignorance of the subject. I mean, come on!

“Jeeijoe, explain this to a stupid man like me who don’t understand evidence.”

I just did above. Hope it helps.

”You just said that writing down Quran was “something Muhamad had not done in his own lifetime.”

I DID NOT say this. Besides being grossly ignorant, you are now deceptively distorting what I said. What Muhammed had not done in his lifetime was this: collecting the Quranic writings in a single volume, between two covers. This is known as “Mushaf”. Or collecting it loosely together, known as “suhuf”. I DID NOT say that in Muhammed’s lifetime the Quran was not written down. It WAS written down (by scribes such as Zaid), but it was just not collected between two covers.

”And immediately after you speak about “material transcribed under Muhammad’s supervision!”. Here is a contradiction.”

If one has the ability to read and grasp straightforward English, then there is NO “contradiction here. Consider this:

A) Muhammed did not collect the Quran between two covers

B) Muhammed’s scribes used to write down the Quranic revelations for him.

How on earth are the two “contradictory?” If you are amazingly stupid, then yes they are “contradictory.” But if you have a bare minimum IQ, then you can see they are NOT “contradictory.”

So then, what did Muhammed not do in his lifetime? = collect the Quran between two covers (mushaf), or loosely (suhuf).
What did occur in Muhammed’s lifetime? = his scribes writing the Quranic revelations, either on sheets, leafs or animal skin etc.

Therefore, Zaid had to collect all this material, supported by two corresponding witnesses, and bring it all together as suhuf form.

“And if Muhammad transcribed a part of the Quran in his lifetime, why he did not transcribed it all ? Quran was not important enough ? Words of God, direct, and such carelessness !!!!!!”

I didn’t say this. You totally misread and due to your remarkably low knowledge of the subject, completely misunderstood the discussion. Now read carefully as this is being written in the simplest of English: In Muhammed’s lifetime, all of the Quranic verses had been written down by his scribes (one of them being Zaid). But all of this material had not been put in a book form, or loosely collected together. It was still separate. That’s all. Zaid’s job was to collect all of it in suhuf form and have it all confirmed by two corresponding witnesses.

Claude, this is easy stuff to understand.

Now moving to a different period, the time of Uthman:

”Why burn parts of Quran, where are verses on lapidation etc. Please, answer directly to the objections mentioned in the article obove.”

This is getting bizarrely silly now. I replied DIRECTLY to the above (“why the burning” and abrogation issues) and yet you come back and ask me again about it! Scroll up and read my replies and if you still cannot find it I will copy and paste it for you again.

The rest of what you write is not even comprehensible and just contains more mockful comments. I take it that English is not your first language. In any case, I have replied to everything else above so that will have to suffice for now.; January 16, 2009 at 11:14 PM
jeeijoe said...: El-Cid said:

“jeeijoe said:” "none of his fans, including yourself, are willing to seriously engage with the counter response. Instead all you can do is make bravado declarations and pass off sarcastic remarks. Very desperate."

”That is an excellent summation of a great deal of the behavior from from specific Muslims the past few days (Islam2009 I am looking in your direction).”

The above “response” is a “you too” fallacy, as Nabeel Quraishi would happily admit (see his latest writing). Secondly, that Islam2009 is allegedly guilty of the above does not negate what I have said above.

“...Certain people whose words are practically dripping with sarcasm, rancor, and thinly veiled insults. I spent some time becoming mildly impressed with how effective Islam2009 is at irritating and prodding his opponents. Unfortunately, that is not the objective that should be intended here.”

And this is supposed to be an “excuse” to what I am referring to above? And have our memories just obliterated to the constant Christian abuses, insults, mocks, blasphemies throughout the comments section of this blog? Does “Ben Malik” ring a bell? I mean, hello?

Islam2009, in sharp contrast to the above, has effectively dealt with the misinformed Quranic polemics. Now deal with his arguments for a change and since the long history of Christian ill-behaviour on this blog does not apparently bother you, then don’t get upset on account of Islam2009’s “mild” insults.

”jeeijoe said:” "You are just heading towards a head-on disastor if you attempt to compare the Quranic and NT mss tradition. Both in terms of quality and quantity we are in a much better position..."

“Not really. The Quranic mss tradition can only be traced back as far a Uthman.

There we go again! Ignore everything that has been said in response as if it was never said to begin with and just parrot away the Uthman conspiracy theory again!

”You see, you have no concrete way of providing visual historical EVIDENCE for your claim. The textual history of the Quran was AMPUTATED. It was sliced at the neck by Uthman. Now, you can CLAIM that Uthman's compilation matched what was "revealed" to Muhammad, but you cannot PROVE this claim.”

Wow! You see you have no concrete way of providing VISUAL historical EVIDENCE for your claims pertaining to the NT text from its first 100-150 years of transmission! Not to mention your inability to provide VISUAL historical EVIDENCE for the grand Uthman conspiracy HYPOTHESIS.

Two points here: 1. our VISUAL historical EVIDENCE – which amply demonstrates the reliable textual transmission of the Quranic text – goes back down to a few decades after Muhammed’s passing away. 2. From the time of Uthman onwards, there is really no reason to doubt the authentic textual transmission of the Quran and the ample mss evidence PROVES the authentic transmission. Even non-Muslim scholars, in general (I am using “general” just to be on the safe side as I personally know of no one who doubts the authentic transmission from the period of Uthman onwards), accept the authenticity of the Quranic text from the time of Uthman. Thus, the question is only about the very minor period between Muhammed (his passing away) and Uthman, some 20-25 years!

So even if we exclude the 20-25 year period, our textual transmission remains far extensive and earlier to the time of the alleged events than of the NT’s.

Now the burden of proof is upon you to PROVE to us that in this 20-25 years – when countless disciples of Muhammed were still alive (Uthman, Ubay, Zaid, Ali, etc) – a massive conspiracy somehow occurred, so much so that the end product (Uthmanic Quranic copies) was radically/massively/substantially different from whatever that existed prior to it, so that we no longer have what Muhammed preached.

My arguments – which everyone has ignored so far – is that if this were the situation in Christianity, where you had disciples of Jesus working on a joint project and all agreeing that the end volume contained all of Jesus’ authentic words, deeds, and teachings, that you would be absolutely delighted at this and would have no reason to doubt the veracity of the work, precisely because it was produced by those closest to Jesus!

This is exactly what we have for the Quran. The closest disciples of Muhammed worked on the project and compiled the Quranic copies, with no one that we know of doubting their authenticity (not even Ibn Masud, who is a transmitter of the same Quran!).

Moreover, when we compare all the reported variants, together with the variants in the palimpsest, what we DO NOT find is a different textual form, one substantially different from the existing Quran. The agreement of Muhammed’s disciples, the fact that all variants put together (including the inauthentic ones) remain overwhelmingly the same as the current Quran all strongly point that the Uthmanic copies did NOT contain something that was radically different, hence its ready acceptance by the community. The community is embracing something they are familiar with, something they recognize, and NOT something their eyes have seen for the first time!

”At best you are forced to rely on the good intentions of compilers, and quality of memory of fallible humans (Qurra). The Quran we have today is Zaid's codex, authorized by Uthman.”

The compilers are who? Muhammed’s closest disciples and themselves complete memorisers of the Quran. Yes, every human is fallible, but it is possible to accurately memorise a text and a text can be memorised within a community. The laws of physics allow for this. This can be accurately done if there is also a parallel written back-up support. This was also present. So we have the good intentions of the compilers (Muhammed’s companions/disciples), added to the fact they are all working as a team (so if one errs, others can catch it), added to the fact they are not only dependent upon memory, but are actively going through the WRITTEN data and consulting the very SCRIBES of Muhammed.

Now you are engaged in HYPER scepticism whereas in the case of the NT you become overly accepting. Again, if this is how Jesus’ disciples operated and composed a volume containing Jesus’ words, deeds and teachings, would you accept that or dismiss it by bogus comments such as “Oh but that’s just James codex!”

What is meant by “Zaid’s codex”? Something which Zaid invented out of the blue or something containing the words of the Quran left by Muhammed? And you are factually wrong. Uthman is not described as merely “authorizing” an existing codex belonging to Zaid. He puts Zaid in charge of a project where he (Zaid) is to work with other disciples of Muhammed, go through the written transcriptions, compare all that with the parallel memorisation, work with Muhammed’s scribes (reminder, Zaid himself was a scribe of Muhammed), and through this process compile copies of the Quran.

”Essentially, without believing Zaid and Uthman were somehow "inspired compilers" there is no way to prove the Quran is the perfectly preserved "revelation" given to Muhammad (as the Quran rests it's claim on). I am not comfortable putting my eternal destiny behind a claim whose systematic investigation ends at a dead-end.”

This is hyper scepticism. You are essentially demanding nothing short of video-tape type “proof” whereas when it comes to the NT your unrealistically high standards will suddenly plummet way down. Uthman is Muhammed’s closest disciple and complete Quranic memoriser, as is Zaid (who also happened to be one of Muhammed’s scribes). Zaid in turn is not working in isolation but is working with other close disciples of Muhammed and full Quran memorisers, people such as Ubay. This group of Muhammed’s disciples is going painstakingly through the written material transcribed under Muhammed’s presence, the continuing parallel oral repetition of the Quranic text within the community and at the end of the day ALL intimate and close disciples of Muhammed agree that we have an accurate reproduction of the Quran in the multiple copies.

The difference between you and me is this:

I have no reason to doubt that the current Quran is what Muhammed recited as I have the witness of his closest companions. Nor do I have any reason to doubt its textual authenticity because 1. Our mss evidence goes back to decades after Muhammed; from Uthman onwards there can be no question about the Quranic text; 2. all the pre-Uthmanic variants do not reveal a different text form – thus making is highly improbable that the text existed in a radically different from previously. I am more than happy to place my trust on this, realizing that at the end of the day we cannot have a video tape type of evidence in historical investigations and need to work in terms of probabilities.

You, on the other hand, are happy to place your trust on a set of writings whose authorship, in most instances, is unknown – so how can we know that the anonymous authors were “inspired”? I am not comfortable putting my eternal destiny in the hands of anonymous writers (who can also be observed using each other and changing stories e.g. Matthew and Luke using Mark).
Paul is said to have had amanuensis who wrote for him at times. How do we know they accurately reproduced what Paul said? A number of conservative Christians have reasoned the Pastoral Epistles were also written by an amanuensis, this time by one who was given an unusually high freedom (since Paul was in prison). If so, how can we be reasonably sure that this amanuensis was inspired or accurately reproduced what Paul may have once said? Does not matter, you have your trust in this anyway!
Given the many blatant differences between the synoptics and John, how do we know that John accurately reproduced Jesus’ teachings and words? How did John go about writing his book? We do not know but can only guess! I am not comfortable putting my eternal destiny behind divergent claims whose systematic investigation ends at a dead-end and at the point of the books and does not go back to the period before the writings up to Jesus.
There is no mss evidence for the NT from its first 100-150 years, a period when most of the existing variations came into being and a period widely accepted by textual critics to be the most fluid one (1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Philemon, James, 2 Thessalonians (p92), Acts (p38) and Mark (p45) appear for the first time in fragments or completely (3 John, 1 and 2 Timothy) in the third or fourth centuries). Paul wrote sometime in the early 50’s and the first VISUAL evidence of his writings pops up over 150 years later! But you are presumably not bothered by this huge gap. How can you be sure that, despite the considerable gap, these later witnesses accurately reproduce whatever the authors originally wrote? I am not comfortable putting my eternal destiny behind books whose systematic investigation ends at a dead-end, in the earliest, in c. 200 or the third and fourth centuries!
There is CONSIDERABLE dispute among Christians on the authorship of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, James. How can you ever be sure that the purported authors were really the authors and that someone was not just pretending to be, say, Peter? Where is the VISUAL proof/evidence for this? And, btw, how can you even be sure that irrespective of the authorship, the text is what the authors originally wrote, with no changes, given the late mss evidence for these writings?!

In conclusion: for the NT the type of “evidence” you require to put your eternal destiny is pathetically way way down and exceedingly low whereas in the case of the Quran it suddenly shoots up to unbelievably unrealistic standards even when our existing evidence is way much higher than yours!; January 16, 2009 at 11:23 PM
El-Cid said...: "There we go again! Ignore everything that has been said in response as if it was never said to begin with and just parrot away the Uthman conspiracy theory again!"

First of all, you can be informed for future reference that if I comment on something that you have "responded to" it is probably because I found your response unconvincing (or, in the case of a thread with 75 comments, I may have skimmed past it). Just because you made some sort of a comment on an issue it does not mean that everyone else on the blog just needs to never mention the issue ever again. This is quite unusual thinking you have here.

"This is hyper scepticism. You are essentially demanding nothing short of video-tape type “proof” "

No. Actually what this is, is you making a world-class straw-man of epic proportions. Video-tape type proof?? Come on. That is just laughable of you to even attempt to try to force such a claim on me. Let me clarify a bit. When I said "visual" evidence, I was referring to the fact that the visual documentation for the Quran (i.e. manuscripts) all end at Uthman. The historical evidence you have ends at a dead-end beyond which point is impossible to historically investigate.

There is no "hyper-scepticism" here. There is simply the fact that the manuscript history of the Quran is such that at a specific point in time one man had full control over the entire text and it's manuscript history, while such an event was never even a possibility with the NT.

There is also no "conspiracy theory" here. Please show me where I have explicitly advance a conspiracy. I never did any such thing. I am simply saying a state-controlled compilation and destruction of the manuscripts happened. Combine that with the fact that we know part of the motivation for standardizing the text was to "keep Muslims from disagreeing like the Christians and Jews", there is ample reason to want to investigate what really happened. One does not have to even believe Uthman was malicious in order to speculate. It is also possible that he failed in the task he set out to do. Maybe he was successful. Maybe he was malicious. Maybe he was sincere but failed. The point is, there is no manuscript evidence to allow me (or anyone else) to exclude any of the above possibilities conclusively because Uthman burned all the documentation that allows us to do so.

You might want to ask for clarification next time, rather than coming up with some crazy conclusion that I am saying I expect a camera team of crack investigative journalists, or the crew from "Alien Autopsy" to have magically gotten in a time machine to record the Quran. Asking for clarification is the common sense approach to keep you from making such embarrassing assumptions in the future.

I really don't have time right now to engage in such things with someone that (unfortunately), is chronically misrepresenting what others are saying (especially when they are generating the massive thomes that some people have come up with in the past few days). I am neither an apologist, aspiring apologist, nor someone that particulary enjoys dissecting the written aspects of argumentation. I'm a verbal communicator. I'm just here as someone interested in comparitive religions, and Islam in general.

Have a good day.; January 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM
jeeijoe said...: El-Cid said...

I had said:
"There we go again! Ignore everything that has been said in response as if it was never said to begin with and just parrot away the Uthman conspiracy theory again!"

EI-Cid replies:

”First of all, you can be informed for future reference that if I comment on something that you have "responded to" it is probably because I found your response unconvincing (or, in the case of a thread with 75 comments, I may have skimmed past it).”

And you should be informed that I am not here to ‘convince’ folks like you since you are here not with a mindset to have a genuine discussion to understand a subject but for purely polemical purposes. Such a mindset is beyond ‘convincing’ even if God were to come down Himself. Secondly, if you are responding to a comment that it would not be the end of the world if you skim through the entire discussion to ensure that you are not just repeating something that has already been discussed in-depth earlier one.

”Just because you made some sort of a comment on an issue it does not mean that everyone else on the blog just needs to never mention the issue ever again. This is quite unusual thinking you have here.”

The above is not my ‘thinking’; it is your distortion of my thinking. Read carefully this time (I know it can be challenging but give it a try, don’t give up): my objection is not that you do not mention an issue ‘again’. The objection is: don’t just ignore the counter arguments and simply repeat something which has already been addressed. That is, make at least some effort, for crying out loud, to engage with a response and offer a counter reply. Just to repeat something over and over again, while all along completely ignoring the counter replies, is absurd to say the least.

Please remember: repeating something ad nauseum does not by itself transform it into the truth. If you repeat a lie a billion times, it will still remain a lie.

I am not expressing an ‘unusual’ concept here.

Moving on, I had said:

"This is hyper scepticism. You are essentially demanding nothing short of video-tape type “proof” "

Your reply to the above:

”No. Actually what this is, is you making a world-class straw-man of epic proportions. Video-tape type proof?? Come on. That is just laughable of you to even attempt to try to force such a claim on me. Let me clarify a bit. When I said "visual" evidence, I was referring to the fact that the visual documentation for the Quran (i.e. manuscripts) all end at Uthman. The historical evidence you have ends at a dead-end beyond which point is impossible to historically investigate.”

I didn’t commit any straw man above and I was absolutely correct in referring to you as a hyper sceptic.

This is precisely what I mean; repeating an assertion ad nauseum over and over again while totally ignoring the counter replies, not even making the minutest effort to engage with them. Again we have the silly Uthman conspiracy theory and not one effort, not a single effort, to deal with the previous refutations to it. And now you have your wonderful convenient excuse, namely, “oh I skimmed passed it; jee there were 75 comments” etc. So I am note sure how our discussion can proceed further since you will always ignore dealing with the counter replies and just rehash the answered objections again!

Secondly, my above comment was in response to your statement:

“”You see, you have no concrete way of providing visual historical EVIDENCE for your claim. The textual history of the Quran was AMPUTATED. It was sliced at the neck by Uthman. Now, you can CLAIM that Uthman's compilation matched what was "revealed" to Muhammad, but you cannot PROVE this claim.””

The above IS hyper scepticism because you are not willing to accept, based on a number of reasonable arguments and other pieces of evidence, that the contents of the Uthmanic copies could not have been radically or substantially different from that of the burnt material. You want nothing short of ‘visual’ evidence; nothing else is acceptable. It is not that I am making any ‘laughable’ comment, but the laughable bit is you making a hyper sceptical demand which, if it were to be applied upon the NT, would be sufficient to invalidate it for good (details on this below).

My argument is that even though the mss evidence of the Quran ends at Uthman (putting aside the fact that we have evidence from palimpsests and in numerous reports), that by itself does not follow that there is no continuity, or that the contents of the Uthmani copies were radically/substantially different from that of the burnt material. The community openly endorses the contents of the Uthmani copies and it is nothing ‘new’ for them. I then presented arguments to justify this conclusion and offered a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that Uthman is not working in isolation; he, being a close disciple of Muhammed himself, is working in a project with other close disciples of Muhammed. That they are not creating something out of thin air but going through the existing material, looking at the oral transmission as well, and merely reproducing the already existing Quran in multiple copies. Not a single disciple of Muhammed raised a voice against the authenticity of the copies produced through this joint effort. Your counter response? NONE! Just repeat the original charge again without dealing with the counter response!

I then related a similar scenario in Christianity and requested Christians to comment:

If this were the situation in Christianity, where you had disciples of Jesus working on a joint project and all agreeing that the end volume contained all of Jesus’ authentic words, deeds, and teachings, what would be your reaction? If close intimate disciples of Jesus, working in a group, went through all the material, leaving out only errors, mistakes, and then produced their joint findings in a volume which they all agreed accurately represented Jesus’ words and teachings, what would have been your reaction to this? You have jumped in delight and accepted it without question, without bothering to ponder over the fate/contents of what went before (which, btw, was all consulted by this group of Jesus’ disciples anyway)! You would have had no reason to doubt the veracity of the work, precisely because it was produced by those closest to Jesus!

You WOULD NOT have argued “oh but we do not have the previous documents, so we cannot trust the volume prepared by Jesus’ closest disciples because they MUST HAVE radically changed Jesus’ words, deeds and teachings!”

Please enlighten us with the reasons why the closest disciples of Jesus would go out of their way to deliberately alter his words, teachings and deeds at radical proportions? Or would their natural reaction/aim be to preserve what their leader (Jesus) had said, taught and preached? Surely the latter. Therefore, why should it not be the same when it comes to Muhammed’s closest disciples, who genuinely regarded him to be God’s Prophet and Messenger? Why on earth should we believe or entertain the notion that they would somehow magically manage to enforce upon the masses something radically/substantially different from the Quran Muhammed had left, with absolutely no opposition to the contents of their copies!!

But you are now demanding nothing short of ‘visual’ evidence, despite not having any ‘visual’ evidence for your own baseless hypothesis, and by conveniently IGNORING VIRTUALLY ALL THE REASONABLE ARGUMENTS I HAVE PRESENTED.

Therefore, let me reapply your own standard upon the NT:

1. Unless and until you can produce first century mss for the NT, it cannot be said that the text as we have it now was mostly the same to whatever existed in the first century.
2. Unless and until you can produce the actual written visual documents of the NT from the very moment of their authors, we can never ever believe that what we have no was mostly the same to whatever the authors originally wrote.

We are still in a better position. Our mss evidence spans all the way into the first Islamic century. Even western scholars in general do not question the authentic transmission of the Quranic text from the time of Uthman onwards. But your NT’s mss evidence comes to a dead end at c. 200. You have absolutely nothing, you have ZILCH, from your first century and zilch from the major part of your second century.

If I am to accept your standard for ‘visual’ evidence, then the very first document which I must immediately dismiss and toss in the bin is the NT!

You are your friends are only experts at digging your own graves by applying unbelievably high hyper sceptical standards upon the Quran which instantly invalidate the textual reliability and authenticity of the NT documents!

I guess I should thank you 

”There is simply the fact that the manuscript history of the Quran is such that at a specific point in time one man had full control over the entire text and it's manuscript history, while such an event was never even a possibility with the NT.”

Completely false and nonsense. The ‘one man’ you refer to is Uthman who is ONE OF MUHAMMED’S CLOSEST DISCIPLE and a complete Quranic memoriser himself. Secondly, he is NOT working ‘alone’, or in private. He assembles A TEAM OF OTHER CLOSE DISCIPLES OF MUHAMMED AND HIS (Muhammed’s) PERSONAL CONFIDANTS who all work together by going through all the material and the oral recitation of the Quran, reproducing the Quran in multiple copies in an open process, with all agreeing upon the authenticity and reliability of the end products. The aim of these disciples is to accurately reproduce the Quran rather than to enforce something ‘unknown’ upon the masses (which would have been an impossibility in anycase).

This would be a parallel scenario in Christianity: One man, the very close disciple of Jesus Peter who leads the community, appoints a team of Jesus’ closest disciples – confidants of Jesus such as James, Matthew, John etc – and they all go through all the existing material and consulting with other eyewitnesses collect in a volume all of Jesus’ authentic words, deeds and teachings. All of these close disciples of Jesus agree that the volume only contains the authentic material and is absolutely reliable. They all give their seal of approval to it.

So I ask you again:

Would you have ‘reasoned’: “oh but we do not have the previous documents, so we cannot trust the volume prepared by Jesus’ closest disciples because they MUST HAVE radically changed Jesus’ words, deeds and teachings!”???

In the case of the NT the situation is bad. You cannot point to any NT document which was approved by a group of Jesus’ disciples, those who had spent time with him. Whereas the Quran which the Muslims have received the seal of approval from ALL of Muhammed’s disciples.

Moreover, the ‘visual’ NT evidence comes to an end at c. 200!

Make an effort this time to engage with my arguments.

”There is also no "conspiracy theory" here. Please show me where I have explicitly advance a conspiracy. I never did any such thing.”

You have passed a conspiracy theory because:

a) you want us to believe that the closest companions of Muhammed, for some unknown mysterious reason, just decided to radically alter the Quran. Whereas you would never entertain the possibility of the disciples of Jesus doing this with Jesus’ words, teachings and deeds.
b) You want us to imagine that within a short period of a mere 20-24 years after Muhammed’s death – by which time the Muslim community was already distributed over a substantial geographical area – that without anyone really ‘noticing’ it, the Quranic text in the Uthmani copies became radically and substantially different from the Quran which Muhammed had left.

These ARE conspiracy theories. If you want us to entertain the notion that all of Muhammed’s closest disciples were active participants in a deliberate scheme to alter radically the Quran, then we have a conspiracy here.

If you want us to believe that in a mere 20-24 years after Muhammed’s death Uthman somehow managed to magically produce a substantially/radically different Quran and also managed to enforce it upon a wide geographical area with no notable opposition, then this IS a conspiracy theory.

In short, to assert and suggest that in 20-24 years after Muhammed’s death, when numerous disciples of his are still alive, the Quranic text was radically altered, then this IS a conspiracy.

So, are you now in a mood to reject this silly conspiracy theory? I doubt it!

” I am simply saying a state-controlled compilation and destruction of the manuscripts happened.”

And I am simply saying that that does not follow that the Quranic text within the Uthmani copies was radically or substantially different. Why does this not infiltrate into your thick head?

And I am simply saying that the head of state managing this state controlled compilation was Muhammed’s closest disciple and confidant, who in turn was working openly with other very close disciples of Muhammed. So the whole process is being managed by those who knew Muhammed well and were memorisers of the Quran.

That there was state controlled compilation and destruction of fragments and notebooks does not mean that the text of the Uthmani Quran was different from what Muhammed had left, PARTICULARLY WHEN MUHAMMED’S OWN VERY DISCIPLES ARE THE ONES MANAGING THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

Now suppose Peter the disciple of Jesus became a head of state and requested other disciples of Jesus (James, John, Matthew etc) to collect Jesus’ words, deeds and teachings in a separate volume by going through all the existing materials. All of Jesus disciples do this and are pleased with the end product. None of them doubts its authenticity. Would you as a Christian accept this or dismiss the work of Jesus’ disciples?

”Combine that with the fact that we know part of the motivation for standardizing the text was to "keep Muslims from disagreeing like the Christians and Jews", there is ample reason to want to investigate what really happened.”

Once again you completely miss the point. If the motivation was to avoid a situation where Muslims disagree about the text the way the Jews and the Christians do, and if the disciples of Muhammed then went about the task by carefully going through all the written material, by looking at the existing oral transmission, and by requiring two witnesses as a back-up for each and every verse, WHAT REASON IS THERE NOW TO SUPPOSE THAT THE TEXT THEY COMPILED WAS RADICALLY AND SUBTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MUHAMMED LEFT?

If Peter the disciple of Jesus came across Hindus disagreeing over the text of their scriptures, and he wanted to avoid the ‘Jesus community’ getting into the same mess and, as a result, requested Matthew, James, John and others to go through all the existing material and produce in a separate volume all of Jesus’ authentic words, teachings and deeds, WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN DISMISSIVE TOWARDS THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE CLOSE DISCIPLES OF JESUS OR EMBRACED IT???!

Would you dismiss the work of the disciples because they did what they did on account of “keeping Christians from disagreeing like the Hindus” and because “of the simple reason to want to investigate what really happened”?? What is the unknown ‘reasoning’ behind this weird ‘logic’?

Or would you doubt the work of the disciples just ‘for the heck of it’ since, you know, for unknown ulterior motives they would have radically changed the words, deeds and teachings of Jesus, even if we have no evidence for that?

So you have not proffered any reason for us to suppose that the Uthamani Quranic copies were radically or substantially different from what Muhammed left, and that too within a mere 20-24 years after Muhammed!

Moreover, we HAVE access to the pre-Uthmanic variants and scholars have openly studied them for a long time. We also have some variants in the palimpsests. And you know what, when we consider and investigate all of this data, irrespective of the questionable authenticity of a number of reported variants, we find no ‘different’ Quranic text form and no radical divergence. The text is overwhelmingly the same, thereby REFUTING the CONSPIRACY theory that the Uthmanic copies were radically or substantially different. Arthur Jeffery, for this reason, decided not to pursue further comparing the ‘codices’ of Ibn Masud with the Uthmani copies precisely due to text being overwhelmingly the same.

So we know what ‘really’ occurred.

”One does not have to even believe Uthman was malicious in order to speculate.”

One need not believe in anything to speculate! But serious historians and scholars do not just speculate for the sake of speculating and for the fun of it!

Proof and evidence can go out of the window. Hell, I will now speculate just for the fun of it that the disciples of Jesus, who were not malicious, just passed on blatant disinformation about Jesus for having a low IQ and this mass of disinformation then made its way into the canonical gospels. I will now convince myself that this really did occur because there is no ‘visual’ evidence to show otherwise.

”It is also possible that he failed in the task he set out to do.”

And it is possible that he (well, not just ‘he’, there is a group of people here!) successfully accomplished the task he set out to do.

”Maybe he was successful.”

Yes he was successful.

”Maybe he was malicious.”

May be he was not malicious.

”Maybe he was sincere but failed.”

May be he was sincere and succeeded.

”The point is, there is no manuscript evidence to allow me (or anyone else) to exclude any of the above possibilities conclusively because Uthman burned all the documentation that allows us to do so. “

And bingo! Again the grand conspiracy theory! Just keep ignoring all the counter arguments which have been made to show the high improbability of your conspiracy theory and just keep repeating the refuted conspiracy theory over and over again like a parrot!

Now unless and until you can offer us first century mss evidence for the NT, we cannot possibly accept that the current text is the same as the one which existed in the first century, or even that the current text was composed by the ones whose names are today attributed to the individual writings. Because, you know, there are endless possibilities. We want to know what really happened.

May be Mark the follower of Peter attempted write down Peter’s recollection; may be Mark was malicious and deliberately lied and distorted Peter’s words and teachings; may be Mark was sincere but failed; may be Mark succeeded in his task but then his writing got lost so he had to start all over again, this time making numerous errors etc etc. The point is that we have no mss evidence to allow us to exclude any of these possibilities conclusively because the earliest manuscript of Mark comes from the third century and early Christians didn’t bother to preserve a first century manuscript of Mark, or the notes Mark made while spending time with Peter. How do we know Mark accurate made use of his notes and not just changed them and made errors? We need the notes to know conclusively he didn’t do this!

You see buddy you are completely unfamiliar with the principals of historical investigation and are busy writing nonsense. Historians realize that almost always we cannot be absolutely 100 percent ‘certain’ in historical investigations and neither can something be demonstrated in terms of 100 percent ‘conclusiveness’. Historians work in terms of probabilities and consider the likely or unlikelihood of probabilities of various reasonably possible scenarios. The SAME applies to a historical investigation of the NT.

Historians and scholars do not like idiots go about shooting an endless list of ‘possibilities’. Possibilities by themselves MEAN NOTHING since there are always countless possibilities. What matters is the PROBABILITY and not mere ‘possibility’.

And ‘possibilities’ are not foolishly fired away. PROBABLE ‘possibilities’ or realistic ones which fit the available data, are considered.

One does not engage in sheer wholesale speculation as you have foolishly done all over the place. If you do that then the NT IS IN FAR MORE TROUBLE.

One, who has already decided not to take seriously the evidence, can offer endless list of ‘possibilities’, including ridiculously absurd ones, in the urge to just dismiss the NT (or any other writing).

Have a good day.; January 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM
El-Cid said...: "You want nothing short of ‘visual’ evidence; nothing else is acceptable. It is not that I am making any ‘laughable’ comment, but the laughable bit is you making a hyper sceptical demand which, if it were to be applied upon the NT..." etc etc etc

I actually just explained to you what I meant when I said "visual". Anyway, it seems that you feel you are more of an expert on the intentions of my words than I am. Strange.

...then you went on to accuse me of only being here for "polemic" motives etc etc

I will just chock this little gem up to ignorance. I certainly wouldn't have invested the many many hours I have spent into sincere investigation (including several lengthy discussions with Sheikhs over the last year) if I was insincere. But, since you think I can't be reasoned with, please don't waste your time trying.

As for the rest of your comment, it was far too lengthy for me to read at this time (you seem to be quite a fan of quantity in your replies, rather than conciseness). Since I am still recovering from jet-lag, and quite busy....I will be copying it along with my other reading obligations and sending it to my assistant for her to work up a summary, at which time I hope to make further replies.

Have a blessed day, jeeijoe.; January 18, 2009 at 5:13 AM
El-Cid said...: one more thing jeeijoe,

you said: "Historians and scholars do not like idiots go about shooting an endless list of ‘possibilities’. Possibilities by themselves MEAN NOTHING since there are always countless possibilities. What matters is the PROBABILITY and not mere ‘possibility’."

Are you placing me in this category of "idiots"? (a simple yes or no will suffice). Because if you are, do not expect me to even bother with what you have to say. I wouldn't waste your time trying to make you explain things to an "idiot".

It's always so nice to be treated to some real Muslim hospitality. Cheers to you sir! I find your charm only to be matched by your endless charitable spirit.; January 18, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Bassam said...: Nakdimon said: And if you want to hide behind the “Ahruf”-argument, then we can also make the claim that the Gospels as we find them in the NT are 4 “Ahrufs” in which Yeshua revealed the Injeel to his disciples.

Nakdimon, the difference is that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught that seven ahrufs is an Islamic concept. No where in the NT does Jesus teach that. So you as a Christian can't appeal to that, while we as Muslims can.; January 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
XIA said...: Can some christian tells:

1. Where the Books of bible claims to be from GOD? (Christians remember bible is not one book its many books put together in one cover so claim in one wont gona work for other)

2. Which version is right version (remember not talking about translation but versions)

3. Name all the authors of books (with proofs because we know the guesses that christians make, specially OT books)

4. Are other books (that are found in old manuscripts but not now in bible) too from GOD?; March 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Acid said...: hahaha, It's interesting to see such desperate attempt to attack Islam.

Looks like David Wood use fabricated comments by Muslims and write responses to them!

Allah is the Greatest; May 2, 2009 at 4:39 AM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: Acid--

What fabricated response? David responded to a comment from the previous post.

You, on the other hand, did not respond to a single argument to any degree. I'd suggest you take the plank out of your own eye before trying to take a speck out of someone else's.; May 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM