Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on his alleged variant readings of the Noble Quran:

The following article is a rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article that is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_seventy.htm.

Ironically, not only I will blow away Shamoun's desperate points with solid logic, but I will also post an AUDIO file excerpt of a conversation that took place between me and his friend "christian_prince" (CP), where CP himself refuted Shamoun's absurd points below.

Shamoun wrote:

Some variant readings in Bible and Qur'an

Sam Shamoun

Bassam Zawadi seeks to call into question the authority of the Bible on the basis that it contains variant readings (*). He cites one specific example from Luke 10:1:

I am going to post a verse from the Gospel of Luke from the New International Version translation and King James Version translation...

Luke 10:1

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. (NIV translation)

1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. (KJV translation)

So which translation is right? Is it seventy two or seventy?

RESPONSE:

We have mentioned time and time again that the biblical variant readings do not call into question the preservation of the Holy Bible any more than they would call into question any other ancient document. No ancient document has come down to us without variant readings, yet no honest critic would call into question the integrity of most of these writings.

My response:

Ancient documents that are not Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty are irrelevant to us here.  They are man made and it is normal for them to have contradictions where people disagree upon.  Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran:

"Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.  (The Noble Quran, 4:82)"

The fact that Shamoun compared his bible to ancient pagan documents clearly shows:

1-  He doesn't have much regard to his book, since he fully recognizes that it contains contradictions and man's alterations in it.

2-  He doesn't believe it is a purely a Divine Revelation from GOD Almighty, but some of it is close enough.

Now while we have listed 100s of textual and historical contradictions and corruptions in the Bible, but I'd like to post the following brief ones to Shamoun and challenge him to respond to them:

From www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm:

Consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:

2 Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

2 Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

It is quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.  This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.  Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?" to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible, along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with the Bible's corruption.  I have their personal quotes in that site.

Also, as to the parts of the Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

After that, please visit:  Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.

He wrote:

We have also stated time and time again that the great majority of these biblical variants deal with names, places and things. Most of these variants are easily reconciled and do not call into question any essential tenet of Christianity. Just look at Zawadi’s own example. Do any Christian doctrines hinge on whether the Lukan text reads 70 instead of 72? Of course not.

My response:

When one visits www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm, he will see 100s of textual contradictions along with false historical accounts that had been proven wrong by history.  Anyway, I challenge you to respond to the above contradictions that I posed above and then we'll give you a new batch of errors.

Ironically, even your own Christian scholars admit that the bible is rubbish:

From www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm:

Some Christians decided to respond to many of the Bible's contradictions.  They named their site "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible."  Ironically, their own quotes below refute them!  For example, you can do a search on this text in their site: "Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well."  Even those Christian scholars admit with their own typed words by their own fingers that the Bible does indeed contain "copyist error(s)", and they lowered their Holy Scripture to the level of a pagan book through their comparison.  My question is then, how can it be the word of GOD when it contains Satanic "copyist errors"?

By the way, please visit: The Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.

Answering Infidel Shamoun on the Lie of Bible Preservation.

The Original manuscript don't even exist according to the bible's own theologians!

"Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist."

"Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers."

"Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us."  (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html)

"It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away." (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html)

Yet, this same person writes:

"How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible debunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given. There is a copyist error. There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395,Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

        The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and and new one begun......"  (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html)

My Response:

How do you know that the above references (written by ordinary men) that you used in proving that Ahaziah was 42 years old are correct when the original manuscripts had been lost?  What makes you be so sure that Ahaziah was indeed 42 years old and not 22 or any other age?  You said the Christians make themselves look like "fools" when they attempt to answer away the apparent and irrefutable errors in the Bible.  Didn't you too just make an utter fool out of yourself too? 

Face it and admit it!  The Bible's overwhelming errors and corruptions are unanswerable!  The Bible is corrupt no matter how you try to decorate it.

The authors of the sites in the quotes above admit that the entire Bible is NOT perfect, and contains man's corruption or alteration in it.  They also admit that the original manuscripts that came from GOD Almighty are lost.  I'd like to comment on their points of the type of errors that exist in the Bible today:

1-  There is no evidence that the errors are only limited to spelling of proper names and numbers.  They're only assuming this and are using it as fact.  And even if this was true, then as they openly admitted, this takes away the Bible's perfection.  The reader must remember that the Christians' entire polytheist trinity paganism comes solely from conclusions and interpretations!  There is not ONE SINGLE claim or hard evidence in the Bible about GOD Almighty being 3, or that Jesus is our Creator.  Jesus who ran away from King Herod to Egypt, and who begged GOD Almighty for Mercy and prostrated his face down to the ground before Him on the night of crucifixion can not be the Creator of the Universe.  The trinitarian pagans would happily try to convince you that trinity is right from their corrupted book, while at the same time, they openly admit that there are errors and man's alterations that exist in the Bible, and the original manuscripts had been lost.  If the original manuscripts had been lost, then what makes you be so sure that trinity is the correct conclusion?

2-  According to the Bible's theologians, no one even knows who wrote the copies that they're referring to.   In other words, we don't even know if these people were anointed from GOD Almighty or not, because we don't have any evidence that the letters found that make up the Bible today were officially written by men.

He wrote:

And the fact of the matter is that the Holy Bible has greater manuscript authority and a more accurate textual transmission than any other document of antiquity. It is even better attested than the Quran, which happens to be more recent than the Bible and yet its corruption is actually greater.

My response:

Your bible is the biggest book in corruption and confusion as your very own scholars and theologians admit as I quoted them above.  And as to the alleged Noble Quran contradictions, we have thoroughly and systematically refuted all of them and exposed your lies at:

www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quranerr.htm

He wrote:

After all, the Quran has thousands of variant readings and (contrary to what Zawadi would want to believe) is not a perfectly compiled text. For the sake of space, we limit ourselves to one example of a textual variant in the Quran. In the present Uthmanic text, we read the following:

"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers..." S. 33:6

The late Muslim translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali records that Ubayy b. Ka‘b, a companion of Muhammad and considered to be one of the best reciters/readers, had an additional clause which was attested by other Muslim readers:

"In spiritual relationship the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer - closer to our real interests - than our own selves. IN SOME QIRAATS, LIKE THAT OF UBAI IBN KA'B, occur also the words ‘and he is a father to them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on with the words, ‘and his wives are their mothers.’ Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zaid ibn Haritha by the appellation Zaid ibn Muhammad (xxxiii. 40): such an appellation is really disrespectful to the Prophet." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1104, fn. 3674; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Keep in mind that Ubayy b. Ka’b was one of the four men from whom Muhammad told Muslims to learn the Quran:

Narrated Masriq:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: ‘Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu’adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)

He was also one of only four men to have the entire Quran. Ibn Sa’d recorded:

... When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, breathed his last, NOT MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS HAD THE QUR'AN IN ITS ENTIRETY. All of them were of the Ansars and there is a difference about the fifth one. The persons of the Ansars who had collected it in its entirety were Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu'adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayyi Ibn Ka'b, and the person about whom there is a difference was Tamim al-Dari. (Ibn Sa'd, Al-Tabaqat, Volume II, parts I & II, pp. 457-458; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hence, we have a clause of serious theological implications, whose authority is attested by some of the most qualified compilers and reciters of the Quran, which is missing from the present text!

My response:

I first of all want to ask the reader to visit: www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm to see detailed papers on the Noble Quran's Preservation. 

Now in regards to Noble Verse 33:6 above, let me expose your lie for you since you love to appeal to weak sources that are rejected by mainstream Sunnis who make up more than 85% of the entire 1.5 billion Muslim population.  Here is how the Noble Verse reads in today's Noble Quran:

"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of God. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of God).  (The Noble Quran, 33:6)"

Allah Almighty forbade for any Muslim man to marry any of the Prophet's wives, because they are considered the mothers of the believers, and a Muslim man can not marry his own mother:

"Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful;-  (The Noble Quran, 4:23)"

The Prophet is not our father!

As to the lie about the Prophet being our father, Allah Almighty couldn't be any clearer about the contrary:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.  (The Noble Quran, 33:40)"

So there you have it liar.  Checkmate once again!

The Prophet can marry our women!

Also, it is important to know that while a Muslim man can't marry any of the Prophet's wives or former wives because they are considered as his mothers in Islam, but the Prophet, peace be upon him, was allowed to marry the single daughters of the Muslims, the divorced women and the widowed women.  So the Prophet could not possibly have been their FATHER if he was allowed to marry them!

Please visit: Why did Allah Almighty prevent the wives of Prophet Muhammad from marrying any man after him?  See how the Bible has similar laws on the Priests.

Taking the Noble Quran from four:

I again want to ask the reader to listen to this brief AUDIO conversation that took place between me and Shamoun's buddy, christian_prince, where cp himself refuted Shamoun's absurd and desperate points.

The Arabic word for "take", "khuthoo":

1-  Does not give exclusivity to any person because no one is perfect; not even Prophet Muhammad himself as the Noble Quran clearly confirms this.

2-  Only means to take the guidance and the teachings of the Noble Quran from them, since these four were the most knowledgeable among all Muslims at that time.

Now, as clearly demonstrated with thorough evidence, the committee of scholars that Caliph Othman appointed were the ones who determine the Divine Revelations of the Noble Quran and their numeric order/sequence.  These scholars were the best of the best among the Muslims when it came to the Noble Quran!  That is why Caliph Othman burnt all of the other manuscripts, because:

1-  Some contained false verses which were either lies invented by men or Sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad that people thought they were actual Divine Noble Quranic Verses.

2-  Others might have contained the correct Divine Revelations of the Noble Quran, but they were not in the proper sequential order as we have the Noble Quran of today.  In other words, they might have had the wrong Noble Verse in the wrong Noble Chapter, or the Noble Verses were just isolated without Noble Chapters.

So there you have it.  Another checkmate to the polytheist trinitarian pagan and liar!

He wrote:

Interestingly, the late Muhammad Asad actually inserted this variant within brackets into his translation of the Quran:

"The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves, [seeing that he is as a father to them] and his wives are their mothers..."

He tried to justify the inclusion of this variant on the grounds that many of Muhammad's companions use to recite this by way of explaining the text!

Thus, connecting with the preceding mention of voluntary, elective relationships (as con­trasted with those by blood), this verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: "None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind" (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them - e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) - hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation[sic], "seeing that he is [as] a father to them"; and many of the tabi in - including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) - did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. (However, see also verse 40 of this surah and the corresponding note.) As regards the status of the Prophet's wives as the "mothers of the believers", this arises primarily from the fact of their having shared the life of God's Apostle in its most intimate aspect. Consequently, they could not remarry after his death (see verse 53 below), since all the believers were, spiritually, their "children". (online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)

We need to therefore ask, is this clause part of the Quran or not? Is Muhammad a father of believers or not? And how does Zawadi or any other Muslim know for certain? The simple fact is that they don’t know.

That Zawadi really has no way to prove whether this variant is an interpolation or not can be seen from the comments of the following renowned Muslim scholar of the past:

… An unusual reading of the Qur'an includes, "He is a father to them," but it is no longer recited since it is AT VARIANCE with the version of ‘Uthman. (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad), Qadi 'Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp. 29-30; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Note that this quote implies that even as late as the twelfth century A.D. (the book is dated at 544 A.H./1149 A.D.) this variant reading was known and being discussed by Muslims! The above scholar’s comment shows that it was deliberately expunged from the recitation due to it being in conflict with the Uthmanic text. Thus, we have a Muslim indirectly admitting that verses were being deliberately expunged on the assumption that the Uthmanic text was more reliable than the others, a position which is not supported by the Islamic data. They didn't omit the variant on the basis that it was weakly attested, but on the gratuitous presupposition that Uthman’s corrupted version of the Quran was truly authentic at every point.

My response:

Shamoun quoted shia cultists' point of views that is rejected by the mainstream Sunni Muslims who make up more than 85% of the 1.5 billion Muslims today.

And again, the Noble Quran Itself refutes Asad's insertion:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.  (The Noble Quran, 33:40)"

And again, it is important to know that while a Muslim man can't marry any of the Prophet's wives or former wives because they are considered as his mothers in Islam, but the Prophet, peace be upon him, was allowed to marry the single daughters of the Muslims, the divorced women and the widowed women.  So the Prophet could not possibly have been their FATHER if he was allowed to marry them!

Please visit: Why did Allah Almighty prevent the wives of Prophet Muhammad from marrying any man after him?  See how the Bible has similar laws on the Priests.

Challenge to Shamoun:

Instead of quoting cultists' lies and irrelevant point of views, why don't you show us where in the Noble Quran do you find any of the lies that you mentioned above in it?   You obviously won't be able to, because all of the Sunni Muslims believe in ONE NOBLE QURAN!

And even among the shias, not all of them are in agreement with each others.  Many of them follow the Sunni Muslims' Noble Quran as well.  I personally was told by many shia scholars that Iran's official Noble Quran is the SAME EXACT ONE as Saudi Arabia's!

So there you have.   Your absurd lies had been debunked and destroyed!

He wrote:

Moreover, the Quran was supposedly transmitted in seven modes of which Uthman conveniently destroyed all but one:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to ‘Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’" (33.23) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510)

Muslim scholars even till this day have no real clue as to what these seven modes actually were. Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:

"As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) RECORDED THIRTY-FIVE OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE, and as-Suyootee listed OVER FORTY. Ibn Sa'adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur'aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf WAS KNOWN ONLY TO ALLAH, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue WAS FUTILE! On the other hand, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), perhaps the greatest scholar of the qira'aat after the era of the salaf, said "I have sought to discover the meanings of these hadeeth (about the ahruf), and have pondered over them, and contemplated this topic for over thirty years, until Allaah opened my mind to that which is the correct answer in this matter. Inshaa Allaah!"

The reason that such great difference of opinion exists concerning the exact meaning of the ahruf is due to the fact THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY EXPLICIT NARRATIONS FROM THE PROPHET (pbuh), OR THE SALAF, CONCERNING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE AHRUF; these various opinions ARE MERELY THE CONCLUSIONS OF LATER SCHOLARS, based upon their examination of the evidences and their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).

Therefore, it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."(Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qura'aan [al-Hadaayah Publishing, 1999, ISBN - 1 898649 32 4], p. 175 f; bold and capital emphasis ours) (Source of quote)

Another Muslim concludes:

As far as the narrative regarding the seven different ways of reading the Qur'an are concerned, I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by Tamanna `emaadi. The content of this narrative does not allow to take it in the meaning of differences in accent only. Moreover, there are a number of flaws in the content of the narrative, due to which it is not possible to satisfactorily hold it to be an accurate account of the actual events.

Let us first take a brief look at the narrative in question. According to the reporting of Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, in his "Mu'atta", Umar ibn al-Khattaab (ra) says:

"I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem ibn Hezaam reciting Surah Al-Furqaan [while leading prayers] in a manner different from the way I recited it, and the way the Prophet (pbuh) himself had taught me to recite it. I was about to grab him immediately, and then I decided to give him some time to complete his prayers. At that time I grabbed him by his stole/shawl and pulled him to the Prophet (pbuh). I said to the Prophet (pbuh): O Prophet I heard him recite Surah Al-Furqaan in a different manner than the one that you taught me. The Prophet (pbuh) directed me to let go of him, and then directed Hishaam to recite the Surah. Hishaam recited it in the same way he was reciting it during his prayers. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of his recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then the Prophet (pbuh) directed me to recite the Surah. Then I recited the Surah [as I knew it]. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of my recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then added: The Qur'an was revealed in 'sab`ah ahruf' you can read it according to the one which is suitable for you."

The above narrative has indeed been reported by the most accepted compilations of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), however the fact remains THAT ITS EXACT IMPLICATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MYSTERY FOR THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS. Imaam Suyuti, in his "Al-Ittiqaan fi `uloom al-Qur'an" has narrated more or less FORTY DIFFERENT SAYINGS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE IMPLICATION OF THIS NARRATIVE but has finally conceded in his commentary of the Mu'atta "Tanvir al-Hawaalik" that none of these (forty) explanations is completely acceptable and therefore the correct opinion seems to be of those who hold that the narrative is quite inexplicable and should therefore be considered a 'Mutashaabeh'.

An acceptable explanation might have been that the different recitations of Surah Al-Furqaan mentioned in the narrative actually refer to the different dialects of the various tribes of the Arabs. However, this explanation also becomes redundant in view of the fact that the two persons involved in this incident (Umar and Hishaam) are from the same tribe of Qureish, and no inter-tribe variation of dialect could have existed between these two persons. Moreover, the Qur'an has clearly stated that it was revealed in the dialect of the Qureish. Thus, even if the two persons had belonged to different tribes, the words "the Qur'an was revealed in 'sab`ah ahruf' would have remained in contradiction to the Qur'an.

Furthermore, it is well known that Hishaam ibn Hakeem ibn Hezaam accepted Islam after the conquest of Mekkah. Thus, accepting this narrative to be true would imply accepting that even till the time of the conquest of Mekkah, important companions of the Prophet (pbuh) - people like Umar ibn al-Khattaab (ra) - remained unaware of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) was secretly teaching the Qur'an in a number of different ways than the one in which these companions were being taught.

Finally, a number of historical narratives tell us that the Prophet (pbuh) not only used to dictate the verses that were revealed to him to quite a few of his companions as a step toward the preservation of these revelations, but also used to explain the placement of the new revelations with reference to the written or memorized record that already existed. Nevertheless, there is not a single narrative that tells us that while informing about and dictating the new revelations, the Prophet (pbuh) told his scribes about the variation in the words of the new revelation. (The Narrative Regarding the Seven Readings (Sab`ah Ahruf) of the Qur'an; onlin source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

These Muslims weren't the only ones confused since even the Master of the Quranic reciters himself, Ubayy b. Kabb, was perplexed over this issue:

Ubayy bin Ka'b (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) taught me a Surah. One day I was sitting in the mosque when a man entered and recited the same Surah in a different style. I said: Who taught you this Surah? He replied, "Allah's Messenger taught it to me." I asked him to stay till we meet Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Then we went to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and I said to him: Allah's Messenger, this man recited a Surah in a style different from the one which you had taught me to recite it. Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Recite, O Ubayy! I recited. He said: Your recitation is good. Then he (the Holy Prophet) asked the other person to recite. He recited in a style different from the one in which I had recited. Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) expressed approval of this mode of recitation and said: O Ubayy! The Qur'an has been revealed in seven modes; in whichever mode it is recited, that will be correct and sufficient. (Sunan Nasa'i: English translation with Arabic Text, compiled by Imam Abu Abd-ur-Rahman Ahmad Nasa'i, rendered into English by Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui [Kazi Publication, 121-Zulqarnain Chambers, Gampat Road, Lahore, Pakistan], Volume 2, Number 943, pp. 34-35)

Ubayy bin Ka'b (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There occurred in my mind a matter which did not occur since I embraced Islam that I recited a verse in one mode while the other recited it in a different style. I said: Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has taught it to me. He said: Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has taught it to me. I went to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and I said to him: Allah's Messenger, you have taught me to recite this verse in this style. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. The other person said: You have taught me to recite this verse in this style. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said that Gabriel and Michael came to him, and when Gabriel had sat down at his right and Michael at his left, Gabriel told him to recite the Qur'an in mode, and Michael told him to ask more, till he reached seven modes, each mode being sufficient and correct. (Ibid., number 944, pp. 35-36; bold emphasis ours)

And:

Ubayy b. Ka'b said : When I was in the mosque as a man entered and prayed and recited in a manner to which I objected. Afterwards a man entered and recited in a manner different from the other. When we had finished the prayer we all went to visit God's messenger, and I said, "This man recited in a manner different from his." The Prophet then commanded them to recite, and when they had done so he expressed approval of both of them. This made me inclined to tell him HE WAS WRONG, even to the extent I had never reached in the pre-Islamic period; and when God's messenger noticed how I was affected he gave me a pat on the chest, whereupon I broke into a sweat and was filled with fear as though I were looking at God. He then said to me, "A message was sent to me, Ubayy, to recite the Qur'an in one mode, but when I replied that I wished matters to be made easy for my people, a second message instructed me to recite it in two modes. Again I replied that I wished matters to be made easy for my people, and a third message instructed me to recite it in seven modes. I being told at the same time that I might ask something for each reply I had received. I therefore said, 'O God, forgive my people. O God, forgive my people;' and I have delayed the third request till the day of intercession." Muslim transmitted it. (Miskhat al-Masabih, English Translation with Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson [SH. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore PK, reprinted 1990], Book VIII.-The Excellent Qualities of the Qur'an, Chapter III, pp. 466-467; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Masud was also taken aback:

Ibn Mas'ud said : I heard a man who recited, and as I had heard the Prophet reciting differently I took him to the Prophet and told him and noticed that he gave me a disapproving look. He then said, "Both of you are doing it well, so do not disagree, for your predecessors disagreed and perished." Bukhari transmitted. (Ibid., p. 466)

Yet that these modes weren’t merely dialectal differences, but included major variations in wording, can be seen from the following source:

Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Ubayy, I was asked to recite the Qur’an. I was asked: In one mode or two modes? The angel that accompanied me said: Say in two modes. I said: In two modes. I was again asked: In two modes or three? The angel that was in my company said: Say, in three modes. So I said: In three modes. The matter reached up to seven modes. He then said: Each mode is sufficiently health-giving, whether you utter "all-hearing and all-knowing" or instead "all-powerful and all-wise". This is valid until you finish the verse indicating punishment on mercy and finish the verse indicating mercy on punishment. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume I, Hadith Number 1472, p. 387; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Muhammad implies that these various modes contained different readings, not simply different pronunciations, a point even admitted by the translator.

The Prophet (may peace be upon him) was allowed to make a minor change in the names of Allah at the end of the verses. But ordinary persons cannot be allowed to do so (‘Awn al–Ma’bud, I, 551). (Ibid., fn. 819)

My response:

Before I refute your points above, I'd like to renew my challenge again:

Why don't you show us where in the Noble Quran do you find any of the lies that you mentioned above in it?  You obviously won't be able to, because all of the Sunni Muslims believe in ONE NOBLE QURAN!

As to the narrations above, it is important for the reader to know that there are close to 2 million narrations that deal with Islamic history from the time Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, became a Prophet, all the time until his death.  Many of them are gossips, corruptions and lies.  In fact, most of them were written decades and even centuries after the death of the Prophet.

What the desperate polytheist trinitarian pagan is doing here is taking doubtful and rejected narrations and trying to show that Muslims today believe in them.  There were many strong reasons why the committee of scholars rejected the lies that Shamoun posted above!  People can speculate as they want about what should've been in the Noble Quran, but that doesn't mean that they are correct.  Again, the committee of the best of the best among Muslims filtered away all of the lies that many tried to inject into the Noble Quran, whether intentionally or not, and today we only have ONE NOBLE QURAN THAT 100% OF THE SUNNI MUSLIMS FOLLOW.

The seven readings of the Noble Quran:

Because the Noble Quran is Miraculous, and because Arabic is a complex and poetical language, a word can sometimes be read in different ways!  But the original way that the Prophet, peace be upon him, read the Noble Quran in was the way that Caliph Othman and his committee of Noble Quran Scholars preserved.  But even today, you can still read (misread) the Noble Quran different from others.  That is why there are special classes taught in schools and Mosques that only teach how to read the Noble Quran, because it requires advanced knowledge in Arabic, grammatical rules, punctuations, stylistic rules, and words connections!

He wrote:

But it gets worse. The Uthmanic text was transmitted in different and conflicting versions, seven of which were standardized, yet not on the authority of Muhammad or Uthman, but by a Muslim scholar living centuries after Muhammad.

In fact, even to this day there isn’t one version of the Quran, but at least two that are still used from over a dozen versions. These versions are called qiraat, or readings, by Muslims, which they expediently deem to be equally authoritative:

When reading the Qur'an, we frequently refer to Warsh or Hafs and say, "This is Hafs" or "This is Warsh". What we mean by that is that this is the riwaya or Warsh or the riwaya of Hafs. It is the riwaya of a particular qira'a. The qira'at or the readings, or methods of recitation, are named after the leader of a school of Qur'an reciters. Each qira'a derives its authority from a prominent leader of recitation in the second or third century hijri who in turn trace their riwaya or transmission back through the Companions of the Prophet. For instance, in the back of a Warsh Qur'an, you are likely to find "the riwaya of Imam Warsh from Nafi' al-Madini from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn al-Qa'qa' from 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas from Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, from Jibril, peace be upon him, from the Creator." Or in Hafs you will see "the riwaya of Hafs ibn Sulayman ibn al-Mughira al-Asadi al-Kufi of the qira'a of 'Asim ibn Abi'n-Nujud al-Kufi from Abu 'Abdu'r-Rahman 'Abdullah ibn Habib as-Sulami from 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." These all go back to the Prophet.

There are slight differences in these readings, for example, where one stops, as in Surat al-Baqara (1): "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayb" or "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayba fih" as well as some voweling differences ("suddan" or "saddan"), and sometimes a difference in the letters due to different diacritical marks, as ya' or ta' (turja'una or yurja'una). Sometimes a word will have a shadda or not have a shadda…

Today, the two readings most used are the qira'a of 'Asim in the riwaya of Hafs, and the qira'a of Nafi' in the riwaya of Warsh. Also in use in Africa is the qira'a of Abu 'Amir in the riwaya of ad-Duri. (Aisha Bewley, The Seven Qira'at of the Qur'an; online source; bold emphasis ours)

Another source records:

(C)ertain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are:

Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)
Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772)
al-Qisa'i [sic] (from Kufah; d. 189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778)

(Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam [Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1989], p. 324, bold added)

The following Salafi website acknowledges this mass confusion which surrounded the Quran’s transmission:

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

The BEST of the scholarly OPINIONS concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.

Thirdly ...

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?

The scholars mentioned NEARLY FORTY DIFFERENT OPINIONS concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.

Fourthly:

It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: "It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’)."

Fifthly:

With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.

Sixthly:

When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.

Seventhly:

Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) …

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
(Question #5142: The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven styles (ahruf, sing. harf); online source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Now imagine what Zawadi would say if a Christian came to him and told him that the books of the Bible were transmitted in seven modes, the exact meaning of which no Christian scholar knows. Imagine his reaction if he were told that one mode was standardized which was transmitted in various versions, seven of which were chosen by Christian scribes in the second or third centuries who claimed that these could be traced to the time of Christ’s disciples. He would probably have the same reaction that most non-Muslims have when they are told that this is exactly the situation with the textual transmission of the Quran.

My response:

Again, before I refute your points above, I'd like to renew my challenge again:

Why don't you show us where in the Noble Quran do you find any of the lies that you mentioned above in it?  You obviously won't be able to, because all of the Sunni Muslims believe in ONE NOBLE QURAN!

As to the narrations above, it is important for the reader to know that there are close to 2 million narrations that deal with Islamic history from the time Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, became a Prophet, all the time until his death.  Many of them are gossips, corruptions and lies.  In fact, most of them were written decades and even centuries after the death of the Prophet.

What the desperate polytheist trinitarian pagan is doing here is taking doubtful and rejected narrations and trying to show that Muslims today believe in them.  There were many strong reasons why the committee of scholars rejected the lies that Shamoun posted above!  People can speculate as they want about what should've been in the Noble Quran, but that doesn't mean that they are correct.  Again, the committee of the best of the best among Muslims filtered away all of the lies that many tried to inject into the Noble Quran, whether intentionally or not, and today we only have ONE NOBLE QURAN THAT 100% OF THE SUNNI MUSLIMS FOLLOW.

The seven readings of the Noble Quran:

Because the Noble Quran is Miraculous, and because Arabic is a complex and poetical language, a word can sometimes be read in different ways!  But the original way that the Prophet, peace be upon him, read the Noble Quran in was the way that Caliph Othman and his committee of Noble Quran Scholars preserved.  But even today, you can still read (misread) the Noble Quran different from others.  That is why there are special classes taught in schools and Mosques that only teach how to read the Noble Quran, because it requires advanced knowledge in Arabic, grammatical rules, punctuations, stylistic rules, and words connections!

He wrote:

Advice to Zawadi: Men living in glasshouses shouldn’t pick up stones and throw them at others.

My response:

Our house is not made of glass.  It is solid brick!  Your house on the other hand, as I demonstrated above, is made from not only glass, but from paper as well where it can be blown away, washed away, and burnt away very quickly and easily.

Your Bible is not only a notorious book in contradictions and man's alterations in it, but it is also a notorious book in X-Rated Pornography, where it declares women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".  Ironically, there are "variant readings" in that as well.

Also, not only your gospel of porn is notorious in porn and corruption, but it is also notorious in stupidity as Paul declared that GOD Almighty's stupidity is smarter than all of us combined:

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.  (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:25)"

Note:  Visit Paul's blasphemy and stupidity to see further proofs from GREEK where the most accurate translation of the word is actually STUPIDITY (moro in Greek)!

Ironically, when one reads the Arabic translation of this stupidity and blasphemy, he clearly sees that the liars translated "foolishness" to IGNORANCE (jahalah)!  The Arabic translators COULD NOT DARE to use GHABA'A (stupidity) or HAMAQA/HAMAKA (foolishness) in their translations, because the Arabic words ghabi (stupid) and/or ghaba'a (stupidity), and ahmaq/ahmak (fool) and hamaqa/hamaka (foolishness) are very offensive words!

Read my new rebuttal, which contains new devastating proofs from the Arabic dictionary, another online bible translation of the verse, and the Bible's English translations which further prove my claims.  The rebuttal is also located inside The stupidity of GOD is smarter than all of us?? article.

To further prove this, let us consider Jesus' own words in the New Testament:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.  (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:22)"

Because the word is just way too offensive in the middle east, Jesus himself forbade it upon his followers!  The verse is clearly saying that a Christian can not call another Christian "stupid", because the word is so offensive that it would bring the person closer to Hell Fire!  That is why Jesus made such a big deal out of the word "fool" or "stupid", because it is just too serious.  Yet, Paul used it on GOD Almighty Himself!

At any rate and as we clearly see, even in stupidity, Sam Shamoun's gospel of porn has some very ludicrous "variant readings" between language translations, which are no less than lies, in it, that render it quite absurd and pathetic!

This is quite hilarious indeed!

Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

The Noble Quran's Compilation and Preservation.

Responses to all of the so-called "errors" in the Noble Quran.

Answering Trinity.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.

Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.

What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?

"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.

Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.

Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!

Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.

Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross.  I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken.  My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion.  I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.