返回总目录
Rebuttals to Islamic Awareness : Is The Bible In Our Hands The Same As During The Time Of Muhammad(P)?
Responses to Islamic Awareness
Is The Bible In Our Hands The Same As During The Time Of Muhammad(P)?
M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
As an arm-chair metallurgist I firmly believe that one should strike
the iron when it is hot. Very recently, Jochen Katz has been into some
strange claims on soc.religion.islam newsgroup about today's Bible
being same as in Muhammad's(P) time. This document is intended to see
if those claims stand the scrutiny.
Response:
It seems that Saifullah confuses two issues when addressing the claims
of Jochen Katz that the Holy Bible of Muhammad’s day is the same as our
present day Bible. Saifullah confuses the content of Scripture
with the canon of Scripture. The point is not the canon per se,
but whether the content of our present day Bible is the same as in the
days of Muhammad.
This is essential since if the Holy Bible we have in our possession
accurately reflects the Bible in the hands of the Christians of the past,
then the myth of Bible corruption is debunked. Whether the canon is the
same is unrelated to the question as to whether if the Bible has been
tampered with.
Saifullah:
On 8 Oct 1998, Jochen Katz wrote (on a different thread):
> >} Thirdly, the OT and NT lack the chain of narration. 'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak
> >} (d. 181 AH), one of the illustrious teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said,
> >} "The isnad is part of the religion: whatever he liked." The NT is composed
> >} of matn (text) but no isnad (chain of narration). Without isnad, as
> >} 'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak said, anyone can claim anything saying that it is
> >} coming from the authority. And this is another reason why Muslim exegetes
> >} have rejected the use of the previous scriptures.
> > That is a bogus argument from an Islamic point of view. The scriptures
> > are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time. Muhammad/Qur'an
> > approved of them as genuine. That is certainly more than you can say
> > about any Hadith.
The 'bogus' argument is already dealt with at another place.
Now let us examine Katz's statement
The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time.
Probably, Katz meant his Bible, i.e., the Protestant Bible. As far as
I have read, there is no Greek manuscript before 800 CE which has
27 books in the New Testament. Further information can be obtained in
the essay authored by Steve Carr in The Skeptic Review. The Codex Sinaiticus
(about 350 CE) comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas
and the Shepherd of Hermas which are absent in modern Bibles. So, to start
with, Katz's claim has fallen flat on its face.
Response:
Again, the question that Saifullah does not answer is whether our present
day Bibles accurately reflect the Bibles in circulation before, during and
after the time of Muhammad. The reason why this is important is that the
Quran affirms the authority and preservation of the revelation that came
before it. The Quran claims that the Book in the hands of the Judeo-Christian
communities at the time of Muhammad was the uncorrupt, pure word of God.
Hence, since it can be shown that our present day Bible is virtually identical
in content to what the Jews and Christians had in their possession during
Muhammad's time this affirms that the Holy Bible has never been corrupted.
Seemingly aware of this point, Saifullah must shift the argument to the canon
of scripture. Yet, Saifullah fails to realize that this method of criticism
serves to discredit his belief in the Quran as we shall shortly demonstrate.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what canon one accepts, one will
still get the historic Christian position as opposed to Islam.
Saifullah:
During the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments,
was even called into question. Generally, the Protestants disputed the Catholic
claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal decree or by the action of
Church councils. No one had defined the limits of the Bible until the (Catholic)
Council of Trent, 1546. From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared
that the Old and New Testaments, plus the Apocrypha, were scripture. Generally,
Protestants have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, but have
rejected the Apocrypha. So, even 900 years after the advent of Islam, the
Christians were bickering about which books should go into the canon.
Response:
First, Saifullah apparently fails to read his own sources. In one of his
articles
on the evolution of the canon of the Holy Bible, Saifullah makes mention of
Bruce M. Metzger's comments:
12. The Canon Approved By The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397)
The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the
New Testament was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (A.D. 393);
the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts
was read at and accepted by the Synod of Carthage, A D. 397.
Can. 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church
under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures
are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the]
New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book;
the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one Epistle;
of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one;
the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the
transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs,
their acts shall also be read.
According to Zahn, in 419 another Synod held at Carthage gave the concluding
words in thc following form:
. . . the Revelation of John, one book. Let this be sent to our brother and
fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts,
that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have
received from our fathers to be read in church.
According to Metzger, the Church universally came to accept the 27 books
of the NT in the fourth century, nearly three centuries before the advent
of Islam. He states:
"The slowness of determining the final limits of the canon is testimony to
the care and vigilance of early Christians in receiving books purporting to
be apostolic. But, while the collection of the New Testament into one volume
was slow, the belief in a written rule of faith was primitive and
apostolic ... In the most basic sense neither individuals nor councils
created the canon; instead they came to perceive and acknowledge the
self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as
canonical upon the church."
(Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content
[New York: Abingdon Press, 1965], p. 276)
Furthermore, the Jews had already decided upon the 39 books of
the OT even before the birth of the Church. The reason why both the Jews
and the Protestants accept only 39 OT books as opposed to the Catholic
canon is due to the following reasons:
1. The majority of the Jews never recognized them as being part of the
canon of scripture since inspired men of God did not write them. The
Talmud states:
Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration]
departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)
In fact, the apocrypha itself testifies that the classification of the
39 OT books was both known and well attested:
"So during the forty days ninety-four books were written. And when
the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying,
‘Make public THE TWENTY-FOUR BOOKS that you wrote first and let the
worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were
written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For
in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the
river of knowledge.' And I did so." 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 14:44-48
The twenty-four books refer to the classification of the 39 OT books that
had been subsumed into a collection of 24 writings. This clearly demonstrates
that the Jews viewed all the literature written after Malachi as uninspired.
This also indirectly affirms that the New Testament picks up where the Old
leaves off, since the authors claimed inspiration for their writings.
(Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16; Rev. 1:1-3)
In fact, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration and
precision in reporting:
"Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been
since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them."
1 Maccabees 9:27
The fact that prophets had ceased from appearing in Israel before the
Maccabean period affirms that these apocryphal writings were not written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
"... all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in
five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book. For
considering the flood of numbers involved and the difficulty there
is for those who wish to enter upon the narratives of history because
of the mass of material, we have aimed to please those who wish to
read, to make it easy for those who are inclined to memorize, and to
profit all readers. For us who have undertaken the toil of abbreviating,
it is no light matter but calls for sweat and loss of sleep, just as
it is not easy for one who prepares a banquet and seeks the benefit
of others. However, to secure the gratitude of many we will gladly
endure the uncomfortable toil, leaving the responsibility for exact
details to the compiler, while devoting our effort to arriving at
the outlines of the condensation. For as the master builder of a new
house must be concerned with the whole construction, while the one
who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what
is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with
us. It is the duty of the original historian to occupy the ground and
to discuss matters from every side and to take trouble with details,
but the one who recasts the narrative should be allowed to strive for
brevity of expression and to forego exhaustive treatment. At this point
therefore let us begin our narrative, adding only so much to what has
already been said; for it is foolish to lengthen the preface while
cutting short the history itself." 2 Maccabees 2:23-32
This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status
of these writings.
2. At the Council of Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan ben Zakkai
acknowledged the 39 books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant
OT canon as the official Word of God. Everything else was discarded. It
should be pointed that this Council did not make the books canonical, but
arrived at the conclusion that only these particular books were received
throughout the generations as being that which God had inspired.
3. The Lord Jesus personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the
time of Christ, the Old Testament was classified into three sections:
"The Law," containing the five books of Moses. "The Prophets" which
included two subdivisions. The first called "the Former Prophets" and
included the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second
is called "the Latter Prophets" which included the books beginning with
Isaiah to Ezekiel with the exception of Lamentations; and from Hosea to
Malachi. These books were also subsumed into smaller lists such as
combining the books from Hosea to Malachi together into one scroll called
"the minor Prophets."
The third is "the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of
Psalms, Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This
gives us a total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by
Christ:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which
were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV
Jesus affirms the OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the
Psalms/Writings as being those books that prophesied his coming.
Another place where Jesus affirms the present 39 OT books as those
that make up the infallible rule of faith for the Jews includes:
"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood
of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed
between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this
generation will be held responsible for it all." Luke 11:50-51
The mentioning of the prophets from Abel to Zechariah affirms that
Jesus viewed the 39 OT books as the only canon inspired by God. This
is due to the fact that the canon of the Jewish scriptures began with
Genesis (i.e. "the blood of Abel"- Genesis 4:3-11) and ended
with Chronicles (i.e. "the blood of Zechariah- 2 Chronicles 24:20-21)
for a total of 39 books all together. Hence, the Lord Jesus doesn't
mention the Apocrypha at all, nor does he even hint that God had
inspired some of these apocryphal writings to form part of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
4. The 7 apocryphal books, as well as the additional endings of some
of the OT books which the Catholic Church accepts, were not officially
declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent,
AD 1546, a fact that Saifullah recognizes. This was primarily in
response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and their
attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books,
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, praying for the dead that they may be loosed
from sins is commended:
"He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two
thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for
a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking
account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those
who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and
foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid
reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was
a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead,
that they might be delivered from their sin."
Hence, it is not hard to imagine why Catholics would want to include
such a book since it supports their doctrine of praying for souls
caught in purgatory, something rejected by the Reformers.
Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon,
despite the fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature,
is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers
for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and
the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the
decision behind the choosing of books which supported Catholic doctrine,
while rejecting those that did not.
5. The Quran affirms the Holy Bible that existed at the time of
Muhammad as the uncorrupt word of God. Seeing that the canon had
already been established prior to the advent of Islam, this affirms
the canon of 66 books as the infallible rule of faith since these
were the books that the Judeo-Christian communities had already
come to canonize.
6. Finally, we believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. This is
essential since we believe that God has infinite power and sovereignly
guides the universe and the affairs of men to fulfill all that he
desires, and we believe that the will of man does not override the
will of God. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, being in nature
God according to the inspired record, dwells within the Church of
Jesus Christ and sovereignly guides it. This being the case, we believe
that the Holy Spirit sovereignly guided the people of God to discover
and canonize God's word. The Church did not create the canon. Rather,
God sovereignly guided his Church to discover what that canon entailed.
We cannot "prove" this, but we take it by faith since we take
it for granted that God exists and sovereignly guides, controls and
sustains the universe to accomplish all that he desires.
All these preceding factors establish the 66 books of the Protestant
Bible as those that God sovereignly chose to form his infallible
rule of faith.
Saifullah:
It is worthwhile mentioning that the Qur'an does not mentioned the word
'Bible' and neither does the Bible self-references it as the Bible.
Response:
Actually, the term from which the word "Bible" is derived is
found in scripture. The term Bible stems from the Greek term biblia
(books). The earliest extra-biblical usage of the term is found in
2 Clement 14:2 (A.D. 150):
"... the books (ta biblia) and the apostles declare that the church
... has existed from the beginning."
Biblia is the plural form of the Greek biblion, which is
itself a diminutive of biblos. These terms are used in Scripture
as designations for inspired writings:
"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples,
which are not written in this book (en to biblio touto)."
John 20:30 NKJV
"For it is written in the Book (biblo) of Psalms..."
Acts 1:20 NKJV
"Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it
is written in the book of the Prophets (en biblo ton propheton)..."
Acts 7:42 NKJV
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse; for it is
written, `Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which
are written in the book of the law (en to biblio tou nomou),
to do them" Galatians 3:10 NKJV
"When you come, bring the cloak I left at Troas with Carpus, and the
books (kai ta biblia), especially the parchments (malista
tas membranas)." 2 Timothy 4:13
Paul identifies the inspired writings as the biblia, the books,
which at that time included both the Old Testament scrolls as well as
the Gospel of Luke. (Cf. 1 Tim. 5:18-Luke 10:7)
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud
voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "What you see, write in a book
(graphon heis biblion) and send it to the seven churches
which are in Asia..." Revelation 1:10-11
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of
this book (tes propheteias tou bibliou): If anyone adds
to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written
in this book (en tou biblio); and if anyone takes away
words of the book of this prophecy (tou bibliou tes propheteias),
God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book (en to biblio
touto)." Rev. 22:18-19
These verses indicate that the terms from which the word "Bible" is
derived is found within sacred scripture itself. Hence, the word used
for the Judeo-Christian Scripture is not something that was arbitrarily
decided upon, but something derived from the inspired record.
Furthermore, it is true that one does not find the word "Bible"
in the Quran seeing that the Quran is written in Arabic, while "Bible"
is a Greek word. Hence, instead of looking for the phrase "Bible,"
one would instead look for its Arabic equivalent, namely "Kitab",
i.e. "Book." This is precisely what we find the Quran calling the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures, namely the Book. This point is highlighted in
the article The Quranic Witness to Biblical Authority.
Interestingly, Muslim translator Muhammad Asad understood the phrase
"Kitab" to be the Arabic equivalent of "Bible" and
translated the Arabic to mean as such:
"... And so We have cast enmity and hatred among the followers of
the Bible..." S. 5:64 (Asad, The Message of the Qur'an
[Dar Al-Andaulus, Gibraltar, rpt. 1994], p. 157)
"If the followers of the Bible would but attain to [true]
faith and God-consciousness, we should indeed efface their [previous]
bad deeds, and indeed bring them into gardens of bliss;" S. 5:65 (Ibid.)
Saifullah:
Katz's statement that "The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as
in Muhammad's time" combines ignorance and arrogance. We have already seen
in an another post how the Bibles (Old Testament and New Testament included)
differ depending upon the Church. Hence if we follow the great Church
tradition, we have the Bibles of:
Protestant Church
Roman Catholic Church
Anglican Church
Greek Orthodox Church
Coptic Church
Ethiopic Church
Syriac Church
They contain different number of books. So, the statement
The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time.
has once again fallen on its face when historical evidence is brought in.
Response:
We have already demonstrated why Saifullah's point on the canon is simply
a red herring and evades the real issue of whether the Quran affirms the
authority and preservation of the biblical text. We have seen that it does
and hence Saifullah's point "combines ignorance and arrogance,"
failing to deal with the real issue.
Furthermore, we will also demonstrate that the canon of Quran was something
that was also not agreed upon seeing that the Muslims from early on disputed
over how many Suras truly formed the Quranic text.
Saifullah:
"Now the next issue would be what kind of Bibles did the Christians
in Arabia possessed during the advent of Islam? Our history in this regard
only suggests the presence of Syriac Church (and its various off-shoots
such as Jacobite, Nestorian Churches etc.) in these areas and the Church
service used to be in Syriac.[1,2] Indeed it has been confirmed that the
earliest Bible manuscripts in Arabic came into existence only after the
advent of Islam and during the Christian-Muslim polemics.[3] They were
translated from Syriac. More information about the Bible manuscripts can
be obtained at here."
Response:
Seeing that Saifullah presumes the authenticity and reliability of the
Islamic traditions (at least those that have been authenticated by the
so-called chain of transmission [isnad] and its text [matn]), we find it
amazing that he would uncritically subscribe to the belief that there
was no Arabic translation of the Holy Bible during the advent of Islam.
This is interesting since the Islamic sources affirm that certain portions
of the Bible had been translated into Arabic during the time of Muhammad:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She
took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to
read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you
see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah
sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine
Message, I will support you strongly." (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)
"... Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic
Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as
much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost
his eyesight..." (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)
"... Ka'b read the Torah and said: The Apostle of Allah has
spoken the truth. Abu Hurayrah said: I met Abdullah ibn Salam and told
him of my meeting with Ka'b."
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 1041: Narrated Abu Hurayrah)
"... (Muhammad's father) passed by a woman of the Kath'am (tribe)
whose name was Fatimah Bint Murr and who was the prettiest of all women,
in the full bloom of her youth and the most pious and had studied the
scriptures;..." (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, p.104)
According to Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XXVI, ch. XXXIX, pp. 1371, 1372:
Khaithama b. Abu Sabra said: I came to Medina and asked God to grant me
a good companion to sit with and He granted me Abu Huraira. I sat with
him and told him I had asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with
and that he suited me. He asked where I came from and I replied that
I belonged to al-Kufa and had come desiring and seeking good. He then
said, "Do you not have among you Sa'd b. Malik whose prayers are answered,
Ibn Mas'ud who looked after God's messenger's water for ablution and his
sandals, Hudhaifa who was God's messenger's confident, ‘Ammar to whom God
gave protection from the devil at the tongue of His Prophet, and Salman
who was a believer in the two Books? meaning THE INJIL and
the Qur'an. Tirmidhi translated it.
All these traditions presume the existence of Arabic translations of
certain portions of the Holy Bible, if not all of it.
Interestingly, the hadith reports that Waraqa even knew how to read Hebrew:
"Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad
bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian
and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write
from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write..."
(Bukhari, Volume 1, Number 3)
Furthermore, according to early Christian records there was actual Arabic
translations of the New Testament that had been translated during the time
of Muhammad:
"The Gospels were translated into Arabic from the original Greek as
well as Coptic and Syrian versions. Barhebreus writes of an Arabic
translation made by a monophysite named Johannes, by the order of an
Arab prince in A.D. 640. Oldest extant fragments of Arabic
translations from the Greek date from the early ninth century. The oldest
extant translation in the Syriac also dates back to the same time. It is
likely, however, that portions of the Gospels were rendered into Arabic
at a much earlier date that that mentioned above. George, a bishop of
the Arabs of Mesopotamia, wrote a Scholia on the Scripture around the
sixth century. But it appears that Christian teaching and preaching in
the sixth century (A.D.) Arabia was done mainly by quoting from the Syriac
or Ethiopic scripture and then giving a free rendering of it in Arabic..."
(Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim
[Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis MN, 1980], p. 29)
"A Coptic version of the New Testament was current toward the end
of the third century... The Gospels were translated into Arabic from
the Greek, Syriac, and Coptic versions. Barhebraeus speaks of such
a translation made between A.D. 631-640. George, bishop of Arab
tribes of Mesopotamia, a friend of James of Edessa (d. A.D. 578) wrote
a Scholia on the Scriptures. According to Al-Baidhawi and other Muslim
commentators, their prophet received instruction from learned Christians
like Warqa b. Naufal, Jubra and Yasara (Baidhawi on Sura 16:105). Also,
traditions relate how the prophet used to stop and listen to these two
men as they read aloud the Books of Moses (Torah) and the Gospels (Injil).
Apparently there was a translation of portions of the New Testament
that was extant in Mecca during the rise of Islam. Such a translation
must have existed along with the full versions of the New Testament in
Syriac and Syriac Lectionaries." (Ibid. p. 56)
It should also be pointed out that there were Arabic apocryphal Gospels
available during Muhammad's time as well:
"In addition to translations of the canonical Gospels, there were
numerous Arabic translations of the New Testament apocrypha. Some of
the better known of these like Protoevangelion of James, Gospel of
the Infancy, Apocalypse of Paul, and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
were available in Arabic translation before the Koran..."(Ibid. p. 29)
Finally, the fact that the earliest Arabic MSS of the Holy Bible in our
possession date after the advent of Islam does not conclusively prove
that no such translations existed prior. All this proves is that until
now scholars have not discovered any Arabic MSS that stem from the time
of Muhammad. Only the Lord knows what future discoveries will bring.
Saifullah:
The earliest New Testament canon of Syriac Churches consisted of the
'Gospel', the Epistle of Paul and the book of Acts. That is, instead of
the four separate gospels, the Diatesseron was used, and the Catholic
Epistles and the book of Revelation were lacking.[4] The Diatesseron
was a product of 'harmonization' of discrepancies and to correct the
omissions in the gospels by Tatian.
Employing the four canonical Gospels and, perhaps, one or more
extracanonical sources, Tatian wove a single, continuous narrative.
He omitted doublets, harmonized discrepancies, and "corrected"
omissions found in his source gospels.[5]
It appears that Tatian as early as 170 CE was able to recognize the
discrepancies in the Gospel narratives and surprisingly present day
Christian missionaries find it pretty hard to see even one!
Response:
To say that Tatian attempted a harmonization of the Gospels presumes
that there were discrepancies is fallacious. All this simply means is
that Tatian desired to have one Gospel that combined the four Gospels
into one continuous story line. Furthermore, the fact that we find
alleged "discrepancies" affirms that these were independent
reports as opposed to documents that were forged and made to agree
with each other over every minute detail. Thirdly, the fact that they
can be harmonized also affirms their amazing unity, despite that they
were written independently from each other. (see following
link for a harmonization of the Gospels
and other alleged Bible "discrepancies")
Finally, before Saifullah tries to criticize the Holy Bible, he should
try to focus his efforts on harmonizing
the Quran since it also contains parallel accounts that conflict both
in wording and detail.
More details on the Syriac NT and Tatian to follow shortly.
Saifullah:
Further we are informed that:
The number and identity of the sources employed by Tatian remain unclear.
Numerous readings attributed by Church Fathers to "the Gospel of the Hebrews"
or "the Jewish Gospel" appear in the Diatessaron. An example is the "light"
which shines in the Jordan at Jesus' baptism. Epiph. (haer. 30.13.7) says
this stood in the "Hebrew Gospel"; the reading is also in Justin (Dial. 88.3)
and at Matt 3:16 in two Old Latin mss{mss manuscripts} (a and g1, 4th and
9th century, respectively). Whether a "fifth source," such as Epiphanius'
"Hebrew Gospel," is Tatian's source for this reading, or whether it came
from a variant ms of the gospel of Matthew, as represented by the two Old
Latin mss, cannot be determined until we have a clearer picture of the
Gospels in the mid 2d{2d second} century. Nevertheless, a strong prima
facie case can be made that Tatian employed sources other than the canonical
Gospels, for there are numerous examples of such extracanonical readings
in the Diatessaron (Phillips 1931).
Textually speaking, the Diatessaron is a gold mine of early readings,
some of which may, arguably, antedate the reading offered by the canonical
Gospels (Petersen 1983; 1985: 165-67).[6]
It appears that there were other gospel traditions along with the present
day four-fold gospels which Tatian used in the last part of the second
century CE.
Response:
Saifullah thinks that by pointing out that Tatian used different traditions
in the formation of his gospel this would then discredit the four Gospels.
What Saifullah forgot to mention is that at the time of the compilation of
the Diatessaron, Tatian was completely orthodox in his belief. This is
especially true of his view of Jesus Christ and the Godhead:
"God was in the beginning... For the Lord of the universe, who is
Himself the necessary ground of all being, was alone. For no creature
was in existence yet." (David W. Bercot ed., A Dictionary of Early
Christian Beliefs [Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody MS, 1998], p. 126)
Tatian goes on to assert:
"Nevertheless, inasmuch as the Father was all power, Himself the
necessary ground of all things visible and invisible, with Him were
all things. The Logos Himself was in Him and subsisted with Him as
Logos-Power. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth.
So the Logos, not coming forth in vain becomes the first-begotten
work of the Father. We know the Logos to be the beginning of the world.
But he came into being by participation, not by abscission. For what
is cut off is separated from the original substance. However, that
which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not
render him deficient from whom he is taken. From one torch
many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not
lessened by the kindling of many torches. It is the same with the
Logos. His coming forth from the Logos-Power of the Father has not
divested Him who begat Him of the Logos-Power." (Ibid.)
According to Tatian, God was alone and yet had within himself the
Logos who was brought forth. Therefore, Tatian clearly believed
that Jesus as the Logos eternally existed within the being of God
and was begotten or brought forth to be the agent of creation while
at the same time never separating from the Father. Church historian
J.N.D. Kelly comments on Tatian's Christology:
"Tatian was a disciple of Justin's, and like his master spoke
of the Logos as existing in the Father as His rationality and then,
by an act of His will, being generated. Like Justin, too, he emphasized
the Word's essential unity with the Father, using the same image of
light kindled from light. ‘The birth of the Logos involves a distribution
(merismon), but no severance (apokopen). Whatever is severed
is cut off from its original, but that which is distributed undergoes
division in the economy without impoverishing the source from which it
is derived. For just as a single torch serves to light several fires
and the light of the first torch is not lessened because others are
kindled from it, so the Word issues out from the Father's power without
depriving His begetter of His Word. For example, I talk and you listen
to me; but I, who converse with you, am not, by the conveyance of my
word to you, made empty of my word.' At the same time Tatian threw
into sharper relief than Justin the contrast between the two successive
states of the Logos. Before creation God was alone, the Logos being
immanent in Him as His potentiality for creating all things; but at
the moment of creation He leaped forth from the Father as His ‘primordial
work' (ergon prototokon). Once born, being ‘spirit derived from
spirit, rationality from rational power,' He served as the Father's
instrument in creating and governing the universe, in particular making
men in the divine image." (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines,
revised edition [Harper San Francisco, 1978], pp. 98-99)
And,
"... Tatian, it is true, speaks of Him as ‘God in the
form of a man'..." (Ibid. p. 145)
In fact, even after Tatian became a heretic and joined the Encratites
his position on Christology never changed since the cult's view of
Jesus was orthodox:
"Others, however, call themselves Encratites. They acknowledge
some things concerning God and Christ in the same manner as the
church. However, as to their manner of life, they spend their
days puffed up with pride. They imagine that they make themselves
better by foods. So they abstain from animal foods and drink only water.
They forbid their people to marry. For the rest of their lives, they
devote themselves to ascetic practices. But persons of this description
should be considered Cynics rather than Christians. For they do not
pay attention to the words spoken against them through the apostle
Paul. For he foretold the novelties that would later be introduced
by certain ones, saying, ‘The Spirit speaks expressly that in the
latter times certain ones will depart from sound doctrine, giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils... forbidding to
marry, abstaining from meats that God has created to be partaken of
with thanksgiving.' Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.124"
(Bercott, p. 230)
And,
"The Encratites have sprung from Saturninus and Marcion. They
preach against marriage. They have thereby set aside the original
creation of God. So they indirectly blame Him, for He made the male
and female for the propagation of the human race. Some of their
leaders have also instituted abstinence from animal food. They
thereby show themselves to be ungrateful to God, who made all things.
Furthermore, they deny the salvation of the first created man [Adam].
However, it is only recently that this last opinion has been introduced
among them. A certain man named Tatian first introduced this
blasphemy. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.353." (Ibid. pp. 229-230)
This suggests that the source material Tatian used would have been
orthodox in content. Hence, we again find Saifullah tossing out red
herrings. The reason is that no matter what period of the Church we
look at and no matter what Gospel tradition used at the time by the
Church we look to, one still finds the historic Christian position
as opposed to Islam.
Saifullah:
The reconstruction of the Diatesseron is proving to be difficult
because of various factors, the primary one being the lack of good
manuscripts. Many rearranged translations, commentaries and
quotations of Diatesseron have survived. The problems in
reconstructing the Diatessaron's text are twofold. First, all of
the witnesses have been "Vulgatized" to some degree; that is,
the nonstandard Diatessaronic reading (exactly what the text
critic prizes) has often been replaced with the standard ("Vulgate,"
regardless of the language) reading of the language. Second, since
each witness has its own textual history, variants in them cannot
automatically be regarded as Diatessaronic.[7]
The Diatesseron, the four-in-one Gospel, introduced by Tatian was
read in the Church for quite some time.
The Diatessaron proved itself one of the most popular editions of
the Gospels ever produced. It was used by Catholic Christians,
such as Ephrem Syrus, by Judaic Christians (Epiph., haer. 46.1.8-9),
Manicheans, and missionaries, who took it to the furthest reaches
of Christendom. Its greatest impact, however, was in Syria, where
as late as the 5th century it was the standard gospel text.[8]
Response:
The fact that orthodox believers used it affirms that it was orthodox
in content. Furthermore, the fact that the Diatessaron used the four
Gospels as its primary source affirms the early and universal acceptance
of the canonical Gospels by friend and foe alike.
Saifullah:
And as the story goes, Tatian was declared heretic and the copies of
his Diatesseron were burnt.[9,10] This event resulted in the
introduction of four-fold gospel in the Syriac Church and this
was called Peshitta. Peshitta has again a different number of Books
in the New Testament.
Response:
And as the story goes, Saifullah continues to introduce irrelevant
issues in order to avoid the real point, namely that the Quran
affirms the preservation and authority of the biblical text.
Saifullah:
This represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon
of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was
rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles including
Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James,
1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles
(2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from
the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New
Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the
Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after
the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) the East Syrians separated themselves
as Nestorians from the Great Church.[11]
Peshitta is still followed by the Christians in the sourthern state of
Kerala in India.
Still today the official lectionary followed by the Syrian Orthodox
Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (Kerala), and the Chaldean
Syriac Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian),
with headquarters at Trichur (Kerala), presents lessons from only
the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is
made for the settlement of doctrinal questions.[12]
Giving these facts in hand, the New Testament in the time of Prophet(P)
can only be either of these, i.e., Diatesseron and the Catholic Epistles
or Peshitta. Since the Qur'an talks about a Gospel, it would suggest
Diatesseron more than Peshitta. It is worthwhile adding that our
information concerning the off-shoots of Syriac Church and the number
of books which they followed is very little. Hence, it is not possible
to know for sure whether the branches of Syriac Church followed
"apocryphal" literature.
Response:
We have already shown that the canon had been decided on prior to the
advent of Islam. The fact that a fringe group that disassociated itself
from the church universal and that held to a smaller canon is irrelevant.
As Saifullah noted, the East Syriac Christians identified itself with
the heretical teaching known as Nestorianism and the Jacobites were
monophysites, another heretical view.
For Saifullah to then appeal to such groups that do not represent
orthodoxy in order to establish his case is equivalent to a Christian
appealing to heretical Muslims for the proof that Sura 9:128-29 do not
belong in the Quran. It is also equivalent to a Christian appealing
to Shiites to prove that an extra Sura exists, which Sunnis have rejected.
Furthermore, Saifullah again misses the point. Whether one accepts the
22 books of the Syriac Church or the 27 of the Protestant and Catholic
canon, one still would get orthodoxy.
For instance, examining the contents of either canon would leave one
with the following teachings:
- The Deity of Jesus Christ.
- The Incarnation.
- The Triunity of God.
- The Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit.
- The Virgin Birth.
- Christ's Vicarious Atonement.
- Christ's Physical, Bodily Resurrection.
- Christ's Ascension to Heaven.
- Christ's Visible Return to Judge the Living and the Dead.
- Justification by Faith.
- Salvation through Grace.
The list can go on and on. Hence, no matter what canon one holds the
teaching is the same.
Finally, the point again is not the canon. The point that Saifullah
needs to address is whether our presnt day Bible accurately reflects
the originals and whether if the Quran agrees that the Holy Bible
has remained uncorrupt. Saifullah fails to address these issues since
to do so would leave him in a very awkward position as a Muslim.
Saifullah:
Other possibility, albeit weaker, that can be taken into consideration
is the presence of Ethiopic Church. But this Church has the largest
number of books among all the Churches and highly divergent from
Syriac Church or even the modern day Protestant or Catholic Church.
Response:
Indeed, as Saifullah indicates, this is a weak argument. See above.
Saifullah:
Finally, the conclusion of this issue is pretty clear. Katz's statement
The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time.
can be considered less demonstrable, more problematic and laced with
ignorance about his own glorious Church tradition. It is also worthwhile
pointing out the fact that the Christian missionaries use the Qur'an to
demonstrate the 'integrity' of their Bible. This is because if they
would quote their own Church and manuscript traditions, the 'integrity'
of the Bible would be smashed to itsy-bitsy pieces. How pathetic one
can get!
Response:
Actually, the Holy Bible is vastly superior to the Quran. Textual criticism,
MSS evidence, historical documents, archaeological discoveries, Church
tradition as well as the Quran and early Muslim tradition affirm the amazing
reliability, accuracy and preservation of the biblical text. Yet, textual
criticism, Islamic traditions and MSS evidence have debunked the traditional
Islamic view on the preservation of the Quranic text.
Saifullah:
It is not at all surprising to see the state of the Bible in the beginning
years of Islam when Hudhayfa Ibn al-Yamaan urged Uthmaan: Quick! Help the
Muslims before they differ about the text of the Qur'aan as the Christians
and Jews differed about their scriptures. Is it any different now? That
is anybody's guess!
Response:
Let us actually quote Hudhaifa in context and see how this debunks
Saifullah's view on the Quranic text.
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) (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510)
Hudhaifah therefore said to Othman: "Oh Commander of the Faithful,
be careful of the people." He answered, "What is the problem?" Hudhaifah
said, "I took part in the expedition against Armenia where there were
Iraqis as well as Syrians. But the Syrians follow the reading of
the Qur'an according to Ubai ibn Ka`b, and they say some things which
the Iraqis have not heard, so the latter accuse them of unbelief. In
the same way the Iraqis, who follow the reading of Ibn Mas`ud, read
some things which the Syrians have not heard. and the Syrians accuse
them of unbelief. Restrain this people before they differ in the book,
as do the Jews and the Christians."
Accordingly Othman sent to Hafsa, saying, "Send us the sheets that
we may copy them into the volumes. Then we shall return them to you."
Hafsa therefore sent them to Othman. Then he commanded Zaid ibn Thabit
and Abdullah ibn al Zubair and Said ibn al As and Abdullah ibn Harith
ibn Hisham, and they copied them into the volumes. And Othman said
to the company of the three Quraishites, "When you differ, you and
Zaid ibn Thabit, in any portion of the Qur'an write it in the dialect
of the Quraish, for verily it came down in their dialect." And they
did so until, when they had copied the sheets into the volumes, Othman
restored the sheets to Hafsa. And he sent to every region a volume
from what they had copied, and commanded regarding everything of
the Qur'an besides it, in every sheet and volume, that it should be
burned. (Miskat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson [Ashraf Lahore, 1963],
p. 185 Bukhari transmitted from Anas bin Malik)
These traditions clearly affirm that the Syrians had readings not known
to the Iraqis and vice-versa. These readings had nothing to do with
dialectal variations since variations in dialect would not result in
the parties not having heard verses contained in the other codices.
We wonder why Saifullah failed to quote the relevant context? Could
it be that he was afraid what his readers might have discovered?
The following is taken from my article in response to Ghoniem. We
reproduce certain portions from it here that are relevant in rebutting
Saifullah's points:
Other traditions that affirm that the Quran has suffered a loss in
its contents include:
Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham with a group of the companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud).
Abu Ad-Darda' heard of our arrival so he came to us and said, "Is there
anybody among you who can recite (Qur'an)" We replied in the affirmative.
Then he asked, "Who is the best reciter?" They pointed at me. Then he
told me to recite, so I recited the verse:--
'By the night as it envelops 'By the day as it appears in brightness;
By (Him Who created) male and the female.' (92.1-3) Abu Ad-Darda' then
said to me, "Did you hear it (like this) from the mouth of your friend
('Abdullah bin Mas'ud)?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I too, heard it
(like this) from the mouth of the Prophet, but these people do not
consider this recitation as the correct one."
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 467)
Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before
they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he
asked them,: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?"
They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?"
They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear
'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard
me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow
them." (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468)
Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those
who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who)
survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or
Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even
one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 23).
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation
(of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have
taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything
whatever.' But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause
to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106)"
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527)
This is why Ibn Umar would say:
It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar
who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'.
How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared?
Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'"
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).
According to the traditions, Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy b. Kabb were
considered to be two of the four top reciters of 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.'"
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)
Ibn Masud had boasted that there was not a single verse in the Quran in
which he did not know when or why it was revealed:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud): By Allah other than Whom none has
the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's
Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse
revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed."
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524)
Yet, despite this fact Masud still felt he was not the best Quranic reciter
Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:
Once 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud delivered a sermon before us and said, "By Allah,
I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle. By Allah, the
companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know
Allah's Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them."
Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear
anybody opposing him (in his speech). (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 522)
The honor of being the best Quranic reciter went to Ubayy:
Affan ibn Muslim informed us ... on the authority of Anas ibn Malik,
he on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him; he said: The
best reader (of the Qur'an) among my people is Ubayyi ibn Ka'b.
(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 441).
Astonishingly, these men differed over the actual number of Suras
that formed the canon of the Quran:
Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that
Ibn Mas'ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni
are part of the Qur'an are embarrassing in their implications... But the
Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are
not part of the Qur'an and there is no record of such a statement from
him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their
being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur'an.
In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text
(mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) ... and he had
not heard that it had been so commanded". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii
Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186).
"... Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of
al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as
sound, quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Mas'ud would not include
the two "charm" surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge,
only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces.
He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for this record
as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the conflicting records
instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas'ud accepted the Fatiha and
"charm" surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them
in his written text." (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an: The Codification
of the Qur'an Text, p. 68)
Hence, Masud excluded three Suras from his codex, implying that Masud's
Quran only included 111 Suras. Bukhari records:
Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud said
so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Quran)."
Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he said, 'They have
been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran),"
So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's Apostle has said."
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 501)
Ubayy's comments are noteworthy in light of the fact that he was considered
to be the best reciter of the Quran and yet disagreed with Masud over the
canon of the Quran. In fact, not only did Ubayy include the two charm Suras,
but included two additional Suras as well:
"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b were the Fatihal-kitab
(the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs)
and Allahumma innaa nasta'iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal'
meaning 'O Allah, we seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu
(the opening words of Suratul-Hafd meaning 'O Allah, we worship you')".
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.153).
Here are the Suras in their entirety:
Surat al-Hafd:
You (alone) we worship, and to You (alone) we pray and lie prostrate,
and to You (alone) we proceed and have descendants. We fear Your torture
and hope for Your mercy. Truly Your torture will overtake the infidels.
Surat al-Khal':
O Allah, You (alone) we ask for help and forgiveness.
We speak appreciatingly of Your goodness. Never do we disbelieve You.
We repudiate and disbelieve anyone who follows immorality.
Al-Suyuti records that these two surahs were also included in both
the codices of Ibn Abbass and Abu Musa. (Al-Itqan, p.154)
So we now ask Saifullah the following question. Which canon of the Quran
do you believe to be the word of God?
Ibn Masud - 111 Suras
Ubay b. Kabb - 116 Suras
Caliph Uthman - 114 Suras
If Saifullah believes it is the 114 Suras of Uthman can he please
produce one single verse from the Quran indicating that only 114 Suras
are those that form the canon of the Quran? If he cannot, then what
right does he have to even question the integrity of the canon of
the Holy Bible?
(The preceding points have been adapted from my article found here.)
In conclusion, we end with Saifullah's own words:
It is not at all surprising to see the state of the Quran in the
beginning years of Islam when Hudhayfa Ibn al-Yamaan urged Uthmaan:
Quick! Help the Muslims before they differ about the text of the
Qur'aan as the Christians and Jews differed about their scriptures.
Is it any different now? That is anybody's guess!
In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ forever.
Sam Shamoun
Responses to Islamic Awareness
Answering Islam Home Page