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

Home

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by David Wood at 10:56 PM

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Labels: Qur'an (Preservation)

58 comments:

Dk said...: "How many variants are required if we are to reject the astounding claim that the Qur'an has been miraculously and perfectly preserved?"

Only one!

Infact the Perfect Quran has a chapter about this, it quotes Muslims as saying "not one letter, not one vowel has been changed" etc.

Lets say these Muslims are taking it a bit to far, (although this has been one of the best aces up their sleeves for years, since this "argument" may seem to have originated in a misintepretation of the Quran itself 15:9) the above example is suffice to show Muslim texts have their own John 7:53-8;11 Mark 16:91-6 1 John 5:7 etc.; February 12, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: It is interesting that Uthman and his ally Ali decided to burn these various dialects of the Qur'an when Allah himself had decided that these would benefit the adherers of Muhammad.

It is safe to say however, that the Qur'an was never revealed from God, it is a human composition from beginning to end.

It is even more questionable that the word of God would be revealed in a variaty of dialects that only a few decades later would lead to the possibility of civil war (seems here that Allah is not a God of order).

It is also a matter of interest that Uthman when burning and revising his standard version of the Qur'an claimed that the Qur'an had been revealed in the dialect of the Quarish. Does this indicate that he was not burning the Qur'ans due to dialects but actual variants?

The particular verse in this thread certainly reveals one such variant reading.; February 12, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Matthew said...: I know of the various responses by muslim-aologists, but I can't think of any in this case.
The response will probably be an attack on Yusuf Ali.; February 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Fernando said...: Yep... theiye will say that

Tarik Ali ibn Zaid
said that
Omar al-Tusi
saide that
Nasir al-Khayyam
saide that
Ibn al-Hasan
saide that
Abu al-Nafis
saide that
Ahmed ibn al-Haythami
saide that
Ali Al-Jawziyya
saide that
Rabee Al-Madkhali
saide that
Abu al-Amidi
saide that
Abdullah Yusuf Ali never wrote that...; February 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Muhammad said...: This will be taken care of soon, don't worry.

Just a note, Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not a Muslim. He is a Qadyani heretic outside the fold of Islam.; February 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Matthew said...: Just a note, Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not a Muslim. He is a Qadyani heretic outside the fold of Islam.

I knew it.; February 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM
David Wood said...: Just to review:

Matthew said: "The response will probably be an attack on Yusuf Ali."

Muhammad replied: "Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not a Muslim. He is a Qadyani heretic outside the fold of Islam."

Matthew said: "I knew it."

This is getting quite predictable, eh?

Now I'm waiting for "But the Bible . . ."; February 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Just a note, Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not a Muslim. He is a Qadyani heretic outside the fold of Islam.

Salaamun Alaikum Bro,

He wasn't Qadiyani, that was "Muhammad Ali" and "Zafrullah Khan" who produced those popular Qadiyani english translations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali was a Dawoodi Bohra.; February 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Muhammad said...: Lol

Yahya, no he is a Qadyani heretic who is not Muslim.

David, I would have to see the reliability of Yusuf Ali's allegation here.
Second, if it proves false, then it is just another disbeliever making claims about Islam, kinda like you.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali was not a Muslim, Qayanis are not Muslim. Their beliefs are not from Islam.; February 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
David Wood said...: So we can see once again from our friend Muhammad, that the only people capable of making an accurate comment about Islam are faithful Muslims who agree with the theology of our friend Muhammad. Anyone else is an evil liar.

Now, for those who like to think through things logically (rather than simply dismissing them through the use of logical fallacies), here we go.

Did Yusuf Ali believe that Muhammad was a prophet? Of course he did. Did Yusuf Ali believe that the Qur'an is the perfect Word of God? Absolutely. Would Yusuf Ali invent a story about other Qira'ahs containing major variants? Certainly not. What's the obvious conclusion? The early Qira'ahs contain a major variant in Surah 33:6.

Of course, our Muslim friends are free to deny all the evidence that refutes their absurd, patently false claims (as they tend to do). However, that needn't concern the rest of us, who seek the truth.; February 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
ben malik said...: Muhammad,

Yahya is right and you are wrong concerning Yusuf Ali. He wasn't a Qadiani. Moreover, another Muslim source, this time a respected jurist, confirms Yusuf Ali's note.

… 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)

So there you have it. He admits that this variant existed but rejects it on the grounds that it diverges from the Uthmani recension, which is circular reasoning since he, much like yourself, assumes that Uthman's corrupted version of the Quran is the most authentic in spite of all the facts which suggest otherwise.; February 12, 2009 at 3:19 PM
David Wood said...: Yes, Muhammad's comments seem to be loaded with mistakes today. There's no question that Ali came from a Dawoodi Bohra background, and he was listed as one for decades. So what is the evidence for your claim?

Let me guess: We can't trust Ben Malik or Yahya because they don't agree with you. That does seem to be your M.O.; February 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM
ben malik said...: Wood,

Even Muhammad Asad included this variant in his version of the Quran. It reads,

"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..."

And notice what he says concerning this variant,

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, "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". (http://www.geocities.com/masad02/021)

Even though he tries to explain this as an explanation did you notice how many sources he lists as including this variant in their versions of the Quran? The fact is that this passage is multiply attested which further mitigates against Uthman's (per)version being the most accurate and authentic.; February 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM
ben malik said...: Here is another golden nugget I dug up from the answering islam website.

Scholars disagree about what is meant by the seven modes, and there are thirty-five things mentioned by al-Busti. We will mention five of them here:

-This is the position of most of the people of knowledge, such as Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna, 'Abdullah ibn Wahb, at-Tabari, at-Tahawi and others. What is meant are the seven manners of synonyms with different expressions, like aqbala, ta'ala and halluma (all of which mean "come here"). At-Tahawi said, "The clearest elucidation of that is what is mentioned in the hadith of Abu Bakra, 'Jibril came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Recite in one mode." Mika'il said, "Increase it." He said, "Recite it in two modes." Mika'il said, "Increase it," until it was seven modes. He said, "Recite it. Each is adequate unless you confuse an ayat of mercy for an ayat of punishment or an ayat of punishment with an ayat of mercy."' That is like halluma, ta'ala, aqbala, adhhaba, asra'a and 'ajjala. It is related from Ibn 'Abbas that Ubayy ibn Ka'b used to recite "wait for us" (57:13) "undhuruna" as "umhuluna", "akhkhiruna", and "arqubuna". With the same isnad, it is reported that Ubayy recited in 2:19 "marru" instead of "mashaw" and "sa'aw" (they walk). In al-Bukhari, az-Zuhri said, "These modes are about the same matter. They do not differ in respect of the halal and haram."

At-Tahawi said, "There was scope for people in the letters since they were unable to take the Qur'an in other than their dialects because they were illiterate and only a few of them could write. It was hard for someone with a dialect to change to another. If he wanted to do that, it would have entailed great hardship and so they were given scope regarding different expressions as long as the meaning was the same. They remained like that until many of them could write and the dialects reverted to that of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Then they were able to memorise those words and they no longer had the allowance to recite differently." Ibn 'Abdu'l-Barr said, "It is clear that scope for the seven modes was at a particular time out of necessity. When that necessity was removed, the ruling of the seven was removed, and the Qur'an was recited IN ONE MODE."

- Some people say that the seven dialects in the Qur'an are the seven dialects of all the Arabs, both Yamani and Nizar, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was not ignorant of any of them. He was "given all the words". It does not mean that the one mode has seven aspects, but these seven dialects are in different parts of the Qur'an. Some of it is in the dialect of Quraysh, some in that of Hudhayl, some in Hawazin, and some in Yamani. Al-Khattabi said, "That is how the Qur'an is recited in seven ways." This is the meaning of the Qur'an being revealed in seven modes. Al-Qasim ibn Sallam believed that and Ibn 'Atiyya preferred it. Some tribes used writing more than others. Anas mentioned that when 'Uthman told them copy out the Qur'an, he said, "When you and Zayd differ, then write in the dialect of Quraysh. It was revealed in their dialect." (al-Bukhari)

Qadi Ibn at-Tayyib [al-Baqillani] said, "The meaning of 'Uthman's words that it was revealed in the dialect of Quraysh, means most of it. It is not a definitive proof that it is all in the dialect of Quraysh since there are words and letters which differ from the dialect of Quraysh. This indicates that it was revealed in all the language of the Arabs, and no one can say that it was just Quraysh or one part of the Arabs rather than others. Ibn 'Abdu'l-Barr said that this meant that most of it was revealed in the dialect of Quraysh because other than the dialect of Quraysh exists in sound readings with the use of the hamzas and the like. Quraysh did not use the hamza. Ibn 'Atiyya said that the meaning of the "seven modes" is that the expressions of the seven tribes are in it.

- These seven dialects are all from the tribes of Mudar. Some people said that. They used as evidence what 'Uthman said, "The Qur'an was revealed in the language of Mudar." They said, "It is possible that part of it is that of Quraysh, part Kinana, part Asad, part Hudhayl, part Taym, part Daba, and part Qays. They said these tribes of Mudar contain the seven dialects in these ranks. Ibn Mas'ud used to like those who copied out the Qur'ans to be from Mudar. Others objected to the idea that it was all from Mudar and said that there are rare usages in Mudar with which it is not permitted to write the Qur'an.

- What is related from some scholars is exemplified by Qadi Ibn at-Tayyib who said, "I have reflected on the aspects of the differences in recitation and have found them to be seven. Some involve changes of voweling while the meaning and form remain, like atharu and athara in 11:78; some do not change their form but change their meaning through inflection, as in 36:19, reading ba'id or ba'ida; some retain their form and change their meaning with different letters; some change the form while the meaning remains as in 101:5 where both 'ahn and suf mean wool; some change their form and meaning; some entail a change of order; and some consist of addition or reduction.

- What is meant by the seven modes are meanings in the Book of Allah: command and prohibition, promise and threat, stories, arguments and parables. Ibn 'Atiyya says that this is weak because that is not called ahruf. Furthermore there is consensus that it does not occur in making the lawful lawful or changing any of the meanings. Qadi Ibn at-Tayyib mentioned a hadith along these lines from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and then said, "This is not part of what it is allowed for them to recite." Harf in this means 'manner' as Allah says, 'one who worships Allah on an edge.' (22:11). That is the meaning of the hadith about the seven means of allowing and forbidding and the like.

It is also said that what is meant by the seven ahruf are the seven readings that we have because all of that is sound as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stated. This, however, is not correct, as we will now explain. (Aisha Bewley, Selections from the Introduction of Tafsir al-Qurtubi: http://bewley.virtualave.net/ulum2.html)

Maybe you want to post this as an article on the blog.; February 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM
ben malik said...: I forgot to mention that, according to that quote from al-Qurtubi, Uthman destroyed six of the seven ahruf which Muhammad said Gabriel revealed to him. Man, talk about chaos. As someone has stated, the real miracle of the Quran is that Muslims actually believe it is from God. Now that is a miracle.; February 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Dk said...: What? I don't get it? Bassam is not here to leave us any links this time? Zaatari is not here to talk about the ending of Mark 16?

Where are you GUYS????

DID WE FORGET ABOUT THE "CONSISTANCY" SPEECH YOU NORMALLY GIVE TO THE CHRISTIANS? come give us one regarding your pathetic religious crapular text called the Qurap.. and it's comparison to the Bible.

lol.

You cannot fight and kill over the internet, only not answer anything and insult.; February 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM
David Wood said...: I'm hoping that the Muslims realize that Christians aren't claiming perfect preservation. Thus, textual variants only hurt us if they actually change the message of the Bible.

Muslims, however, claim that their book has been miraculously and perfectly preserved. Thus, a single textual variant destroys their claim.; February 12, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Muhammad said...: David,

My fault, I thought he was a Qadyani, that's what I was told, but I never checked into it.

Regardless of what he is, it is not Muslim, the Dawoodi Bohra sect is a Shiite sect, again, not Muslim.

"So we can see once again from our friend Muhammad, that the only people capable of making an accurate comment about Islam are faithful Muslims who agree with the theology of our friend Muhammad. Anyone else is an evil liar."

Yes David, that's true to the most part, however, disbelievers can make accurate statements, too, for example we have a Hadith, where Satan comes in the shape of a man to Abu Huraira, and the Hadith is famous.

"Anyone else is an evil liar."

Thanks for admitting it! Saved me a lot of trouble.

"Did Yusuf Ali believe that Muhammad was a prophet? "

Well, not sure, since he believed in the Imamah, and was a Shi'i, who many of them believe, that Ali was meant to be the Prophet. So I am not sure.

"Of course he did. Did Yusuf Ali believe that the Qur'an is the perfect Word of God? "

I don't put you to blame for making such a stupid statement.
You don't speak Arabic, so you obviously never studied Islamic Sects, such as the Shi'ah. If you can find an Arab who will help you, refer to al-Milal wa an-Nihal by ash-Shahrastani.

Ok, about the Quranic variants, did you know that the Qur'an was sent down on Seven Ahruf? All of them were sent by Allah, and one can recite in any he wishes.

If you can, please sum up all the arguments, in some points (like 1, 2, 3, etc.), so it can be easy to get what you are saying for everyone, then they can be responded to.; February 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Muhammad said...: "Muslims, however, claim that their book has been miraculously and perfectly preserved. Thus, a single textual variant destroys their claim."

Lol

Yeah the whole Qur'an, in all of its seven recitations has been preserved, so your claim is stomped to dust. Because no one is saying that the Qur'an is all the same, there are seven different readings. More will be explained soon, if you can do what I asked.; February 12, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Muhammad said...: By the way, how to embolden letters? And to put in italics?; February 12, 2009 at 6:37 PM
ben malik said...: This was laughable. Muhammad said,

I don't put you to blame for making such a stupid statement.
You don't speak Arabic, so you obviously never studied Islamic Sects, such as the Shi'ah. If you can find an Arab who will help you, refer to al-Milal wa an-Nihal by ash-Shahrastani.

Since Yahya is a Shia maybe he can chime in and address your point. Yet what makes this truly amazing is that Sunnis accuse the Shias of saying that the Quran has been corrupted whereas Shias accuse Sunnis of the same thing and point to official Sunni sources to prove it. This link is a gem for anyone interested in seeing how various Muslim sects admit that specific Islamic sources acknowledge that the Quran is a corrupted text,

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia

Scroll down till you get to Chapter 8. It's a beaut!

Ok, about the Quranic variants, did you know that the Qur'an was sent down on Seven Ahruf? All of them were sent by Allah, and one can recite in any he wishes.

Where have you been? I just posted a quote from al-Qurtubi which says that Muslims have no clue what exactly these seven ahruf were and further states that Uthman destroyed six out of the seven! And this is what you want us to believe is a perfectly preserved text! Yep, the real miracle is that you still believe the Quran is miraculous.; February 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Amr said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 12, 2009 at 7:20 PM
David Wood said...: Muhammad said: "Ok, about the Quranic variants, did you know that the Qur'an was sent down on Seven Ahruf?"

Did you read my post? Are you telling us that some Ahruf can have the claim that Muhammad is a father to believers, and other Ahruf can be missing this part? Do you have any clue how silly this sounds?

Amr said: "The creed of Ahl al-Sunnah (also known as, Salafis), says that anyone who believes the Qur'an has been corrupted, is a disbeliever."

Wow! Amr has just declared that anyone who honestly examines the evidence is not a Muslim! More formally:

(1) Anyone who honestly examines the history of the Qur'an will grant that it has been corrupted. (This is just a fact.)

(2) Anyone who grants that the Qur'an has been corrupted is a disbeliever. (This is Amr's claim.)

(3) Therefore, anyone who honestly examines the history of the Qur'an is a disbeliever. (This follows logically from the other two statements.)

Now let's put all of this together. According to Muhammad, the only people who can comment on the Qur'an are good Muslims. But according to Amr, anyone who says that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved is not a Muslim. They're telling us, in effect: "Show us some good Muslims who grant that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved" and yet they're defining a Muslim as someone who would never say that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved! It's as if they're saying, "Show me a theist who rejects the existence of God."

This is Muslim logic at its best!; February 12, 2009 at 7:42 PM
ben malik said...: Wood, we finally got a Muslim admitting that Yahya is not a Muslim. He is pretty much a heretic. Muhammad wrote,

Regardless of what he is, it is not Muslim, the Dawoodi Bohra sect is a Shiite sect, again, not Muslim.

So can someone please inform Sami why is he associating and teaming up with heretics such as Abdullah and Yahya? Inquiring minds want to know.; February 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Muhammad said...: "Wood, we finally got a Muslim admitting that Yahya is not a Muslim...
So can someone please inform Sami why is he associating and teaming up with heretics such as Abdullah and Yahya? Inquiring minds want to know."

Whoa whoa there, don't jump the gun and make yourself look stupid.

I don't know what Yahya believes, and it is based upon individual cases.
Therefore, Ahl as-Sunnah make the assertion, anyone who believes in the distortion of the Qur'an, is a disbeliever.
I don't know what his beliefs are, but we the blanket statement that the Rafidhi Shiites, and a few others sects within them, such as the Alawis, are not Muslim.; February 12, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Dk said...: Mohammed said:

"Because no one is saying that the Qur'an is all the same, there are seven different readings."

What semantics.

If you mean "ahruf" Malik has already pointed out that all of these have been expired/destroyed by Uthman excluding one.

If you mean QIRAAT(reading) you are clueless, since there are over 14 readings of the Quran still in existant (each having two seperate transmittors totalling a 28).

I don't know if you purposely used the wrong word, but be more careful in future since you can't deceive the kaffiroon in this blog, only the ones that aren't educated in Islam. =); February 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Dk said...: "Thus, textual variants only hurt us if they actually change the message of the Bible."

Try John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, the story contained in John 7:53-8:11 Romans 9:5 see forananswer.org

These are just some examples of passages (giving us some element of Christian Theology) that contain problematic textual variants.

Note: I will grant a variant like Romans 5:1 is a less signficiant variant. And I will grant that most variants don't effect theology in a significant way, but it is a bit of a death blow to find out the prostitution story is unbiblical, that the Yohannan Comma is not in any greek MSS before 16th century, and that many of the texts affirming the divinity of Christ all are disputed.; February 12, 2009 at 8:26 PM
ben malik said...: Dk, excellent post. You are showing that it is actually Muhammad, not us kafirun, who keeps making himself look stupid and is constantly embarrassing himself. You can tell my his tone he is another vile, filthy mouthed Muslim pretending to be intelligent. It is a matter of time before he self-destructs since these Muslim pseudo-intellectuals just can't help themselves.; February 12, 2009 at 8:28 PM
ben malik said...: Dk, none of those texts are problematic even though you and Ehrman think so. Anytime you want to discuss any of them let me know.

And I don't know why you listed Romans 9:5 since there is no variant reading which affects the transmission of that particular passage. Anyway, if you know where we can discuss these issues without disrupting the thread do let me know.; February 12, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Ismai'liyyah (Dawoodi Bohras and Agha Khanis) in general believe in Tahreef so yes they are indeed Non-Muslims.

Shamoun,

Just to inform you, Abdullah al-Andalusi is an Ash'ari following the madhab of Imam Malik, I dunno why u bring him into this.; February 12, 2009 at 8:36 PM
David Wood said...: DK,

Perhaps I should clarify. Some variants are meaningful but not viable. Although these verses would affect the meaning of the text, we know that they are not part of the original New Testament. Thus, they don't affect Christianity at all.

Other variants are viable but not meaningful. This means that we're not sure which version was in the original. Spelling differences, for instance, may be viable. But they are hardly meaningful (e.g. whether "John" is spelled with one n or two n's). Thus, these variants don't affect Christianity.

A small fraction of textual variants are both meaningful and viable. But even here, there's nothing that would change any major Christian doctrine. Thus, even these variants aren't a problem for Christianity.

You say that the truth about the prostitution story constitutes a "death blow." In what way? (Do you mean the story of the woman caught in adultery?) In the first chapter of the New Testament, we find that Joseph, because he was a "righteous man," didn't want to subject Mary to public disgrace. Later, we find Jesus allowing a prostitute to wash his feet. He obviously wasn't condemning her.

So how does this variant affect Christianity when we find the same message elsewhere? I'd say it doesn't.

How does 1 John 5:7 affect Christianity? I'd say it doesn't (unless you somehow believe that the doctrine of the Trinity only exists in this variant).

And please show me one verse that I use to defend the Deity of Christ which is in dispute.; February 12, 2009 at 8:57 PM
David Wood said...: Yahya said: "Just to inform you, Abdullah al-Andalusi is an Ash'ari following the madhab of Imam Malik"

Is that why he gets to wear a cooler outfit than other Muslims?; February 12, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: David Wood,

Nope, he just dresses in his North African style clothes, I've seen cooler.; February 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Dk said...: Ben Malik,

Re: the textual viariants n NT

See you in the ring, for a huge whooping, time and place! (;

Concerning Muhammad, yes he is indeed bound to self-destruct since like most Muslims (like Yahya) he cannot continue to masquerade as an intellectual on a durable basis.

Ben thanks for your posts above since no Muslim can refute you and David, no Muslim to date has said anything of value on this thread.; February 12, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Dk,

You still didn't get back to me on our last exchange, what was so "filthy" about the article on Muhammad Sven Kalisch?

Anyways, thanks for the in put, However seeing as you believe that this Universe came from no-where, you are in no position to come to anyone about self-destructing seeing as you don't even know there exists a deity.; February 12, 2009 at 9:13 PM
ben malik said...: Dk, I like it better when you are pounding Yahya and his ilk.

So Abdullah is an Ashari who embraces such things as tassawuf and tawassul, and rejects the Salafi position that is held by people like Bassam who believe that Allah has physical attributes such as his eyes, hands and fingers possible with palms, shins and so. hehehe; February 12, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Dk said...: David said:

"A small fraction of textual variants are both meaningful and viable."

I think we have some common ground here. It is the best ground we have to work with anyway.

"And please show me one verse that I use to defend the Deity of Christ which is in dispute."

I don't know exactly which verses that you use. However I do know the verses I listed above are in dispute(John 1:18, Romans 9:5), see forananswer.org Apologists Bible Commentary, then take your pick(of which verse)!

You refer to other merciful acts given to "prostitutes" portrayed in the NT in order to show the message of the NT conveys the same with or without the prostitution story. For me your examples do not suffice to show whether Jesus would apply the punishment of the Law or give her mercy or not. Either way for me, it is a theological dilemma. For Jesus to act consistant with his own revelation(Torah) or for him to dismiss his own law and revelation in order to give mercy.

As for the Yohannan Comma, yes it is the only singular explict text of the Trinity. This creates other theological issues like:

Can God really use an ambigious means to reveal DOGMATIC truths about himself?

How could we possibly trust such a God?

How are humans expected to discover such truths considering our condition?

And numerous other questions..

But yes I realize the text is not meaningful and viable, I still consider it a deathblow in terms of how it reflects on God.; February 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Shamoun,

Abdullah rejects Tassawuff, it's best not to assume so much without corroborating it to be true.; February 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
ben malik said...: BTW, my point still stands since according to Salafis like Bassam Abdullah holds to deviant, heretical views concering Allah's hands, eyes, shins, side, and his occupying the throne. Just check out Bassam's website and read his irrefutable arguments against Asharis. So once again, can someone explain why Sami is associating with heretics?

And that comment about Bassam's irrefutable arguments is a joke since his website should be listed as one of the worst Muslim sites next Osama's, Sami's and Nadir's.; February 12, 2009 at 9:25 PM
ben malik said...: Yahya,

So as an Ashari he doesn't think tha sufism has a valid place in traditional Islam? Yes or no.; February 12, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Dk said...: Yahya, using your logic, I am not able to make a determination about Muhammad since I don't believe in a deity, but then Ben Malik DOES believe in a deity and therefore IS able to make a determination (using your reasoning) about Muhammed self-destructing, therefore i'm glad you agree with Ben Malik as you to are a Theist, and therefore you agree with me and Ben Malik.

Further more I don't "know" a deity exists, what is the purpose of BELIEF and DISBELIEF, if you use the definition correctly, MANY people are AGNOSTIC like me, including religionists.; February 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
ben malik said...: DK,

There is no variant in Romans 9:5 so you need stop using that as an example for your position. The issue centers on how to translate the Greek. Secondly, 1 John 5:7 is not the only explicit prooftext of the Trinity and has no direct bearing on what the Bible teaches concerning the doctrine. The proof of this comes from the fact that Trinitaraians managed to substatantiate their belief in the Trinity in their debates with heretics for centuries without having a text like 1 john 5:7 to help their case.

And even if 1 John 5:7 was a genuine text skeptics and heretics would still find away to explain it away much like they do with John 10:30 where the same Greek word for one, hen, is used. Much like nontrinitarians argue that Jesus is not one with the Father in essence, but in some other sense, they would also argue that one in 1 John 5:7 doesn't mean that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one God either.; February 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM
ben malik said...: Excellent slamdunk of Yahya, Dk. Like I said I enjoy seeing you back him and his ilk into a corner. Anyway, I will hopefully speak with you all later on, perhaps tonight or tommorrow. Till then, take care.; February 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Shamoun,

Nope, he doesn't recognise it.

Dk,

Did I say you were wrong because you were an atheist/agnostic, nope I merely pointed out I don't have time for people like you. Please also remember to show me how the article was "filthy" to quote your words.; February 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Dk said...: Ben Malik, i'm glad you finally expressed your thoughts. haha, it was bound to happen.

re: romans 9:5

"The issue centers on how to translate the Greek"

You are correct, but the issues also involve which LATTER MSS reflect the BEST WAY of REFLECTING the EARLIER MSS, and WHICH of these MSS should we USE to translate, and how do we translate? Therefore in the latter CHURCH MSS there was disagreement.

See you next time Ben Malik, I also enjoy seeing your posts and seeing the complete inability of the Muhammadans to respond.; February 12, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Dk said...: Yahya said:

"Dk, Did I say you were wrong because you were an atheist/agnostic"

Yahya I will answer you using your own words:

"Anyways, thanks for the in put, However SEEING AS YOU BELIEVE THAT this Universe came from no-where, you are in no position to come to anyone about self-destructing SEEING AS YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THERE EXISTS A DEITY."

Clearly you made a non-sequitor that I used against you. =)

Furthermore since you don't have time for Atheists, I wouldn't expect you to address me numerous times on this blog, but hey feel free to enjoy wasting more of your time.

Yahya you just must be pissed off because you found out one faith was wrong, and then joined one even more ridiculous, you forgot to retrain your critical thinking skills.

Wait i'm giving you to much credit, you probably weren't even a Christian. You are as former-Christian as Yusuf Estes and his ilk LOL.; February 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: Is there any evidence that Ben Malik is Sam Shamoun?

Has Malik confessed to that or rejected that?

And if he has rejected that (once), do Muslims not accuse him of lying?; February 13, 2009 at 4:19 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Dk,

Whatever, I know what I mean as I am the infallible authority on my own statements, you can debate it for however long you want.

Well Dk,

I've responded to you in 2 cases only,

1) When for some reason you mention my name despite the fact I don't know who you are and could care less

2) When I thought you were Christian (which has been like twice!)

Also, I'm still waiting for how the article was "filthy" which you stated on this blog around a month ago.

You really crack me up Dk, your hatred of Islam moves you so much that even as an agnostic you spend so much time watching Muslim-Christian Debates, you seem to prefer the more gladitorial ones with generally aggressive non-practicing Christian Speakers from the looks of things.

At least, I believe I am doing something rewarding here and focus upon matters of my salvation, you on the other hand are just some bitter agnostic with a problem against Islam.; February 13, 2009 at 4:41 AM
Nazam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Nazam said...: Ben Malik is Sam Shamoun.
Nearly always he gives links to Sam Shamouns articles in fact I do not know of a time when he has given a link to someone else.
Once as Ben Malik he let the cat out of the bag by making a referance to an article he had written but when you clicked on the link it turn out to be written by Sam Shamoun.
Ben Malik has been on pal talk in the past and you can recognise that it's Shamoun's voice.
Finally, you can tell from they way he writes that it's no differant from Shamouns style of writting.
Too my knowledge Ben Malik has never denied his Sam Shamoun instead he hinted in a previous debate that he was making use of a pseudonomous name.; February 13, 2009 at 6:42 AM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: Yeah but I have heard others on paltalk that sound like Shamoun, who were not Shamoun. Many of these points you raised do not fully provide evidence that Malik is Shamoun; it still remains speculative.

I would say unless Malik himself confesses to be Shamoun, we need to take his word for it.

And of course if he is Shamoun, I don't see a problem with that. There are of course other Christians and Muslims who appear on here with pseudo names.; February 13, 2009 at 6:57 AM
Dk said...: Yahya as i've stated it must be difficult being a FAKE ex-christian, and keeping up the canard of pretending to be an intellectual who accepts Islam and rejects Christianity on intellectual grounds, it really must be Jihad to the fullest, you have a deep inner struggle with integrity and honesty, I see that now.

But the most funniest part was to claim you are the infallible intepreter of your own words, I guess that is one way of getting out of a non-sequitor, well the ONLY way in this case, since you couldn't even explain how your words did not make the obviously ridiculous non-sequitor I pointed out they have made.

Yahya the bottom line is, lets pressume I hate Islam as much as you think I do, then refute what I claim about it, and refute any claim I have made that you disagree with. The fact of the matter is being a pseudo-intellectual you can't refute anything, in fact the only thing you can do is pretend to be sincere and promising in front of David Wood but be the two face hypocrite that you are in true life. Shame on you and shame on your fraud of a prophet for inspiring you to behave such a way.; February 13, 2009 at 8:04 AM
Royal Son said...: If only we could breed goats, like the one Aisha encountered. Then we could do something about getting all remaining 114 Surahs done away with.

A new sort of "Reader's Digest" if you will...; February 13, 2009 at 8:38 AM
ben malik said...: Nazzam, the slanderer of the brethren who pretends to be a respctful Muslim but can't keep the charade up for too long. I link to many AI authors, kust like I did in the combox section to Osama vs. Wood debate. Can't help it if Shamoun has done such a thorough job of dismantling your arguments and your pseudo-scholars.

And maybe I am Shamoun and maybe I am not. The fact is IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. So stop dreaming and salivating over Shamoun, you Muslims already have shown how scared you are of him.

And don't you have something better to do, like produce another video on youtube where you falsely accuse another Christian apologist for lying and assault his or her character much like you did to White?; February 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...: I would however love to see Shamoun more active on the blog. He has done a remarkable job in silencing the muslim missionaries and exposing the reality of islam.
He is certainly in my prayers.; February 13, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Matthew said...: I would however love to see Shamoun more active on the blog. He has done a remarkable job in silencing the muslim missionaries and exposing the reality of islam.
He is certainly in my prayers.

I must admit that I am quite impressed by the numerous articles he wrote. Reminds me of J.P. Holding.; February 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: DK Said: Yahya as i've stated it must be difficult being a FAKE ex-christian, and keeping up the canard of pretending to be an intellectual who accepts Islam and rejects Christianity on intellectual grounds, it really must be Jihad to the fullest, you have a deep inner struggle with integrity and honesty, I see that now.

Dk, seeing as your agnostic now and clearly have never tasted any relationship with God hence reject him, you can keep quiet on my previous religious beliefs. In fact, this merely goes to show how little you even know about me- I've never once claimed to have been a really knowledgable Christian, I admitted in my dialogue with David Wood here in London that at that age I was extremely ignorant about certain christian doctrines. Shame you don't ever research anything before making a claim, especially when it comes to someone's character. I guess your agnosticism permits you to lie about people.

Yahya the bottom line is, lets pressume I hate Islam as much as you think I do, then refute what I claim about it, and refute any claim I have made that you disagree with. The fact of the matter is being a pseudo-intellectual you can't refute anything, in fact the only thing you can do is pretend to be sincere and promising in front of David Wood but be the two face hypocrite that you are in true life. Shame on you and shame on your fraud of a prophet for inspiring you to behave such a way.

Again, David knows more about my "true life" than you do, he's actually met me, you haven't. You can refer to me as a pseudo-intellectual if you want, I don't really care about such cheap denounciations as if they even impact on my argumentation, however until I see you qualified in the slightest in any form of education regarding Islam or Christianity and until you accept a theist position, I'll continue to view you as the mindless, devoid of spirituality, Islamophobic Bigot who spends more time listening to Muslim-Christian Debates than working on finding God.

Shame on you and shame on your fraud of a prophet for inspiring you to behave such a way.

LOL Mate you are an Agnostic, you don't believe in Prophets anyway.; February 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Royal Son said...: "Dk, seeing as your agnostic now and clearly have never tasted any relationship with God hence reject him, you can keep quiet on my previous religious beliefs"

Yahya, as someone who enjoys a relationship with God, I would like to ask you a question.

Why does your profile indicate that you are a born-again Muslim?

It seems that you are borrowing Christian terms.

If I am incorrect, please show me the verses and/or hadiths that teach being born again as a Muslim.

Thank you.; February 19, 2009 at 11:45 PM