Christians I need your help…(again!). To be honest I am a bit confused. Yes really. I read the Bible regularly and Christians inform me that the Bible is the “Word of God” but I have not come across a passage that states in the Bible itself that the Bible is the Word of God. So why do they believe it is?
Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is the Word of God. Here is the passage in context:
Yesterday at Regent’s Park Mosque I had a pleasant conversation with Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie, who is debating Dr Shabir Ally later today in London on What is God Like: Tawhid or Trinity? He is a bright chap. I asked him my question: where does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? He immediately cited 2 Timothy 3:16–17. But I pointed out this passage, read in context, is clearly speaking of the Jewish scriptures, the Christian Old Testament – not the New Testament. So the passage is not referring to the Bible as a whole. Jonathan was honest enough to admit he did not have an answer to my question.
Catholic Christians however, have a ready answer to this question. They might say something like the following:
“Look, the fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.”
“The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).”
- this quotation is taken from the Catholic Answers website.
So my question is this dear (non-Roman Catholic) Christians: where does the Bible actually state that it is the Word of God? And if it doesn’t claim this status, then why do you think it is?
Thank you in advance for clearing up this mystery for me.
Categories: Bible, Christianity
Blogging Theology 
Hi Paul,
I have long said that I think this is one of the strongest arguments that Roman Catholics make against Sola Scriptura. It is fair to point out that nowhere in the Scriptures do we find a list of the books that make up the Biblical canon. There is a stronger case for the Old Testament than the New Testament, as you note — e.g. Jesus and the apostles regularly quote it as authoritative Scripture. In the case of the New Testament, there are at least two references to this material as Scripture in the New Testament — as I have pointed out a number of times in the past. One is in 2 Peter 3:15, where Peter refers to the works of Paul as Scripture. The other is 1 Timothy 5:18, where Paul quotes from Luke, referring to it as Scripture. But yes, I freely acknowledge that there is no canonical list in the New Testament of the books that make up the New Testament, and I take the view that God directed the church to recognise and affirm which books were God-breathed.
Jonathan
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Jonathan, and thanks for your speedy reply!
the NT is made up of 27 books (according to most Christians, but not all), written by different people, none of whom thought they were writing God’s own self-revelation, “the Word of God”. Here are examples of what motivated the authors:
Luke 1:
‘Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
Note that Luke does not claim to be inspired by God or to have received revelation from Heaven. His motivation is comparatively pedestrian – “I too have decided..to write an account for you”.
I Corinthians 7:
‘To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.’
Note that Paul in his letter clearly distinguishes between commands ‘from the Lord’ and commands he says are ‘not from the Lord’, ie from himself. It seems then that he is conscious that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is his own writing – not ‘the Word of God’, or a revelation from God. It is difficult therefore to see how 1 Corinthians 7 as a whole can be given the status of Word of God, in light of these facts.
—————-
Now to your reference to 2 Peter 3:15. This says:
“and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him”.
I am not sure how having wisdom equates with being divine revelation. Perhaps you mean 2 Peter 3:16?
“speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
A couple of points. Firstly, this letter is nearly universally regarded by New Testament scholars as a mid-second century forgery. Only very very conservative scholars and fundamentalists think it is possibly authentic.
Secondly, even if it is authentic, it it simply Peter’s view that Paul’s writings are “scripture”; it is not a clear instruction/guidance from God saying to mankind this is the Word of the Lord! Peter after all was not the most reliable of disciples. He publicly denied Jesus three times and was famous for being stubborn and wrong headed.
Thirdly, Paul’s authentic letters only make up 7 of the 27 books of the New Testament. What about the Letter of James, the Letter to the Hebrews, the gospel of Mark, the gospel of Matthew, the Letter of Jude etc? None claim to be inspired, or revelation from God. Some works such as the Letter to the Hebrews were included in the canon for their supposed Pauline authorship. But scholars do not think that today.
Fourthly, you state: ‘I take the view that God directed the church to recognise and affirm which books were God-breathed.’ Upon what evidence? You have implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon? But the church is a “fallible institution”, as you agreed with me yesterday at Regents Park Mosque. How can an errant and fallible organisation, the Catholic Church, produce inerrant Holy Scripture?
Why do you accept the Catholic church’s canon of scripture but reject its other defined teaching of the same period that Mary is “the Mother of God” (Theotokos) at the Council of Ephesus in 431?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Btw best wishes for your debate with Shabir Ally later! I will not be coming but I hope to watch it on youtube, inshallah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, so anti-Catholic fundamentalist Christian bigots such as James White et al are relying on the Catholic church. Interesting. Not only this, the NT does not describe all four of those books they call Gospels as ‘inspired’ – Gospel of John is not described as Scripture within the NT…only Luke (though as Paul argues above this person known as Luke did not seem to think his writing was ‘inspired’)???
I salute Jonathan Mclatchie for giving it to us without the filter…people like Jay Smith and James White could learn from him. I hope Jonathan becomes a Muslim and I hope the anti-Catholic Christian bigots think about the important information Paul (‘Williams’ not ‘of Tarsus’) and Jonathan Mclatchie have shared. We really need to get this information out to Christians. I bet most lay Christians have no clue. Their pastors distract them with music, dancing and emotional preaching while their apologists pull the wool over their eyes.
But what about the Apocrypha? The Catholics have a few extra books in their Bible. Serious question, why don’t the Christians not include these in their Bibles? After all aren’t they not trusting the Catholic Church’s word on the 27 books they currently have, why don’t they not be consistent and trust the Catholic church on the extra books? Have I missed something?
PS If anybody is going to the debate tonight, ask Paul’s question and incorporate some of those points he presented. I doubt I will go…I have two dissertations to proof read and then I don’t fancy a travel back from North West London late on a Sunday.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well this is a classical consistency problem. The very basis of creating a vorlage textus criticus was because the textus receptus from the Christian tradition was insufficient to accurately preserve the New Testament itself. The problem occurs when Christians claim to be creating a critical edition, but doing so according to the canon of the tradition. It is either you acquiesce to the critical method and stop mixing tradition with it, or you allow the tradition to dictate the critical text, which would mean you do not have a wholly critical edition. I think this problem is magnified given Aland’s rejection of several NT works, which he considered non-canonical. Quite ironic that the very critical edition which carries his name, he rejected the canonicity of, but the lay and evangelical Christian accept as scripture. Scripture in this case, came from a man who rejected it as scripture itself!
I believe we must thank Jonathan for his very candid confessions, that was very pleasant of him to come forward it. We hope the rest of Christendom will follow soon. I’ll probably watch the debate and do a live review. I just finished brushing up on my Trinitarian knowledge, so it should be a fun night.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I fully expect the eminent Christian apologist Sam Shamoun to refute my points above by attacking Islam. It is Sam’s standard modus operandi. It works for me every time 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul you have already judged god.
LikeLike
I think the problem with Sam is that he doesn’t know enough about Christianity to defend it, so he just attacks Islam. The problem with this methodology, is that it doesn’t defend Christianity, he just ends up criticizing Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed ijaz. What he lacks in knowledge he more than makes up for with bluster, ad hominem attacks, and general lunacy. David Wood one opined that Sam is the greatest Christian apologist in the West so I guess he must be.
LikeLike
General troll. You are mistaken. I have not “judged God” – or anyone else. I just want Christians to help me understand 1 Samuel 15.
Can you do that? Are you willing to?
According to the story God orders Israel to slaughter men, women, children, infants and animals, for a crime committed by their Amalekite ancestors three centuries previously. My problem is this – and perhaps some kind Christian can clear it up for me:
God is Love. He loves everyone, especially sinners. Furthermore, as God says through the prophet Ezekiel (chapter 18):
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.
So my question is this: How is it just for God to slaughter these people? What crime had they committed?
Thank you in advance for clearing up this mystery for me 🙂
LikeLike
I’m sure the opinion of a hammer wielding, psychotic, attempted murderer is very reliable. I wouldn’t be tempted to disagree with such a person, lest he picks up the hammer again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
oh dear oh dear Sam.
You naughty boy. You have been cutting and pasting irrelevant attacks on the Qur’an and Islam again. Yes, I know, I know – it’s your usual methodology to reply to any questions on Christianity with a blitz of interminable waffle about Islam. But guess what? This is my blog – it ain’t Answering Islam. And you are on a tight leash on here. So off to the spam folder go your comments.
Where they belong 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha Ha. He is a nut job.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would say that the texts which were copied and distributed were canonized de facto by the early church.
By common concensus lead by the Holy Spirit and not by some ecclesiastical ordinance from on high. From a church which was corrupted by that time. It was never God’s will to canonize the scriptures in this way.
“The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).”
The Spirit gave discernment straight away and not nearly 400 years after the fact.
It also seems clear to me that God did not preserve all lines of transmission from corruption in his providential care of the text.
LikeLike
thanks for your answer Paul. It shows that a Christian can compose a reply that is both decent and to the point.
LikeLike
I couldn’t resist this. This one is one of the weakest points that I know of to prove the early canonisation Luke’s gospel.
“For the scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” 1 Timothy 5:18
Since Luke has the last phrase, Paul thinks both the Old Testament and the Gospel of Luke are inspired. Just to confirm this, we have an almost verbatim quote and Paul knew Luke!
There you go the man is a genius! So forget the most conservative estimates for when Luke’s gospel was written(and the time for it to be know as scripture among a Christian community) Forget the fact that we are not likely to be dealing with the same Luke for the gospel of Luke (likely not to be Luke the Evangelist) and forget the fact that we have a controversial Paulian letter. For the sake of the argument, I will allow this.
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable that “Paul” is quoting Legal cliches that are derived from the Old Testament ?
For example, in Deuteronomy 25:4
He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes. 4″You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
This would apply to the first part and and in Deuteronomy again 24:14( as well as other verses) eg. “Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.”
“You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the Lord and it become sin in you.…”
This implies the next derivative legal cliche
“The worker deserves his wages”
Why does Luke quote the latter verbatim (well not exactly). Because it is a legal cliche. Not difficult you know.
Now which is the simpler explaination?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who is Bravo and Blackstonian? Lol! This Shamoun guy is crazy. Who is he refuting? Wouldn’t it be easier to refute me rather than some figure you are imagining in your head?
It makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful discussion because whatever response we do have is mixed with irrelevant points that are just pasted in response to some guy in the past.
Anyway… I shall leave it to you to make the response more relevant to my comment, otherwise I think the owner of the blog is reasonable to place this in the spam bin again.
By the way, there are a few points in this spam article that are relevant tot he comment (obviously, I do not find them convincing in any way) but how am I to respond to cuts and pastes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now I am Seymour! Lol. I didn’t know I had so many alternative identities that I didn’t even know about. Imagine that eh? Having a “divided mind” inaccessible to one person. Hmm sounds familiar. Of course, one could reason on different models ha ha.
Now back to the crucial issue here. I am not arguing for the authorship of Timothy, nor for the authorship of the Gospel of Luke, and nor for the fact that Paul knew the author.
I am saying that this reasoning that you presented does not lead to an unequivocal conclusion that we have an early canonisation of Luke’s Gospel. Even with all the above assumptions it does not follow through. The onus is also on you because of the extravagent extrapolation here.
Firstly, being friendly with someone called Luke does not imply that we have a gospel that is canonised as scripture. He may have known a future author but still quote from the Old Testament. ( but seriously… Luke the evangelist the author of the Gospel of Luke. Seriously?).
Secondly, identical Greek for a brief cliche proves nothing. I may know of many books that have identical English when using this maxim as an example
“One who seeks equity must do equity”
All that shows is that the maxim is familiar. Familiar to even Jesus.
Now even though we do not have an exact quote from the Old Testament, these maxims are reasonably derived from it. That is why I can claim that these are from the scripture.
Finally, what a “liberal source” says is irrelevant to an argument, unless we have an argument from the source.
Simply put, if Paul quotes a brief cliche that is also quote by the Gospel of Luke, how does that prove the early canonisation of the Gospel of Luke? Conservatively the evidence will tell us that this a well known click that is derived (at least in meaning) from the Old Testament. It would be really a far stretch of the evidence to use this as proof for the canonisation of the Gospel of Luke!
LikeLiked by 2 people
that’s brilliant Unitarian!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it just me, or isn’t this the same thing he says every time his copy pastes from AI do not get posted?
“With that said, Williams can now delete these comments as well since this will be the last time I post here.”
You’re like a broken record to be honest.
LikeLike
Williams, I tried to help you by answering your question but you deleting my aid. Therefore let me repost them again since I desire nothing more but to help my friend in need.
Does the Holy Bible claim to be the inspired Word of God?
Sam Shamoun
Oftentimes, when a Christian quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17,
“All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
To prove that the Holy Bible teaches that it is the written Word of God, Muslims are quick to mention the fact that when this statement was originally made by Paul, he wasn’t referring to the New Testament, but to the OT writings that he believed to be Scripture. They also like to point out that 2 Timothy 3:15 refers to the Holy Scriptures which Timothy knew from his childhood. They conclude from this that this statement excludes the NT writings since none of the Gospels nor the Pauline Epistles existed during that time.
The Muslim objection erroneously assumes that the blessed Apostle must have only been referring to those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his childhood, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. As we are about to prove, Paul was speaking about all the sacred writings that Timothy would have known from the time of his childhood and up until the time of Paul’s letter to him. As such, the blessed Apostle would have definitely included his own Epistles as part of the very Scriptures which God produced by his Holy Spirit, as we shall shortly demonstrate.
Furthermore, Paul was not talking about the canon of Scripture per se, but about the origin and purpose of Scripture. The Apostle’s point is that the Holy Scriptures originate from God and are therefore able to accomplish God’s purpose of equipping the saints. In principle, this would apply to EVERY book that God produces, not just to the OT canon.
Paul himself provides evidence that this is what he meant. For instance, the blessed Apostle wrote the following in his first epistle to Timothy:
“For THE SCRIPTURE says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” 1 Timothy 5:18
Here, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 AND LUKE 10:7!
“Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.” Luke 10:7
Paul not only calls Luke’s Gospel Scripture, he even groups it together with Moses’ revelation, thereby giving it the same kind of respect and authority!
Additional evidence that Paul is citing Luke’s Gospel can be seen from a comparison of the Greek:
Luke 10:7 – … axios gar ho ergates tou misthou autou.
1 Timothy 5:18 – … axios ho ergates tou misthou autou.
The Greek of both texts are identical with the exception of the word gar (“for”), which Paul omits.
Now the reason why Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as opposed to Matthew and Mark is because Luke happened to be with him during the time the Apostle wrote his letters to Timothy:
“Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.” 2 Timothy 4:11 – Cf. Colossians 4:10, 14; Philemon 1:24
It therefore makes perfect sense that the Apostle chose to quote from this particular Gospel, as opposed to any of the others, since Luke would have provided him with a copy of what he had written concerning the life of the historical Jesus.
To say that this is amazing would be a wild understatement. Not only was Luke not an Apostle, he wasn’t even an Israelite, and yet an Apostle of the risen Lord Jesus classifies the writing of one of his Gentile companions as Scripture and actually places it on the same status with Moses’ Law!
What’s more, Paul doesn’t inform Timothy where his citations come from, since he assumes that his protégé would immediately recognize them since he was already so familiar with the authors that wrote them down. This means that, even before Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, Luke’s Gospel was already well known and recognized as Scripture by the Christian communities that the Apostle ministered to!
This brings us to our next point. There are scores of passages where Paul claimed that God inspired his preaching and writings:
“And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.” 1 Corinthians 2:13
“since you are demanding proof THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING THROUGH ME. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you”. This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority – the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.” 2 Corinthians 13:3, 10
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles — Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me BY REVELATION, as I have already WRITTEN briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” Ephesians 3:1-5
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, BUT AS IT ACTUALLY IS, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13
In fact, Paul not only exhorted believers to publicly read and obey his instructions:
“And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice′ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice′a.” Colossians 4:16
“ I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren.” 1 Thessalonians 5:27
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, WHETHER BY WORD OF MOUTH OR BY LETTER FROM US.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
He even warned them that they would have to answer to God if they ignored or rejected his commands, since doing so meant that they were rejecting the commandments of God:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I AM WRITING to you IS THE LORD’S COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” 1 Corinthians 14:37-38
“Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD JESUS… Therefore, he who rejects THIS INSTRUCTION does not reject man BUT GOD, who gives you his Holy Spirit.” 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 8
This clearly doesn’t sound like a man who thought that God hadn’t inspired him to write his letters!
And since all these Epistles preceded the writing of 1 and 2 Timothy, we can safely infer that both Paul and Timothy would have definitely included them as part of the very Scripture that the blessed Apostle stated had been breathed out or produced by the Spirit of God!
Interestingly, this is precisely what the Apostle Peter believed:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16
Noted Evangelical Scholar Douglas J. Moo comments:
“The implicit point Peter is making emerges from his claim that the false teachers distort Paul’s letters ‘as they do the other Scriptures.’ The word ‘other’ (loipos) shows that Peter considers the letters of Paul to belong to the category of ‘Scripture.’ Some scholars think that this means no more than that Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative. But the word ‘Scriptures’ (graphai) ALWAYS REFERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THOSE WRITINGS CONSIDERED NOT ONLY AUTHORITATIVE BUT CANONICAL – in a word, it refers to the Old Testament… Peter therefore implies that the letters of Paul have a status EQUIVALENT to that of the canon of the Old Testament itself.” (Moo, The NIV Application Commentary: 2 Peter, Jude [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI 1996], p. 212; bold and capital emphasis ours)
One other NT book that claims to have been inspired by God is Revelation. All throughout this specific writing, the author records how he had been ordered to write down everything that the blessed Spirit enabled him to see and hear:
“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.” Revelation 1:1-3
“I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “WRITE what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per′gamum and to Thyati′ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice′a.’ Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. Now WRITE what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter. As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.’” Revelation 1:9-20
“After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, ‘Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.’ At once I was in the Spirit, and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald.” Revelation 4:1-3
“And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!’” Revelation 14:13
“Then I SAW a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I SAW the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I HEARD a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.’ And he who sat upon the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ Also he said, “WRITE THIS, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ AND HE SAID TO ME, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’ Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, ‘Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,” Revelation 21:1-10
The inspired author even concludes his writing with a curse upon anyone who would dare tamper with the words of the revelation of his book:
“‘I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.’ The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price. I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy OF THIS BOOK: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described IN THIS BOOK, and if any one takes away from the words OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described IN THIS BOOK. He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.” Revelation 22:16-21
John’s Gospel is another canonical writing which testifies to its own inspiration, albeit implicitly. In this Gospel, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit in order to remind the disciples all that Christ had taught them while he was with them:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26
On two occasions, the inspired Evangelist refers to moments in Jesus’ life which he and the disciples remembered and understood only after the time when Christ had been glorified:
“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” John 2:19-22
“The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’ And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it; as it is written, ‘Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on an ass’s colt!’ His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.” John 12:12-16
The reason why the writer and the rest of Jesus’ followers only remembered these things after Jesus’ resurrection and subsequent glorification is because that was the time when they received the Holy Spirit:
“‘He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.”’ Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” John 7:38-39
This means that John basically wrote down all the things that the Holy Spirit had brought to his remembrance concerning the words and deeds of Christ.
In other words, John is testifying that the Holy Spirit inspired him to record all the things that he personally saw and heard Jesus say and do!
In light of the foregoing, it is evident that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not limiting inspiration to the OT canon but includes, in principle, EVERY writing that God would eventually produce by his Holy Spirit. This in turn includes the very books that eventually formed the NT canon.
LikeLike
Addendum
Doesn’t Paul Admit that Not Everything He Wrote Was Inspired?
Some Muslims wish to argue that the Apostle actually acknowledges in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 that the instructions he gave in that specific context were not from the Lord, meaning they were not inspired by God. Here is what these particular texts say:
“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her… Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who BY THE LORD’S MERCY IS TRUSTWORTHY.”
Paul candidly admits that he has no command from the Lord and is simply giving his own judgment, statements which Muslims believe actually confirm that the Holy Bible itself testifies that not every part of it is the inspired Word of God.
The problem with this argument is that it severely misunderstands or grossly distorts Paul’s meaning. The Apostle nowhere denies that what he shares is revelation given to him by the risen Lord. Rather, his point is that the matters that he is addressing are not issues which the Lord himself dealt with while he was on earth. Yet, as Christ’s trustworthy servant who speaks with the wisdom given to him by the Holy Spirit, Paul is therefore thoroughly qualified to speak to such issues:
“In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is – and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 7:40 – cf. 2:13
The blessed Apostle’s concluding remark is basically an admission of inspiration, i.e. that he can speak about matters that the Lord didn’t personally address while he was on earth since he had the Holy Spirit.
Paul’s statement here does not express doubt whether he had the Spirit, as passages such as 1 Corinthians 2:13 prove. Rather, the Apostle is using sarcasm to address a Church who had individuals full of themselves since they thought they were super-spiritual prophets, despite the fact that they were highly disorganized and disunited. Evangelical Scholar and NT Commentator Craig L. Blomberg explains it best:
“… Verse 25b parallels the parenthesis in verse 12. In each case, Paul cannot cite a word from the earthly Jesus but believes God is inspiring him to offer reliable counsel… ‘I think that I too have the Spirit of God’ (v. 40b) does not reflect any doubt on Paul’s part but represents a slightly sarcastic aside to the Corinthians, who felt that only they had attained spiritual insight.” (Blomberg, The NIV Application Commentary – 1 Corinthians [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI], pp. 151, 153-4; bold emphasis ours)
More importantly, 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 simply demonstrate the Apostle’s integrity and honesty since it shows that he wouldn’t simply make up sayings of Jesus. Paul made sure to distinguish his words from the commands which Christ taught while he was on earth.
Finally, if giving a suggestion is evidence that a person is not inspired then what will Muslims do with the following Quranic passages?
If ye divorce them before ye have touched them and ye have appointed unto them a portion, then (pay the) half of that which ye appointed, unless they (the women) agree to forgo it, or he agreeth to forgo it in whose hand is the marriage tie. To forgo is nearer to piety. And forget not kindness among yourselves. Allah is Seer of what ye do. S. 2:237 Pickthall
And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice. And give unto the women (whom ye marry) free gift of their marriage portions; but if they of their own accord remit unto you a part thereof, then ye are welcome to absorb it (in your wealth). S. 4:3-4
They consult thee concerning women. Say: Allah giveth you decree concerning them, and the Scripture which hath been recited unto you (giveth decree), concerning female orphans and those unto whom ye give not that which is ordained for them though ye desire to marry them, and (concerning) the weak among children, and that ye should deal justly with orphans. Whatever good ye do, lo! Allah is ever Aware of it. If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men). If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do. Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. But if they separate, Allah will compensate each out of His abundance. Allah is ever All-Embracing, All-Knowing. S. 4:127-130 Pickthall cf. S. 270-271, 280; 24:60
In these passages, the Quran is giving suggestions that are not obligatory upon believers. Using the logic of Muslims, this means that not ALL of the Quran is inspired either. (Actually, none of the Quran is divinely inspired and is not a revelation given by the true God!)
Clearly, these Muslim objections are biblically unsound since they do not handle the text of inspired Scripture carefully and/or accurately.
LikeLike
And now Williams could you please so kind and help me by answering my challenge where I turn your own objection against the Quran? Much appreciated.
The Anonymous Quran
Sam Shamoun
Liberal, critical scholarship pretty much accepts that the Canonical Gospels are all first century accounts. The following are the approximate dates that the consensus of liberal [N]ew [T]estament scholarship assign to these four NT Gospels:
Mark – 65-75 AD.
Matthew – 75-90 AD.
Luke-Acts – 80-95 AD.
John – 90-100 AD.
However, this very same liberal, critical scholarship argues that the Gospels are essentially anonymous works which were not written by eyewitnesses of Christ. Such scholarship would further discount the testimony of the early Church regarding the authorship of these Gospels, calling into question the testimonies concerning the authorship of the NT Gospels from such Christians such as Papias (c. 110-140 AD), a hearer of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, or Irenaeus (180 AD), a second century apologist who heard from Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John.
Thus, the testimonies of men writing not long after the death of the Apostles are ignored or brushed aside for no apparent reason than that such witnesses throw a monkey wrench into the presuppositions of critical scholars who have already made up their minds concerning the origin and composition of the Canonical Gospels.
Yet what makes this rather unfortunate is that Muslim polemicists have jumped on the liberal bandwagon in order to discredit the witness of the NT. This article is a good example.
We say it is unfortunate because these dawagandists never bother to follow through with the assumptions of such critical scholarship to see how this would affect their Islamic beliefs concerning the origin and composition of the Quran.
In the tradition of trying to keep these Islamic propagandists consistent and honest we are going to take the same critical approach to the Gospels and apply that to their own scripture and ask them some rather uncomfortable questions. However, we are not that naïve to think that the dawagandists in question will answer with any consistency or honesty. In light of their track record we expect that they will skirt the issues and/or make up all kinds of excuses why such critical approaches to the Holy Bible should not be consistently applied to their own scripture or sources.
With the foregoing in perspective we now issue the following challenges for the Muslims, specifically the dawagandists who are repeatedly abusing liberal critical and/or anti-supernatural scholarship to undermine the inspiration and veracity of the Holy Bible.
Our first challenge to the polemicists is to provide a quote from a reliable source written within 100 years after Muhammad’s death (633 AD) which expressly and unambiguously says that the Quran consists of 114 chapters, no more no less.
We further challenge them to cite a reference from this early period that clearly says that all of these 114 suras were transmitted through Muhammad. We want the Muslim polemicists to provide conclusive historic proofs that other messengers or prophets whose names are not mentioned in the Quran did not compose some of these suras.
The name Muhammad appears only four times in the Quran:
And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful. S. 3:144
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things. S. 33:40
And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition. S. 47:2
Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward. S. 48:29
Thus, one can argue that these particular suras were transmitted through a man named Muhammad. However, this cannot be said of the entire Quran since these are the only chapters that mention this name. So the burden of proof is on the Muslims to provide early, reliable testimony that the entire Quran that they currently possess was passed on by Muhammad himself.
Moreover, there are several chapters where neither Allah nor Muhammad is ever mentioned:
The Clatterer! What is the Clatterer? And what shall teach thee what is the Clatterer? The day that men shall be like scattered moths, and the mountains shall be like plucked wool-tufts. Then he whose deeds weigh heavy in the Balance shall inherit a pleasing life, but he whose deeds weigh light in the Balance shall plunge in the womb of the Pit. And what shall teach thee what is the Pit? A blazing Fire! S. 101:1-11
Gross rivalry diverts you, even till you visit the tombs. No indeed; but soon you shall know. Again, no indeed; but soon you shall know. No indeed; did you know with the knowledge of certainty, you shall surely see Hell; Again, you shall surely see it with the eye of certainty then you shall be questioned that day concerning true bliss. S. 102:1-8
By the afternoon! Surely Man is in the way of loss, save those who believe, and do righteous deeds, and counsel each other unto the truth, and counsel each other to be steadfast. S. 103:1-3
Hast thou seen him who cries lies to the Doom? That is he who repulses the orphan and urges not the feeding of the needy. So woe to those that pray and are heedless of their prayers, to those who make display and refuse charity. S. 107:1-8
Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he! His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned; he shall roast at a flaming fire and his wife, the carrier of the firewood, upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre. S. 111:1-5
In light of this, how do Muslims know for certain that these chapters are inspired and/or part of the Muslim scripture when they do not mention the name of the Islamic deity or Muhammad? After all, the texts themselves don’t claim to be God’s revelations so why should we assume that they are? Are Muslims capable of sourcing a reliable written document composed within 100 years after Muhammad’s death by a follower of Muhammad’s companions to prove that their prophet personally transmitted these specific suras as revelations that form part of his scripture?
The problems with appealing to the Hadith collection
Appealing to the hadith collection or the sanad (chain of transmission) won’t work for several reasons. First, in the case of Irenaeus we have a reliable, unbroken chain of transmission that goes all the way back John who was an eye and earwitness of Christ. Yet Muslims still discount this testimony, which means that chains of transmission really do not hold any weight for them, unless of course it serves the purpose of defending Islam. So, then, why should we accept their chain of transmitters, especially when these chains were only compiled centuries after the death of Muhammad?
This leads us to the second problem. The hadiths that Muslims often appeal to were written over two hundred years after the reported death of Muhammad:
3. Collection during the 3rd Century H.: The Hadith was collected and categorized in the latter part of the third century of Hijrah resulting in six canonical collections (Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah)
a. Sahih of Al-Bukhari, d.256 A.H: 7275 (2712 Non-duplicated) out of 600,000.
b. Sahih of Muslim, d.261 A.H: 9200 (4,000 Non-duplicated) out of 300,000.
c. Sunan of Abu Dawood, d.276 A.H. 4,800 of 500,000.
d. Sunan of Ibn Maajeh: d.273 A.H.
e. Jami’ of Tirmidhi, d.279 A.H.
f. Sunan of al-Nisaa’i, d.303 A.H.
The number of the Shi’a transmitters of Hadith quoted in the Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah is over 300.
Al-Bukhari, of Sahih Al-Bukhari, 194-256H
Collected the Hadith over a period of many years, having established certain strict criteria. Political times were very troublesome especially against Ahlul Bayt (during Al-Mutawak’kil’s rulership), therefore Bukhari was circumspect, having mentioned less about Ahlul Bayt’s narrations than others of the Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah. Of the 2210 Hadiths claimed to have been narrated from A’isha, Bukhari and Muslim accepted only 174 as genuine according to their criteria.
Muslim, of Sahih Muslim, 204-261H
It is said he was student of Al-Bukhari and 8 years younger. He differed from Bukhari in his methodology and criteria. He collected the Hadith over a number of years, having established his own criteria. Political times were less troublesome against Ahlul Bayt, (after Al-Mutawak’kil was killed by his own son), therefore Muslim narrated a large number of Hadiths about Ahlul Bayt.
Al-Nisaa’i of Sahih Al-Nisaa’i, 215-303H
Good Hadith collection, more credible. He wrote Al-Kha’sa’is book, about the eminence of Ali and Ahlul Bayt and the Hadiths about them. Al-Nisaa’i was 88 years old when in Damascus, answered about Mu’awiya by saying, “All I know is that the Prophet (pbuh) said about him, `May he be the glutton whose devouring food ever become worse’.” This infuriated Mu’awiya’s sympathizers, they attacked him, trampled upon him, crushed his testicles, after which the infirm Nisaa’i was taken to Mecca where he died. He was buried between Safa and Marwa. (Collection of the Hadith by the Sunni)
As such, these sources do not count as eyewitness testimony since they are written long after the first generation of Muslims had died. Besides, not all Muslims accept the veracity of these reports since they believe that they are nothing more than forgeries written to justify certain political and theological positions and agendas (*; *; *; *; *; *; *; *; *; *; *).
Third, none of these hadith collections delineate the exact number of surahs which are supposed to make up the Islamic text or even their precise order within the codex. We will have more to say concerning this issue in the subsequent parts of our challenge.
This leads us to the fourth problem with appealing to such narrations. If we take these sources at face value then the Quran we currently possess is not identical to what Muhammad had brought since specific narratives attest that there were various conflicting recitations and compilations of the Quran in circulation both during and after the death of Muhammad.
With that said we invite the readers to continue reading the subsequent parts of our discussion (Part 2; Part 3; Excursus) in order to see how the Islamic sources amply testify that the Quran has suffered major textual corruptions, thereby further complicating matters for these Islamic apologists.
Note – The reason why we chose this time frame should be obvious. If we take the date assigned to our earliest Gospel, that being Mark, and the quote from Irenaeus concerning the authorship of the Canonical Gospels that leaves us with approximately 105-115 years. And yet Muslim polemicists outright reject Irenaeus’ testimony even though he had met a disciple of the Apostle John and wrote roughly 80-90 years after the composition of John’s Gospel! Consistency, therefore, demands that the Muslim dawagandists prove the Quran’s authorship and demonstrate what the exact contents of the Quran are from sources that are earlier than what we have for the authorship of the Gospels.
Even here we are being generous since we could actually use John’s Gospel as our starting date, as opposed to Mark, seeing that it is the last of the Gospels to be written. This would require that Muslims cite from a reliable source written within 80-90 years after Muhammad’s death since this is the time which elapsed from John’s Gospel to Irenaeus’ writing on this subject. We could also use Papias’ statements concerning the authorship of Matthew and Mark as a time reference, as opposed to Irenaeus. This means that Muslims would have to provide quotes from sources written within 45-75 years (the approximate time between Mark’s Gospel and Papias’ writings) or 10-50 years (i.e., John’s Gospel to Papias) from the time of Muhammad’s death.
In fact, just to show how generous we are being here a more fair comparison would be to contrast the dates of liberal critical NT scholarship with the dates that liberal Islamic scholarship assigns to Islam’s primary sources. After all, it is more consistent to compare liberal to liberal dates (i.e. the late dates assigned by liberal NT scholars with the late dating that Islamists and Orientalists assign for the Quran/hadith/sira) as opposed to contrasting liberal NT dating with the conservative Muslim dating of the Quran and other Islamic literature.
Thus, we are being much more generous in our challenge here than Muslims are with their attacks on the Holy Bible. We are simply taking at face value the dates that conservative Islamic scholarship assigns to their primary sources without demanding that they first refute the arguments of all the critical scholars of Islamic studies who do not accept such conservative dating of the Quran.
LikeLike
Williams, I still need a lot more help concerning the Quran, so I hope you don’t me posting the rest of the parts to my challenge. Any help you may give me will be greatly appreciated.
Another Open Challenge to Muslims, Pt. 2
Examining the Modifications, Changes, Alterations and Editing of the Islamic Text
Sam Shamoun
According to the so-called authentic Islamic reports there wasn’t one standard way of reciting the Quran, but multiple ways, which caused confusion even among Muhammad’s closest companions!
Narrated by Umar bin Al Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah’s Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.” The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way.” He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, “It was revealed in this way. The Qur’an has been revealed in seven ahruf, so recite it in the way that is easier for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 041, Number 601)
And:
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’an) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Apostle of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). and there occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy, a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects. And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (for intercession). (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1787)
Some Islamic polemicists assert that these refer to the various Arabic dialects which were in use at that time. However, this makes absolutely no sense since both Umar and Hisham belonged to the same tribe, namely the Quraish, and spoke the same exact dialect! Besides, according to the so-called authentic narratives the Quran was “revealed” in the Quraish dialect:
II: The Qur’an was revealed in the language of Quraysh and the Arabs
“An Arabic Qur’an” (12:2) and “in clear Arabic language” (26:195)
4699. It is related that Anas ibn Malik said, “‘Uthman commanded Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and ‘Abdu’r-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham to write out copies of the Qur’an. He told them, “When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about the Arabic of the Qur’an, you should write it in the language of Quraysh. The Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.’ They did that.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an; underline emphasis ours)
And:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510)
Therefore, whatever the differences were they must have been of major significance since it shocked Ubayy b. Kab, a close companion and reciter of the Quran, to the point that he started to doubt his faith and caused Umar to physically seize and drag Hisham by his garment which he wrapped around his neck!
To make matters worse the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan decided to destroy six of these seven ahruf even though companions like Abdullah ibn Masud insisted that each respective Muslim community should continue reading the Quran according to harf taught to them by reciters such as himself!
Difference Between Ahrûf & Qirâ’ât
It is important to realize the difference between ahruf and Qirâ’ât. Before going into that it is interesting to know why the seven ahruf were brought down to one during ‘Uthmân’s time.
The Qur’an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph ‘Uthman’s rule when SOME CONFUSION arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur’an’s recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph ‘Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur’an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur’anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur’an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur’an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur’an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.[8] (M S M Saifullah, Islamic Awareness, Versions of The Qur’an?; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
“If it is asked what was the point of ‘Uthman unifying people under a single copy of the Qur’an when Abu Bakr had already achieved that, then the response is that the aim of ‘Uthman was not to gather people in order to compile the Qur’an. Do you not see that he sent to Hafsa to ask her to give him the copy of the Qur’an so that it could be copied out and then returned to her? ‘Uthman did that BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE DISAGREEING ABOUT THE VARIOUS RECITATIONS owing to the fact that the Companions had spread to different areas AND HAD BEGUN TO STRONGLY DISAGREE, such as the conflict that took place between the people of Iraq and the people of Syria according to Hudhayfa.
“They joined an expedition to Armenia and each group recited what had been transmitted to them. They disagreed and quarrelled AND SOME OF THEM CALLED THE OTHERS UNBELIEVERS, RENOUNCING THEM COMPLETELY, CURSING ONE ANOTHER. Hudhayfa WAS ALARMED at what he saw. As soon as he arrived back to Medina, according al-Bukhari and at-Tirmidhi, before returning to his house he went to ‘Uthman and said, ‘This Community has reached the stage where it will be destroyed!’ ‘Why?’ asked ‘Uthman. He said, ‘It is about the Book of Allah. I was on this expedition and some of the people of Iraq, Syria and the Hijaz came together.’ Then he described what had happened and said, ‘I fear that they will differ about their Book as the Jews and Christians differed.’
“This is the evidence of the falseness of those who say that the seven ahruf are the seven present readings, because there is no disagreement about them. Suwayd ibn Ghafala reported from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib that ‘Uthman said, ‘What do you think about the copies of the Qur’an? The people have disagreed about the reciters until a man says, “My reading is better than your reading. My reading is better is more excellent than your reading.” This is equivalent to disbelief.’ He replied, ‘What is your view, Amr al-Mu’minin?’ He said, ‘I think that we people should agree on one reading. If you differ today, those after you will disagree more strongly.’ ‘Ali said, ‘The correct opinion is yours, Amr al-Mu’minin.’… ‘Uthman returned the pages to Hafsa and he sent a copy of what they had copied out to every region and commanded of what sheet or copy which had any form of the Qur’an should be burned. ‘Uthman did this after gathering the Muhajirin and Ansar and a group of Muslims and consulting them about it…
“Ibn Shihab said that he was told by ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Abdullah that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud disliked Zayd ibn Thabit copying out the Qur’an and said, ‘Company of Muslims, withdraw from making copies and entrusting it to one man. By Allah, I became Muslim while he was in the loins of an unbelieving father!’ meaning Zayd ibn Thabit. That is why ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud said, ‘People of Iraq, CONCEAL THE COPIES OF THE QUR’AN YOU HAVE AND CONCEAL THEM. Allah says, “Those who misappropriate will arrive on the Day of Rising with what they have misappropriated.”’ (Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, translated by Aisha Bewley [Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003], Volume I, Introduction: ‘Uthmani Codex, pp. 52-53: *; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Again:
“Narrated ‘Alqama al-Nakha’i: When ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud left Kufa his companions gathered around him. He took leave of them, and said: ‘Do not dispute about the Qur’an. It will not vary, nor will it dwindle or change because it is often repeated. The revealed law of Islam, its legal punishments, its religious obligations, exist in it in a single form. If something in one of the ahruf forbade something which another commanded, that would be a variation, but it combines all that; there are no variations in it regarding the legal punishments or the religious obligations, nor in anything else in the laws of Islam. I remember when we disputed about the Qur’an before the Messenger of God; he ordered us to recite before him, and told each of us we recited properly. If I were to come to know that someone knew more than I did about what God had sent down to His Messenger, I would seek him out in order to add his knowledge to mine. I learnt seventy suras from the tongue of the Messenger of God himself, and I knew that the Qur’an was read by him (by those companions chose to learn it by heart and recite to him so that he would check the recitation) every month of Ramadan, until the year his life was taken away, when it was recited twice. When that was finished, I recited myself before him, and he told me I had recited properly. HE WHO RECITES LIKE I RECITE MUST NOT ABANDON THAT RECITATION FOR ANOTHER, AND HE WHO RECITES ACCORDING TO ANOTHER HARF MUST NOT ABANDON THAT FOR ANOTHER, for he who rejects any verse rejects them all.” (The commentary on the Qur’an, by Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari; being an abridged translation of Jami’ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, Introduction and Notes by J. Cooper, general editors, W.F. Madelung & A. Jones [Oxford University Press, New York 1987], Volume 1, p.16; capital emphasis ours)
Finally:
“Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: ‘He who recites the Qur’an according to one harf MUST NOT CHANGE FROM IT TO ANOTHER.’
“It is quite clear that ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud did not mean by what he said: He who recites any command or prohibition in the Qur’an must not change from it to the recitation of any threat or promise in it, and he who recites any threat or promise in it must not change from it to the recitation of any narration or parable in it. What he meant, may God have mercy on him, was: He who recites with his harf must not change it to another just because he dislikes it – and his harf is his recitation, just as the Arabs call someone’s recitation his harf… AND HE WHO RECITES WITH UBAIY’S OR ZAID’S HARF, OR WITH THE HARF OF ANY OF THE COMPANIONS OF THE MESSENGER OF GOD WHO RECITED WITH ONE OF THE SEVEN AHRUF, must not change from it to another because he dislikes it. For unbelief in part of the Qur’an is unbelief in all of it, and unbelief in one of these ahruf is unbelief in all of it, meaning by harf the recitation of anyone who recited with one of the seven ahruf as we have described.” (Ibid., p. 29; capital emphasis ours)
And here is what a more recent Muslim author named Farid Esack noted in respect to the compilation of the Quran:
It is likely that Zayd was engaged in more than one process and in different periods; the first, during Abu Bakr’s reign, when he had undertaken the material collection of the suhuf, and another, during the period of ‘Uthman, when he undertook its arrangement and editing. The second process also commences with concern about human frailties –recollection, memory, pronunciation, retention, etc., – which became particularly acute as the Muslim empire began to spread and time moved on. This is reflected in the following statement attributed to Abu Qullabah on the authority of Malik ibn Anas, a Companion:
During the Caliphate of ‘Uthman, different teachers were teaching DIFFERENT READINGS to their students. Thus it used to happen that that[sic] the students would meet AND DISAGREE. The matter reached the point that they would take their dispute to their teachers, WHO WOULD DENOUNCE EACH OTHER AS HERETICS (kaffara ba’duhum ba’da). This situation reached ‘Uthman’s ears. He delivered an oration saying: “You are here by me, yet YOU DISAGREE on the reading and pronunciation of the Qur’an. Therefore, those who are far away from me in the provinces MUST BE IN GREATER DISPUTE… (ibn Abu Dawud, cited in Zarqani, 1996, 1:210).
This statement casts A FURTHER SHADOW around the putative finality of the earlier process which Zayd had engaged in and the notion of an official codex lodged with Hafsah. While a loose collection may have been completed then, the arrangement and editing seems to have taken place much later. During the time of ‘Uthman’s reign, a major impetus for this task was the concern expressed by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who led the Muslim forces against the Armenians in Azerbaijan. He was deeply perturbed at the quarreling that had broken out among soldiers from different areas of the then Muslim world. Upon his return to Medina he urged the Caliph to ensure the proper collection of the Qur’an. ‘Uthman then selected Zayd for the task. Traditional Muslim scholarship holds that Zayd took the suhuf in Hafsah’s possession and, with the assistance of a group of scribes comprising ‘Abd Allah ibn Zubayr, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith, and Sa’d ibn al-‘As, prepared a text faithful to the language/dialect of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe (Zarkashi, 1972, 1:236). Copies of this new version were sent to Damascus, Basra, and Kufa and another copy was kept at Medina. Orders were given to destroy all other versions, and, as indicated earlier, the extent of compliance with these orders seems to vary in different places. Given the conflict ridden nature of ‘Uthman’s rule, it would seem somehow strange for such a process to be undertaken and completed in the neat manner that later Muslim writings hold. The vehemently apologetic nature with which Muslim scholars, even the earlier ones, present this account suggests that the battle for the authenticity of this process as well as its final product may have lasted longer than what traditional opinion may suggest… (Esack, The Qur’an A User’s Guide: A Guide to its Key Theme, History And Interpretation [Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 2005], pp. 87-88; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
THE EXISTENCE OF SEVERAL VARIANT CODICES
‘Uthman’s project to compile the Qur’an was clearly in response to the proliferation of “unauthorized copies” during his time – partly as a result of the problems of the Arabic script of that time. Early Muslim scholars such as Ibn Astah (d. 360/970-971), Ibn Abi Dawud (d. 316/928-929), and Ibn al-Anbari (d. 328/939-940) also dealt with these variant codices. Some of these codices seem to have been in use well after the official canon was produced and up to well into the fourth Islamic century. In Kufa, for example, the version of ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud remained in vogue for some time and there are indications that he refused instructions to stop teaching his versions and to destroy copies of it. Traditional Muslim scholars argue that the period of Ibn Mas’ud’s version’s persistence and its strength had been exaggerated and that the wisdom of ‘Uthman’s course of action had become apparent to Ibn Mas’ud fairly early (Zarqani, 1996, 1:214, cf. 224-228). The extra-canonical texts never gained approval and were viewed by Muslims as the personal copies of individuals worth retaining for their exegetical value. (Ibid., p. 93; underline emphasis ours)
The above sources provide conclusive evidence that the differences that existed between the competing codices produced by companions such as Ubayy and Abdullah ibn Masud were not minor. They were so great and so serious that the Muslims even started to attack and curse each other!
This next story that is taken from Islamist Alphonse Mingana’s discussion of the various reciters and compilers of the Quran provides a further illustration of just how serious these differences were:
At the end of this first part of our inquiry, it is well to state that not a single trace of the work of the above collectors has come down to posterity, except in the case of Ubai ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ud. The Kashshaf of Zamakhshari and in a lesser degree the Anwarut-Tanzil of Baidawi record many Koranic variants derived from the scraps of the Koran edited by the above named companions of the Prophet. The fact is known to all Arabists and does not need explanation. We need only translate a typical passage from the newly published Dictionary of Learned Men of Yakut:
Isma‘il b. ‘Ali al-Khatbi has recorded in the “Book of History” and said: “The story of a man called b. Shanbudh became famous in Baghdad; he used to read and to teach the reading (of the Koran) with letters in which he CONTRADICTED the mishaf; he read according to ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘ud and Ubai b. Ka‘b and others; and used the readings employed BEFORE the mishaf was collected by ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, and followed anomalies; he read and PROVED them in discussions, until his affair became important and ominous; people did not tolerate him anymore and the Sultan sent emissaries to seize him, in the year 828; he was brought to the house of the vizier Muhammad b. Muklah who summoned judges, lawyers, and Readers of the Koran. The vizier charged him in his presence with what he had done, and he did not desist from it, BUT CORROBORATED IT; the vizier then tried to make him discredit it, and cease to read with these disgraceful anomalies, which were an addition to the mishaf of ‘Uthman, but he refused. Those who were present disapproved of this and hinted that he should be punished in such a way as to compel him to desist. (The vizier) then ordered that he should be stripped of his clothes and struck with a staff on his back. He received about ten hard strokes, and could not endure any more; he cried out for mercy, and agreed to yield and repent. He was then released, and given his clothes … and Sheikh Abu Muhammad Yusuf b. Sairafi told me that he (b. Shanbudh) had recorded many readings.” (The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, 1998], Part Two: The Collection And The Variants Of The Koran, 5. The Transmission of the Koran by Alphonse Mingana, pp. 103-104; capital and underline ours)
The following Islamic reference work quotes some of the variant readings which ibn Shanabudh had collected from the various conflicting Quranic codices produced by men such as ibn Kab and ibn Masud:
Ibn Shanabudh
His name was Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ayyub ibn Shanabudh. He was hostile to Abu Bakr [Ibn Mujahid], not consorting with him. He was religious, nonaggressive, but foolish. Shaykh Abi Muhammad Yusuf ibn al-Hasan al-Sirafi told me that Allah strengthened him with his father’s skill in modulation, though he had little science. He quoted many readings and wrote various books about them.
He died in the year three hundred and twenty-eight [AD. 939] in his prison at the sultan’s palace. Abu ‘Ali [Muhammad ibn Ali] ibn Muqlah flogged him with lashes and when he prayed [to Allah] that his [Ibn Muqlah’s] hand should be cut off, [Allah] granted that the hand [Ibn Muqlah] should be amputated; a rare answer to prayer.
Mention of Some of The Readings
“When the call to prayer is made on the day of congregation, pass on to the remembrance of Allah.” [Qur’an 62:9, gives hasten instead of pass on.]
He also read, “And there was in front of them a king, taking every good ship by force.” [Qur’an 18:79, gives, “And there was behind them a king, taking every ship by force.”]
He read, “Like al-suf al-manfush (carded wool).” [Qur’an 101:5, has, “Like al-‘ihn al-manfush.”]
He read, “The hands of Abu Lahab will perish and they have perished. There shall not profit…” [Qur’an 111:1, 2, give, “The hands of Abu Lahab will perish and he will perish. There shall not profit…”]
He read, “Today we deliver you by making you strong, that you may be a sign to whoever comes after you.” [Qur’an 10:92, gives, “And today we deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to whoever comes after you.”]
He reads, “And when it fell, the people (al-ins) perceived that the jinn, if they had known the unseen, would not have remained in a state (hawl) of painful (alim) torment.” [Qur’an 34:14, gives, “And when it fell the jinn perceived that if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in abject (mahin) torment.”]
He read, “By the night when it enshrouds and the day when it is bright, and the male and the female.” [Qur’an 92:1, gives, “By the night when it enshrouds and the day when it is bright, and what created the male and the female.”]
He read, “The unbelievers have lied and there will be punishment.” [Qur’an 25:77, gives, “You have lied and there will be punishment.”]
He read, “Unless you do so, there will be confusion and widespread (‘arid) corruption.” [Qur’an 8:73, gives great (kabir) instead of widespread.]
He read, “And let there be a people among you who invite what is good, commanding what is right, refraining (nahun) from what is wrong, and who seek the aid of Allah in what befalls them, for these are they who are fortunate.” [Qur’an 3:104, gives a different form of the same verb for refraining and omits and who seek the aid of Allah in what befalls them.]
It is said that he [Ibn Shanabudh] confessed all of this [variation]. Then he was moved to repentance and used his handwriting in contrition, so that he wrote:
Thus saith Muhammad Ibn Ahmad ibn Ayyub [Ibn Shanabudh]: I used to read the expressions differing from the version of Uthman ibn ‘Affan, which was confirmed by the consensus, its recital being agreed upon by the Companions of the Apostle of Allah. Then it became clear to me that this was wrong, so that I am contrite because of it and from it torn away. Now before Allah, may His name be glorified for from Him is acquittal, behold the version of ‘Uthman is the correct one, with which it is not proper to differ and other than which there is no way of reading. (Abu’l-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq Al-Nadim, The Fihrist – A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge [Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., Columbia University Press, 1970], pp. 70-72)
Despite the fact that ibn Shanabudh was forced to accept the Uthmanic versions under duress, one must still account for the existence all of these variant readings centuries after Uthman had destroyed the primary codices of Muhammad’s companions. Why were Muslims still recording and preserving the readings of men such as Ubayy bin Kab and Abdullah bin Masud?
Lord willing, we will have more to say concerning these companions in the next part of our challenge.
After Uthman ordered the burning, and therefore the wholesale destruction, of primary Quranic codices written by Muhammad’s personal companions – some of whom Muhammad himself had commanded his followers to learn the Quran from! – the Muslims started accusing Uthman of corrupting and desecrating the Quran!
The Historian Tabari has another account: “‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and ‘Uthman b. Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka‘b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.” He informs us, too, that the people said to ‘Uthman: “The Koran was in many books, and thou discreditedst them all but one”; and after the Prophet’s death, “People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God–and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan WHO… TORE UP THE BOOK.” (Warraq, The Origins of the Koran, 5. The Transmission of the Koran by Alphonse Mingana, p. 102; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of ‘Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory WAS DEFECTIVE, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in A DIFFERENT WAY. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to SCANDALIZE the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by ‘Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If ‘Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him “THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS” and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: “He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK”?… (Ibid., 4. Three Ancient Korans by Mingana, pp. 84-85; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Finally:
Hajjaj related to us from Ibn Juraij who said–Ibn Abi Humaid informed me from Jahra bint Abi Ayyub b. Yunus saying–I read to my father when he was eighty years of age from ‘A’isha’s codex –“Verily Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet. O ye who believe, pray for him and speak peace upon him and upon those who pray in the first ranks” (xxxiii:56). She said, “IT IS SAID THAT ‘UTHMAN ALTERED THE CODICES.” He said, “Ibn Juraij and Ibn Abi Jamil have related to me from ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. Hurmuz and others the like of this about ‘A’isha’s codex.” (Ibid., 9. Abu Ubaid on the verses Missing from the Koran by Arthur Jeffery, p. 153; capital and underline emphasis ours)
To make matters worse the copies which Uthman commissioned were not identical with one another!
“Did the ‘Uthmaanic four or eight mus-hafs match each other letter for letter? Surprisingly, contrary to popular opinion, the evidence indicates otherwise.
“The different copies that ‘Uthmaan ordered to be written differed from each other in a few letters [sic]. There is no extra verse in any one of the mus-hafs. This was not done accidentally or by chance. Rather, these slight changes were done in order to accommodate the variations of a particular verse (the ahruf). If the Prophet had recited the verse in a number of ways, and it was possible to accommodate all of these recitations in one particular spelling, then the word was written with that spelling. The example of ‘maaliki’ and ‘maliki’ has already been given before. However, if the recitations could not all be accommodated in one spelling, then it was written with one of the recitations in one mus-haf, and another recitation in another mus-haf. The Companions did not write both recitations in one mus-haf for fear of confusion between the two.” (Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan [al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, Birmingham UK, Second Print 2003], Chapter 8. The Compilation of the Qur’aan, IV. The Different Mus-hafs, C. Were These Mus-hafs The Same?, pp. 147-148)
Qadhi then adduces proofs that these copies completely agree:
“The fact that the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs differed is known by two ways:
1) The qira’aat: Between the various qira’aat, there occur changes in letters and sometimes words that cannot be attributed to one script, even if this script were without dots and vowel marks. For example, some of the qira’aat read 91:15 as ‘wa laa yakhaafu…’ This is the recitation that most of the readers will be familiar with. On the other hand, other qira’aat read it as ‘fa laa yakhaafu…’, changing the wa to fa. This letter change can not be attributed to the same script, and must indicate a difference in the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan. Another example is the qira’aa of Ibn ‘Aamir, who read 3:184 as ‘wa bi zuburi wa bil kitaab’ whereas the rest of the qira’aat read ‘wa zuburi wal kitaab’ (i.e., without the two bas). Ibn ‘Aamir was Syrian, and it is known that the mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan sent to Syria had the two extra bas in it, whereas the other mus-hafs did not. In this example, an actual word is added in one of the mus-hafs.
2) Visual Inspection: The second way that it is known that these mus-hafs differed from one another is by comparing them. Since the various mus-hafs are not present any more, reports must be taken from those were fortunate enough to have read more than one of the original mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan, or at least knew and reported from those who did. In fact, a number of scholars have written books specially on this topic.
“Some scholars have mentioned at least ten scholars of the first four centuries of the hijrah who had written specific tracts on this topic, amongst them, al-Kisaa’ee (d. 189 A.H.), and al-Farraa’ (d. 207 A.H.). Unfortunately, the only book that remains of these classical works is the work authored by ‘Abdullah ibn Abee Daawood (d. 316 A.H.), the son of the famous scholar of hadeeth, Aboo Daawood (d. 275 A.H.), which he entitled Kitaab al-Masaahif.
“Khaalid ibn Iyaas (d. circa 150 A.H.) reported that he read the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan, and found that it differed with the mus-haf of Madeenah in twelve verses, which he quoted. The first of these was 2:132 ‘wa wasa…’ instead of ‘wa awsa….’ meaning that the first was without an alif, whereas the second was with an alif.
“There are more than twelve differences, though. Khaalid ibn Iyaas only compared ONE mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan with the mus-hafs of Madeenah. The other mus-hafs differed from the Madeenah mus-haf, as for example in verse 3:184, the mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan sent to Syria had the extra letters, but the others did not.
“These differences, as noted earlier, are only with regards to certain letters and words [sic]. There are no verses or phrases that are present in some mus-hafs without the others [sic].” (Ibid., pp. 148-149; capital and underline emphasis ours)
There are several problems with his explanation of these differences. First, if Uthman did preserve the seven ahruf in the different copies he made then this means that Uthman arbitrarily chose a particular harf for each specific community since they didn’t all get the same exact copy, thereby robbing them of access to the other ahruf. Who gave Uthman such authority to determine which of the seven ahruf to send a particular area? Allah, Muhammad?
Second, Qadhi’s answer presumes that he knows for sure what the seven ahruf are. However, even he admits that no one knows this for certain!
“As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) RECORDED THIRTY-FIVE OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE, and as-Suyootee listed OVER FORTY. Ibn Sa’adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur’aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf WAS KNOWN ONLY TO ALLAH, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue WAS FUTILE! On the other hand, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), perhaps the greatest scholar of the qira’aat after the era of the salaf, said ‘I have sought to discover the meanings of these hadeeth (about the ahruf), and have pondered over them, and contemplated this topic for over thirty years, until Allaah opened my mind to that which is the correct answer in this matter, Inshaa Allaah!’
“The reason that such great difference of opinion exists concerning the exact meaning of the ahruf is due to the fact THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY EXPLICIT NARRATIONS FROM THE PROPHET, OR THE SALAF, CONCERNING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE AHRUF; these various opinions ARE MERELY THE CONCLUSIONS OF LATER SCHOLARS, based upon their examination of the evidences and their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).
“Therefore, it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, IS PURE FOLLY…” (Ibid., Chapter 10. The Ahruf Of The Qur’aan, III. What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?, pp. 175-176; capital emphasis ours)
He then goes on to mention the various and conflicting opinions, some of which he rejects as outright erroneous:
A. THOSE OPINIONS WHICH HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER:
In this category full of those opinions which do not have any hadeeth to support them, nor do they make logical sense. Some of these are:
1) Seven different categories of texts. For example: constrained and unconstrained, general and specific, literal and metaphoric, naasikh and mansookh. Other categories include those given by grammarians and linguists, specifying different verb forms.
2) An esoteric interpretation by certain Soofi groups, claiming that there are seven levels of knowledge, or seven degrees of meanings to each verse.
3) Seven different branches of knowledge, such as tawheed, sharee’ah, etc.
All these opinions contradict the purpose of the ahruf, namely to make the recitation of the Qur’aan easier for the Ummah. Also, there is no proof for these opinions, and they contradict common sense.
B. THOSE OPNIONS WHICH HAVE SOME APPARENT BASIS, BUT ARE WEAK OPINIONS:
Included in this category are the following opinions:
1) These ahruf are seven different ways to pronounce the words, without actually changing the letters. However, this opinion contradicts the variations in words that occurs in the qira’aat.
2) The ahruf are seven types of verses in the Qur’an: apparent, command, recommendation, specific, particular, general and parable. There is a weak hadeeth to support this.
3) Similar to the above, and also based on a weak hadeeth, the different types are: commands and prohibitions, promises and occurrences, halaal and haraam, clear and ambiguous.
4) The seven ahruf are the same as the seven qira’aat. This is contradicted historically, as there are more than seven qira’aat, and the collection and codification of the qira’aat occurred four centuries after the Prophet’s death. None of the major scholars of Islaam held this view, as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.) said, “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that the seven ahruf are not the same as the seven famous qira’aat.”
Unfortunately, most of the Muslim masses understand the hadeeth of the ahruf to refer to the qira’aat. (Ibid., pp. 176-177; underline emphasis ours)
The third problem with this view is that it further presumes that Uthman preserved all seven ahruf which, as we saw earlier, is not a position held by all Muslim scholars. In fact, according to the following Muslim author most Islamic scholars hold the position that six of the seven ahruf have been duly eliminated:
Seven Modes in the Qur’an
While some scholars [e.g.. Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ayat al-Qur’an, Cairo, 1968. See introduction to this tafsir. Zarkashi, Vol. 1, p.213 says MOST SCHOLARS ARE OF THE FIRST VIEW, and that the last double-reading of the Qur’an by Muhammad in the presence of the Angel Gabriel SERVED, among others, THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING THE OTHER SIX MODES.] hold that the written Qur’an now includes only one of the ‘seven modes’, and the others are transmitted orally to us, there is some evidence also for the view that the text of the Qur’an, as we have it in front of us, may include all these ‘seven modes’ because:
No one would change the Qur’an.
The present text was written upon the basis of the sahaba testimonies, both orally and written, going back directly to the Prophet.
The Qur’an is protected by Allah. (Ahmad Von Denffer, Ulum al Qur’an, Variety of Modes; capital emphasis ours)
In trying to make a case for the seven ahruf being preserved within the text of the Quran Denffer raises more problems. First, the evidence shows that the Muslims did change the Quran. Second, there were disagreements even among the sahabah regarding the exact contents of the Quran. Third, if most scholars are correct that the seven ahruf have been eliminated then this means per Denffer’s logic that Allah didn’t protect the Quran perfectly. In fact, the data that has thus far been presented shows that Allah did a rather poor job of protecting his scripture.
This brings us to our next section.
LikeLike
Thanks for your willingness to look over all these facts and address them for me. You sure are a swell pal for doing so!
Conflicting Arrangement of the Quran
The Renowned Islamic expositor al-Qurtubi mentions several reports that show that the Muslims were confused and were not in agreement concerning the proper order of the Quranic surahs:
What has come about the order of the suras and ayats of the Qur’an, its vowelling and dots, its hizbs and tens, the number of its letters, juz’s, words and ayats
Ibn at-Tayyib said, “Some say that the Salaf differed about the order of the suras of the Qur’an and some of them wrote the suras in the order that they were revealed and put the Makkan before the Madinan, and some put al-Hamd (Fatiha) at the beginning, and others put al-‘Alaq at the beginning.’ This was the case in the first copy of ‘Ali. As for the copy of Ibn Mas’ud, it begins with ‘Master of the Day of the Deen” (1:4) and then al-Baqara, AND THEN an-Nisa’ with a different order. The copy of Ubayy began with al-Hamd, then an-Nisa’, then Al ‘Imran, then al-An’am, then al-A’raf, then al-Ma’ida. There were SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.”
Ibn at-Tayyib’s answer is that it is possible [sic] that the order of the suras as we have today in the Qur’an is by ijtihad on the part of the Companions. Makki mentioned this in the tafsir of Surat at-Tawba. He mentioned the order of the ayats in the sura and that the placing the basmala at the beginnings of them was from the Prophet. Since he did not command that for Surat at-Tawba, it was left without a basmala. This is the soundest of what is said about it.
In the Jami’, Ibn Wahb stated that Sulayman ibn Bilal heard Rabi’a being asked why al-Baqara and Al ‘Imran were put first when there were about eighty suras revealed before them and they were revealed in Madina. Rabi’a said, “They were put first and the Qur’an was arranged according to the knowledge of those who arranged it and had knowledge of that. This is what we ended up with and we do not ask about it.” It is reported from Qatada that Ibn Mas’ud said, “Whoever of you seeks a model, should model himself on the Companions of the Messenger of Allah. They have the best hearts of this community, the deepest knowledge, least artifice, straightest guidance and the best state. Allah chose them to be the Companions of His Prophet and to establish His deen. So acknowledge their excellence and follow in their footsteps. They followed straight guidance.”
Some scholars say that the arrangement of the suras of the Qur’an which we find in our copies of the Qur’an was at the instruction of the Prophet [sic]. What is related about the differences between the copies of Ubayy, ‘Ali and ‘Abdullah was before the final presentation [sic]. The Messenger of Allah arranged those suras for them after they had done that. It is reported from Ibn Wahb that he heard Malik say, “The Qur’an was arranged according to what they heard from the Messenger of Allah.” (Aisha Bewley, Selections from the Introduction of Tafsir al-Qurtubi: *; underline emphasis ours)
The assertion that the conflicting order of surahs were before Muhammad presented the final arrangement to his companions makes no sense since the following narration proves that the Muslims continued to arrange their Qurans differently long after Muhammad’s death!
VI: The arrangement of the Qur’an
4707. It is related that Yusuf ibn Mahik said, “I was with ‘A’isha, the Umm al-Mu’minin, when an Iraqi came and said, ‘What kind of shroud is best?’ She said, ‘Bother you! How will it harm you?’ He said, ‘Umm al-Mu’minin, show me your copy of the Qur’an.’ ‘Why?’ she asked. He said, ‘In order that I might arrange the Qur’an according to it. It is recited out of its proper order.’ ‘A’isha said, ‘What harm will there be to you whichever part you read first? The first to be revealed was a sura of the Mufassal in which the Garden and the Fire is mentioned.* When many people joined Islam, then the halal and haram were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed had been, ‘Do not drink wine,’ people would have said, ‘We will never give up wine.’ If it had been revealed. ‘Do not fornicate,’ they would have said, ‘We will never give up fornication.’ When I was still a young girl who played, it was revealed to Muhammad in Makka, “In fact the Hour is their promised appointment and the Hour is more disastrous and bitter!” (54:46) Surat al-Baqara (2) and Surat an-Nisa’ (4) were revealed while I was with him.’ Then she produced the copy of the Qur’an for him and dictated to him the order of the suras.”
[*i.e. Surat al-‘Alaq (96) or Surat al-Mudadaththir (74). The Mufassal begin with Surat Qaf (50), although other things are said.]
4708. It is said that Ibn Mas’ud was heard to say, “The suras Banu Isra’il, al-Kahf, Maryam, Taha and al-Anbiya’ were among the first that I learned and they are part of the earliest Qur’an that I learned.”
4709. It is related that al-Bara’ said, “I learned ‘Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High’ (87) before the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came [to Madina].”
4710. It is related that Shaqiq said, “‘Abdullah said, ‘I learned the Naza’ir which the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to recite in pairs in each rak’at.’ Then ‘Abdullah got up and ‘Alqama went in with him. When ‘Alqama came out, we questioned him and he said, ‘They [the Naza’ir] are twenty suras from the beginning of the Mufassal, according to the order of Ibn Mas’ud, and they end with the suras starting with HaMim: “HaMim the Smoke” (44) and “About what are they asking one another?” (78:1)'” (Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an)
See Khan’s version of Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Numbers 515 and 518.
In fact, copies of Abdallah ibn Masud’s Quran with its conflicting arrangement of surahs were still circulating in the tenth century!
Subdivision concerning the Arrangement of the Qur’an in the Manuscript of ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan said, “I found in a manuscript of ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud the compilation of the surahs of the Qur’an in accordance with the following sequence:
Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
2
Al-Nisa (The Women)
4
Al ‘Imran (The Family of Imran)
3
Alif(A) Lam(L) Mim(M) Sad(S)
7
Al-An’am (The Cattle)
6
Al-Ma’idah (The Dining Table)
5
Yunus (Jonah)
10
Al-Nahl (The Bee)
16
Hud
11
Yusuf (Joseph)
12
Bani Isra’il (Children of Israel)
17
Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)
21
Al-Mu’minun (The Believers)
23
Al-Shu’ara (The Poets)
26
Al-Saffat (Those Who Rank Themselves)
37
Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)
33
Al-Qasas (The Story)
28
Al-Nur (The Light)
24
Al-Anfal (The Spoils)
8
Maryam (Mary)
19
Al-‘Ankabut (The Spider)
29
Al-Rum (The Byzantines)
30
Ya(Y) Sin(S)
36
Al-Furqan (The Test of Truth)
25
Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage)
22
Al-Ra‘d
13
Saba
34
Al-Mala’ikah (The Angels)
35
Ibrahim (Abraham)
14
Sad(S)
38
Those who disbelieve
47
Al-Qamar (The Moon)
31
Al-Zumar (The Troops)
39
The Praise-Giving Ha(H) Mim(M) Surahs:
Ha(H)Mim(M): Al-Mu’min (The Believer)
40
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Zukhruf (The Ornaments)
43
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Sajdah (The Worship)
41
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Ahqaf (The Sandhills)
46
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Jathiyah (The Kneeling)
45
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Dukhan (The Smoke)
44
Lo, We have given thee a victory
48
Al-Hadid (The Iron)
57
Sabbah: Al-Hashr (Praise: The Assembling)
59
Tanzil: Al-Sajdah (Revelation: Worship)
32
Qaf(Q)
50
Al-Talaq (The Divorce)
65
Al-Hujurat (The Private Apartments)
49
Blessed is he in whose hand is the sovereignty
67
Al-Taghabun (Disillusion)
64
Al-Munafiqun (The Hypocrites)
63
Al-Jumu’ah (The Congregation)
62
Al-Hawariyun (The Disciples)
61
Say: It has been revealed to me
72
Lo, We sent Nuh (Noah)
71
Al-Mujadilah (She Who Pleads)
58
Al-Mumtahanah (She Who Is Examined)
60
Oh, Prophet, wherefore dost forbid
66
Al-Rahman (The Compassionate)
55
Al-Najm (The Star)
53
Al-Dhariyat (Those Scattering)
51
Al-Tur (The Mountain)
52
The hour draw nigh
54
Al-Haqqah (The Infallible)
69
When there happens
56
Nun(N) and the Pen
68
Al-Nazi‘at (Those Who Drag Forth)
79
A questioner questioned
70
Al-Muddaththir (The Cloaked)
74
Al-Muzzammil (The Wrapped-Up)
73
Al-Mutiffifin (Giver of Short Measure)
83
He frowned
80
Has there come upon man?
76
Al-Qiyamah (The Resurrection)
75
Al-Mursalat (Those Sent Forth)
77
Wherefore do they question?
78
When the sun is covered
81
When the heavens are cleft
82
Has there not come to you an account of the overwhelming?
88
Glorify the name of your Lord the Most High
87
And the night when it enshrouds
92
Al-Fajr (The Dawn)
89
Al-Buruj (The Stars of the Zodiac)
85
Al-Inshiqaq (Rent Asunder)
84
Recite in the name of your Lord
96
Verily, I swear by this city
90
Wa-al Duha (And the Morning Light)
93
Have We not expanded for you
94
And the heavens and the night comer
86
Al-‘Adiyat (The Runners)
100
Have you seen someone?
107
Al-Qari‘ah (The Calamity)
101
Those of the People of the Book who were unbelievers were not
98
The sun and morning light
91
And the fig
95
Woe to every slanderer
104
Al-Fil (The Elephant)
105
For uniting the Quraysh
106
Al-Takathur (Rivalry for Wealth)
102
Verily, We revealed it And the afternoon.
We have created man for loss [of God’s favor]
in which he will remain until the end of time, except for those who believe,
enjoining one another to piety and committing each other to endurance.26
When the help of Allah cometh
110
Verily, We have given you
108
Say: Oh, you who disbelieved, I do not worship what you worship
109
The hands of Abu Lahab have perished and he as perished.
His wealth will not be enough for him, nor his gains.
His wife, moreover, is the bearer of wood.27
111
Allah is one, eternal
112
THESE ARE ONE HUNDRED AND TEN SURAHS. (Ibid. pp. 53-57)
The translator’s notes 26 and 27 are quite interesting:
26. The author has evidently quoted these sentences to show how different they are from the authorized version of the Qur’an. Cf. Surah 103 of the authorized version. (Ibid., p. 57)
27. Here are again the verses are quoted, as they are a variation. The authorized version makes it clear that the wife of Abu Lahab is carrying fuel to feed the flames with which her husband is being burned in Hell. For the surah which follows, the authorized version has, “Say, Allah is one, Allah the Eternal.” (Ibid.)
It gets worse for the Muslims. This same 10th century Muslim work goes on to mention Ubayy ibn Kab’s Quran:
According to another tradition, “Al-Tur” [Surah 52] comes before “Al-Dhariyat” [Surah 51].
Ibn Shadhan stated that Ibn Sirin said ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud did not transcribe into his manuscript either “Al-Mu’awwidhatan [Surahs 113-114]” or the opening of the Book. Moreover, al-Fadl [Ibn Shadhan] quoted in sequence from al-A’mash, saying that in the reading of ‘Abd Allah [ibn Mas’ud] there was Ha(H) Mim(M) Sin(S) Qaf(Q) [This refers to Q. 42 and it reads, Ha(H) Mim(M) ‘Ayn(‘) Sin(S) Qaf(Q)].”
Thus saith Muhammad ibn Ishaq [al-Nadim]: I have seen a number of Quranic manuscripts, which the transcribers recorded as manuscripts from Ibn Mas‘ud. NO TWO QUR’ANIC COPIES WERE IN AGREEMENT and most of them were on badly effaced parchment. I also saw a Qur’anic manuscript transcribed about two hundred years ago which included the opening of the Book. As al-Fadl ibn Shadhan was one of the leading authorities on the Qur’an and the Hadith, I have mentioned what he said, in addition to what we ourselves have witnessed.
Subdivision concerning the Arrangement of the Qur’an in the Manuscript of Ubayy ibn Ka’b
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan said:
One of OUR RELIABLE FRIENDS has informed us, saying that the composition of the surahs according to the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka’b is in a village called Qariyat al-Ansar, two passages parasangs from al-Basrah, where in his home Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Malik al-Ansari showed us a Qur’anic manuscript, saying, “This is the copy of Ubayy which we have, handed down from our fathers.” I looked into it and ascertained the headings of the surahs, the endings of the revelations, and the number of verses.
Fatihat al-Kitab (Opening of the Book) – was the first
1
Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
2
Al-Nisa (The Women)
4
Al-Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
3
Al-An’am (The Cattle)
6
Al-A’raf (The Heights)
7
Al-Ma’idah (The Table)
5
Alif(A) Lam(L) Dhal(Dh) Ya(Y)
– about which I was confused, but it is “Yunus” (Jonah).36
10
Al-Anfal (The Spoils)
8
Al-Tawbah (Repentance)
9
Hud
11
Maryam (Mary)
19
Al-Shu’ara (The Poets)
26
Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage)
22
Yusuf (Joseph)
12
Al-Kahf (The Cave)
18
Al-Nahl (The Bee)
16
Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)
33
Bani Isra’il (The Children of Israel)
17
Al-Zumar (The Troops)
39
Ha(H) Mim(M): Tanzil (Revelation)
45
Ta(T) Ha(H)
20
Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)
21
Al-Nur (The Light)
24
Al-Mu’minun (The Believers)
23
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Mu’min (The Believer)
40
Al-Ra’d (The Thunder)
13
Ta(T) Sin(S) Mim(M): Al-Qasa (The Story)
28
Ta(T) Sin(S): Sulayman (Solomon)
27
Al-Saffat (Those Who Rank Themselves)
37
Da’ud: Surah Sad(S) (David)
38
Ya(Y) Sin(S)
36
Ashab al-Hijr (The Inhabitants of the Rocky Land)
15
Ha(H) Mim(M) ‘Ayn(A) Sin(S) Qaff(Q)
42
Al-Rum (The Byzantines)
30
Al-Zukhruf (The Ornaments)
43
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Sajdah (The Worship)
41
Surah of Ibrahim (Abraham)
14
Al-Mala’ikah (The Angels)
35
Al-Fath (The Victory)
48
Muhammad, may Allah bless him and give him peace
47
Al-Hadid (The Iron)
57
Al-Tur (The Mountain)
52
Tabarak: Al-Furqan (Blessed: The Test of Truth)
25
Alif(A) Lam(L) Mim(M): Tanzil (Revelation)
32
Nuh (Noah)
71
Al-Ahqaf (The Sandhills)
46
Qaf(Q)
50
Al-Rahman (The Compassionate)
55
Al-Waqi’ah (The Event)
56
Al-Jinn
72
Al-Najm (The Star)
53
Nun(N)
68
Al-Haqqah (The Infallible)
69
Al-Hashr (The Assembling)
59
Al-Mumtahanah (She Who Is Examined)
60
Al-Mursalat (Those Sent Forth)
77
Whereof do they question?
78
Al-Insan (The Man)
76
Verily I swear
75
Covered
81
Al-Nazi’at (Those Who Drag Forth)
79
‘Abas[a] (He Frowned)
80
Al-Mutiffifin (Those Who Give Short Measure)
83
When the heavens are split
84
Al-Tin (The Fig)
95
Recite in the name of your Lord
96
Al-Hujurat (The Private Apartments)
49
Al-Munafiqun (The Hypocrites)
63
Al-Jumu’ah (The Congregation)
62
Al-Nabi, for whom be peace
66
Al-Fajr (The Dawn)
89
Al-Mulk (The Sovereignty)
67
The night when it enshrouds
92
When the heavens are cleft
82
And the sun with its morning light
91
And the heavens with the stars
85
Al-Tariq (The Night Comer)
86
Glorify the name of your Lord the Most High
87
Al-Ghashiyah (The Overshadowing)
88
‘Abas[a] (He Frowned)42
74?
He was not the first those who disbelieved
98?
Al-Saff (The Ranks)
61
Al-Duha (The Morning Light)
93
Have we not expanded your
94
Al-Qari’ah (The Calamity)
101
Al-Takathur (Rivalry for Wealth)
102
Al-Khal’ (Divorce), three verses44
65?
Al-Jid (The Neck), six verses45
Oh, Allah, Thee do we worship-the last of which is-with the unbelievers.
It is appended to “Al-Lumazah.”46
104
When it quakes
99
Al-Adiyat (The Runners)
100
Ashab al-Fil (Owners of the Elephant)
105
Al-Tin (The Fig)47
?
Al-Kawthar (Abundance)
108
Al-Qadr (The Power)
97
Al-Kafirun (The Unbelievers)
109
Al-Nasr (Help)
110
Abi Lahab
111
Quraysh
106
Al-Samad (The Eternal)
112
Al-Falaq (The Dawn)
113
Al-Nas (Mankind)
114
THIS IS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN SURAHS. (Ibid., pp. 57-61; bold, capital, and underline emphasis as well as the comments within brackets ours)
Here are the translator’s comments in the footnotes that appear in the above chart which further highlight the differences that existed between Ubayy’s codex and the present day Quranic text:
36. In the authorized version the letters are “Alif(A) Lam(L) Ra(R).” …
42. ‘Abas[a] has already been mentioned as Surah 80. As the word appears in Surah 74, V. 22, this may refer to that surah, which is not mentioned elsewhere in this list. (p. 61)
44. This surah is probably meant as Surah 65, which deals with the subject of divorce. On the other hand, Surah 65 has many verses, so that “Al-Khal” may be a garbled title for Surah 103, which has three verses…
45. Al-jid (“neck”) is mentioned at the end of Surah 111, but this surah is included as “Abi Lahab.” Perhaps the word is meant to be al-hamd, the opening word of Surah 34, not mentioned elsewhere in this list…
46. “Al-Lumazah” almost certainly refers to Surah 104, but the words appended are not in the authorized version…
47. This is a mistake, as the surah has already been mentioned and the name does not resemble titles of surahs not elsewhere mentioned. (Ibid. p. 58; bold emphasis ours)
Hence, not only were there copies of Ubayy’s and ibn Masud’s Qurans still circulating centuries after their deaths that did not follow the same order, but these codices didn’t even have the same number of surahs! Ibn Masud’s had only 110 surahs where as Ubayy’s had a total of 116, two more than the 114 chapters of the present day Quran! Even more troubling is the fact that, according to the above source, no two copies of ibn Masud’s Qurans were identical with each other, obviously due to the mistakes of the scribes and copyists!
With the foregoing in perspective we need to ask the following questions. What are the names of these twenty surahs which start from the beginning of Al-Mufassal and those that start with Ha Mim? Which of the Ha Mim surahs go first? And is this the arrangement of the Quran today? No. For instance, there are seven suras which begin with the letters Ha Mim, namely surahs 40-46. Yet how does any Muslim know that this is the right order? How do they know that Q. 46 isn’t actually first in the series, or 43, 42, 45 etc.? Take for instance the order of the Ha Mim surahs found in Ibn Masud’s codex:
The Praise-Giving Ha(H) Mim(M) Surahs:
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Mu’min (The Believer) 40
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Zukhruf (The Ornaments) 43
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Sajdah (The Worship) 41
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Ahqaf (The Sandhills) 46
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Jathiyah (The Kneeling) 45
Ha(H) Mim(M): Al-Dukhan (The Smoke) 44
With such mass confusion surrounding the preservation how can any Muslim know definitely that what they possess today is exactly the same Quran that Muhammad recited, especially in the order which he gave it? The sad fact for Muslims is they do not know with absolute certainty.
We are not done just yet. In our final section we are going to provide additional examples of missing or additional verses, many of which were come from codices compiled by Muhammad’s close companions such as ibn Masud which are not included in the present day Quran!
LikeLike
Spam alert ! I am sure this is the last time, yes last time, oh ok one more time. Actually last time that he will post, sorry spam, on this blog
Then again….
LikeLike
Well this is really embarrassing from Sam. I’m appalled by his lack of research. Some simple points:
1. The early Church tradition is extant from the 4th century onwards and cannot be traced to the 1st or 2nd centuries.
2. Eusebius disputes the identity of which John, Papias is supposed to have met, given that most of what is ascribed to Papias contradicts the NT (especially on Judas’ death).
3. Hadiths require that the transmitters be known and not unknown, a determinant which automatically makes later ascribed Patristics traditions worthless.
4. Sam breaks his own principles by appealing to unknown Patristic traditions which openly contradict the NT.
5. Sam breaks his own principles by citing a Shi’i author for claims on the Qur’an, whose very books are disputed in authenticity by the Shi’as themselves.
6. Sam appeals to Shi’i doctrine by appealing to al Fadl who himself is 2 centuries removed from the time of the 1st century AH.
7. Hadiths are contemporary to the Prophet salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam, which are attested in both manuscripts (see the famous inscription of Badr – extant, 2014) and the Sahifah of Ibn Hammam (extant).
8.Sam has not demonstrated why the orders of Surahs matter, especially since the Qur’an is not ordered chronologically or alphabetically.
9. Sam has not demonstrated why personal copies must count as canon.
10. If Sam applied those same principles to Christianity, he’d have to:
– Reject all Church tradition.
– Reject the New Testament.
– Get an actual job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quran Shredder? Shredded brain.
LikeLike