the quran has been changed

[Kas]

The Quran has been changed! Textual Variances in the Quran observed.

When I was investigating Islam one of the chief complaints laid against Christianity was that the Holy Bible had been changed. (In spite of the Quran’s and Moslem scholars calls to the contrary) However, it was suggested to me that this was a reason why one should not be a Christian. (I was searching for a faith at the time.) However, should that standard hold true in the heart of every sincere Moslem, that a holy book, if changed, should not be trusted, then I would ask them to contemplate with sincerity the following.

The compilation of the Quran is traditionally viewed to be the work of Abu Bakr who commissioned Zaid Bin Thabit to compile the Quran after the battle of Yammama, when many of those who had memorised the Quran had died in battle.

However, we read that some of the Quran was feared lost!

"Many of the passages of the Quran that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yammama...but they were not known by those who survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Quran nor were they found with even one person after them! Ibn Abi Dawud Kitab al-masahif pg. 23

Some distraught Moslems went onto to say!

"Let non of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Quran' How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived'. As suyuti Al-itqan al-Quran pg. 524

Other Moslems of the time, stated reference to verses no longer present in the modern version of the Quran!

Abu Musa al-Ashari: We use to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to Surah Bara'at I have however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "if there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". Sahih al Muslim Vol. 2:286, pg.501

Bukhari: We used to read a verse of the Quran revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled it was "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased" Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 5:416, pg.288

The verse on stoning married adulteresses was a cause of some distress!

Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the truth and revealed the Holy Book to him and, among what Allah has revealed was the verse of Rajam and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after along time has passed, somebody will say 'By Allah, we do not find the verse of Rajam in Allah’s book and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 8:817 pg.539

However, this first compilation of the Quran was not the last, a revised

 

[Kas]

edition was later collected by Uthman, who remembered a verse that had not been compiled in the first edition!

Thabit added, "a verse from surah ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit: Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah" As-Suyuti al-itqan fii Ulum al-Quran pg. 138

Recognition of the difference in versions of the Quran, circulating at the time, lead to an authorised version by Uthman. All other variants were to be burned. However, disputes about this authorised version continued. Aisha believed she knew better in how one verse of the Quran was to be written!

"Abu Yunus, freedman of Aisha, Mother of believers, reported: Aisha ordered me to transcribe the Holy Quran and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Haftdhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaati-wustaa wa quumuu lilaahi qaanitiin (2.238) When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: write it this way, hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaati-wustaa wa salaatil asri wa quumuu lilaahi qaanitiin she added that she had heard it from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) Muwatta Iman Malik p. 64.

The people complained: "The Quran was in many books, and you have discredited them all but one" (his authorised version) At-Tabari 1.6.2952)

Though many believed Zaid’s codex (the official version) to be inferior to that of Abdullah ibn Masud’s, his was burnt along with other variants! However, the governor of Iraq believed Uthman’s version to be imperfect, and thus made eleven direct changes to the reading he received. His name: Caliph Abd al-Malik, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf:

"Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text...in al Bakarah Surah 2.259 it originally read Lam yatasanna waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatasannah. Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif!

Christian Scholar have taken up the Islamic polemical challenge of comparing Qurans and have found multiple difference between the 1924 Egyptian version of the Quran, and one of the supposedly oldest copies of the Quran, the Samarqand text. Furthermore, differences may be found whilst comparing the Warsh text with that of the 1924 Egyptian edition of the Quran.

The evolution of the Arabic language necessitated the intervention of man again in the placing of diatrical (vocalisations) marks found in all modern versions of the Quran not found in early codices! I ask were these men infallible? Were they prophets? Then with what certainty can their interpolation into the text be trusted? I ask, how much of a text has to be changed, before it is said that it has changed? 1%, less, more! Since this is oft the standard by which Moslems disregard the Christian faith; one, and I am one of them, must therefore disregard Islam! Peace, your nearly Moslem brother, Christian.

Dr J Burton observed:

In Sura 53:19 we read 'Have you not considered al-latand al-Uzza and

 

[Kas]

Manat the third other? This was followed by the words: 'verily they are the exalted maidens [Gharaniq, also translates them as cranes.] and there intercession is to be hoped for' (is approved in another version). The earliest authority on the life of Muhammad (ibn Hisham) asserts that ‘these words were uttered by Muhammad at the instigation of Satan' (Islam, pg. 189 and 'New light in the life of Muhammad, pg. 38)

One point that has quietly been forgotten in Islamic History lessons is the episode of Abd-Allah ibn-Abi-Sarh.

While Muhammad was dictating to him the passage beginning with sura 23:12 he was carried away in wonder at this description of the creation of man; and, when Muhammad paused after the words 'another creature' (he) exclaimed 'blessed be GOD, the best of creators'. Muhammad accepted this as the continuation of the revelation, and told him to write it down. (Introduction to the Quran, Richard Bell quoting from the commentaries of al-Baidawi and Zamakshari)

Abd-Allah went onto loose faith in Islam because of this incident and returned to Mecca! When the prophet Muhammad took Mecca it was known that he (Abd Allah) was wanted dead by the prophet! Only after the intercession of Uthman was he granted pardon – he then went on to be a good Moslem after his life was spared!

This raises some interesting questions: Was Abd Allah a prophet as well as Muhammad? Hmmm…there’s a thought! Or has the Quran received interpolation, albeit of the most pious kind?

Also, as the prophet was 'revealing' surah 4:95 saying: ‘Those believers who sit at home are not equal to those who fight in the way of GOD with their goods and their persons'. A blind man is said to have interjected at this point, that if he were not blind he would fight as well, to which the prophet then added...'except those who suffer from a grave impediment' (Islam by A Guilaume p. 191)

Adding further, to the discussion of the space for human error concerning the early textual form of the Quran, which was written in Kufic script, we note that:

Ahmed Von Denfer observed: 'The script used in the seventh century i.e. during the life time of the prophet Muhammad, consisted of very basic symbols, which expressed only the consonantal structure of a word (no vowels were written) and even that with much ambiguity. While today’s letters such as ba ta, tha, ya are easily distinguishable by points (diatrical marks, vocalisations) this was not so in the early days'

When Meccans created a script for their language they imported the Hira script, which was crude (and that is being generous,) so crude that 22 of the 28 letters were always uncertain, b, t, th, n, y were written exactly alike, as there were no diatrical marks to distinguish them! j, h, kh, were alike, as there were no diatrical marks to distinguish them! The result being that a trilateral word could be pronounced in as many as 69 different ways!

For example: BDR, could be filled thus: badr, bidr, budr, badar, bidar, budar, badran, badrin, badnun. Some of these meanings!
Badran = to a full moon
Badnin = with a full moon

 

[Kas]

Badnun = a full moon has

My point here is that, what ever you think of Muhammad, he never wrote a word of the Quran, and after he died, without compilation, without diatrical marks in the text, the Quran became the subject of forces all to human; for one to hold to the concept of Nazil. (That it is verbatim from Allah and without alteration via the hands of men.)

For men placed what they believed to be the correct vowels, and maybe in all piety tried to remain faithful, yet, they disagreed amongst themselves and still do.

Relation of Shi'a Theology to the Qur'an

Furthermore words could be read active or passive, without the diatrical marks (which were added much later). Only a prophet could know for certain! No prophet was available at the time (GOD only knows where Abd Allahibn Abi Sarh was when you needed him) thus the whole thing is open to human error!

A question upon the oneness of Allah, do you believe that the Quran is eternal? The Sunnah, of the Sunni at least, teaches that it is, however, if the Quran is eternal, like Allah, is this not shirk? After all, is shirk not ascribing partners to Allah, or giving Allah’s attributes to any other but Allah? Furthermore, if the Quran is eternal, is it eternal separate from Allah or as part of His essence/substance? Does it exist separate to or a part of the eternal nature of Allah?

Many Shiah’s who believe in the Qur’an also hold the issue with the Qur’an, being changed. Such that it was manipulated to keep people from acknowledging the Imamate, the lawful line of descent from Imam Ali in their belief.

It should be said Imam Ali recognized the Uthmani version, though he was aware of variants he kept silent about it for the sake of the unity of the believers.

The recitation of the Quran was an ongoing process, as it was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad! At Friday services the revelations were recited, as well as during the Ramadan season, in which the entire Quran up to that time was recited! So when the Quran was set to writing, it was essentially that which all of the Companions had memorized. However as we have seen they admitted their own deficiencies – something modern Moslems are not best at ease with, the honesty of the forefathers.

The subjectivity of the Quranic claim to inimitability

My aim here is not to say that the Quran is some awful piece of literature, no, that would just be silly, however, it is to challenge the notion that it is inimitable, furthermore, to hopefully show that by no means is the beauty or otherwise of a holy book a proof that it is from GOD! This is simply a subjective rhetoric!

While comparing the following verses, I would firmly believe that the Holy Bible comes out trumps in beauty! (See how subjective this whole argument is, that is my point)

Sura 76.29-30 v 1 Timothy2.4
Sura 111 v The prayer of St Francis of Assisi
Sura 4.74,84, 5.33, 48.16-17 v Matthew 5.3-12
Sura 109 v psalm 23

 

[Kas]

Sura 24.2 v John 8.3-12
Sura 2.222-223, 4.11,24,34,176 v Ephesians 5.22-25
Sura 9. 29 v I Corinthians 13.4-7

Again my point is that this claim made by Moslems is completely subjective and proves nothing other than they have an opinion!

Some grammatical errors in the Quran:

Sura 2.177, The word sabireen should be Sabiroon
Sura 3.59, the words kun feekunu should be Kun Fakaana
Sura 5.69, the title al sabioon should be sabieen
Sura 7.160, Uthnati (feminine) Ashrat (feminine) Asabaastaan should be Uthnaiy (masculine) Ashara Sibataan!

My point is, that if the Quran is free from discrepancy, as it claims, and as it is claimed for it, then why are scholars having to correct Allah’s Arabic! Spelling mistakes are not befitting the almighty, especially when speaking of Nazil, there is no excuse! Unless we would like to concede human error in the Quran?

An Arabic Quran that is not so pure Arabic

The Quran is said to be an Arabic text By Allah: Sura: 12.2, 13.37, 41.41,44

However, it uses non-Arabic loan words, even when there are Arabic equivalents available!!

Adam and Eden are Accadian in origin, the Arabic equivalent would be basharan or isan (meaning mankind) Eden would be the word Janna meaning 'garden'

Abraham ibrahim, would be Abu Raheem

Sirat is a Persian word meaning the path, the Arabic equivalent is AltareeqHoor meaning disciple as the Arabic equivalent. Tilmeeth Firdaus has its equivalent in Janna

Injil, is Greek in origin it means 'Gospel', The Arabic equivalent is Bisharah

So the Arabic Quran is not so Arabic! Yet this is Allah speaking, Allah revealing, why then is the Quran filled with impurities of language! Especially when one considers that it is supposedly an eternal book in heaven! Could Allah not find the right Arabic to express himself in His Arabic book when he had eternity to choose the words?

Moslems may object:

If the sound and meaning is not changed, I don’t see that as the Quran being changed. The diacritical marks were for non-Arab Moslems to pronounce the text properly.

However that is exactly the point the sound does change depending upon where one places the diatrical marks, the vocalisations, of 'placed' nouns does effect the sound! Furthermore, these noun (markings) placed by men, for men, leave open to questioning the claim of Nazil!

Also, there is documentation of changed meaning in the different versions of the Quran. When one compares the text of the Sarmarqand, boasted to be an UTHMANIC original by Moslem 'missionaries', with the 1924 Egyptian edition; which is one of the most commonly used Qurans of out time. We note a clear change with a

 

[Kas]

difference of the meaning, not just of the textual form and the sound uttered! The Surah in question is S37.103. The Sarmarqand text begins with the letters waw mim-alif, a transliteration of the text would be something like wa ma asalama, the translation being 'and they did not submit (become Moslems)'. Within the 1924 Egyptian edition of the Quran we read, beginning with the letters fa-lam-mim-alif the transliteration would be falama slama the translation being ‘when they too submitted (became Moslems)’. This is a clear change in textual form, and meaning, the message its self is changed!

Moslem scholars are not unaware of this, in fact they have noted, with perplexing that in a few cases the Quran says 'no' when it should say 'yes', and 'yes' when it should say 'no' These are errors of grammar and textual variants as we shall see! One Moslem scholar whose article is outlawed in Pakistan stated:

Lastly, I must bring into relief the case of the word la, in which in four or five cases is only l without the final alif. The word la means ‘no’, and the word l means ‘certainly’. It is horrible to think when it is meant "the believers certainly shall assemble unto GOD" and "the unbelievers certainly shall assemble in the hell" the unfortunate ignorant reader unintentionally says "not" instead of "certainly". (Orthographical peculiarities in the text of the Quran M. Hamidullah, Islamic order Kerachi Vol. 3 no.4 1981, pg78)

These graphical errors in the perfect Quran were found at the very beginning of Islam:

"Abu AMr states that he received the following revelation from Katada as Sadusi:" When the first copy of the Quran was written out and presented to the Khalif Othman ibn Affan, he said "There are faults of language in it and let the Arabs of the dessert rectify them with their tongues"

Thus the perfection of the Quran was faulted from the first and was then left to the treasure of men to rectify!

Now Moslems scholars have been faced with this and have tried to explain these errors away. The changes have been remarkably unexplored, may be its denial, GOD knows best. However, as one scholar was fair enough/foolish enough (attach spin here) to state these attempts were arbitrary explanation given after the event to try and free the scribal writers around Muhammad from error, thus freeing the Quran at the same time:

For instance, they explain the addition of the alifin 'la adhbahannahu' " I shall indeed slaughter him as indication that the slaughtering did not take place. The addition of ya in 'bi-ayydin' "with hands (power)" they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but arbitary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. (Muqqadimah, ibn Khaldun, vol2. p.382)

My point as I said earlier is not just to attack for attacking sake, but to draw into question the dogma that surrounds the Quran:

Von Denffer: "The text of the Quran once revelation had ceased, has remained the same to this day"

 

[Kas]

Maududi: "The Quran on the other hand, exists exactly as it was revealed to the prophet: not a word-nay, not a syllable of it-has been changed"

Dr M. M. Khatib: "The written text was the same everywhere"

...anon, anon, et cetra, yadda, yadda, yadda, you get the picture!

If Christianity is to be dismissed on the basis of textual purity, one can see that it is only fair that the Quran should be tested by the same bar set by Moslems for the Holy Bible, this is not a Christian standard or bar! Christians have taken up the Quranic challenge S2.111, produce your proof if you are truthful, and in truth the Quran has been found wanting!

Yet another example of change of change:

From Sahih Moslem Vol. II p. 740

"A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Quran that ten clear suckling make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated and substituted by five suckling and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time found in the Holy Quran and recited by Moslems."

Before the time of Muhammad’s death a verse was found in the Quran, that verse is now gone! A change!

Islamic Scholars who poured over the texts available to them, noted variances themselves! Hasan al-Basri writing in the 700 quoted the text of his Quran as saying:

'The word of thy Lord is realised against the ungodly that they are the inhabitants of the fire' However where is this verse today! it is not S10 ayat33 nor is it S40 ayat6 This is no mere typo as the scholar goes on to expunge commentary!

Scholars using the text of Ibn Masud have S40 ayat 6 written thus:

'Thus the word of thy Lord went before against the ungodly that they are the inhabitants of the fire.' the 'went before' is not to be found in the Uthmanic text!

The Medinese jurist Malik, who died in 795, found it necessary to call upon his leader to outlaw the sale or recitation of the version of ibn Masud! Now if all the Qurans are the same, protected by Allah, then what is there to fear from this version? Official inscriptions in the 8th century show that the Quranic text at this time had not become set!

Just to drive the point home just one of many contradictions in the Quran:

YUSUFALI: Some faces that Day, will beam (in brightness and beauty)
PICKTHAL: That day will faces be resplendent,
SHAKIR: (Some) faces on that day shall be bright,

YUSUFALI: Looking towards their Lord;
PICKTHAL: Looking toward their Lord;
SHAKIR: Looking to their Lord.

Here we have an account that says that people will look towards their Lord!

YUSUFALI: No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

 

[Kas]

PICKTHAL: Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware.
SHAKIR: Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.

Here we have the Quran saying something completely different... kind of speaks for its self

This idea about the Quran is often said as a way of attacking the Bible and trying to show that the Quran is superior to the Bible. Consider the following quote from a Muslim publication widely used in Australia.

No other book in the world can match the Qur'an... The astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam, Abu Dhabi, UAE: The Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan Charitable & Humanitarian Foundation, 1996, p. 4, bold added)

The above claim is that all Qurans around the world are identical and that "no variation of text can be found". In fact the author issues a challenge saying, "You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world". In this short article we take up this challenge to see if all Qurans are in fact identical. As God wills our investigation will be in three parts:

The Qur'an has been passed down to us from men called "The Readers". They were famous men who could recite the Qur'an in the early centuries of Islam. The way in which the Qur'an was recited by each of these Readers was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called "Transmitters". The text made by a Transmitter is called a "transmission" of the Quran. Thus, a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative Reader. Any modern Quran will be written according to one of these transmissions. You cannot read the Quran except according to one of these transmissions. It is of interest to our investigation to note that different transmissions are currently used around the world today. The following quote is from a Muslim and explains in a little more detail what I have said above:

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

...There are in fact many more Readers and Transmitters than those listed above. The table below lists the commonly accepted Readers and their transmitted versions and their current area of use.

 

[Kas]

There are even more Readers but these are considered the most authoritative.

The information regarding the current area of use comes from Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, p. 199.

What the above means is that the Qur'an has come to us through many transmitted versions. Not all of these versions are printed or used today but several are. Now all these facts can be a bit confusing when you first read about it. If you are feeling that way don't worry; it's normal. To make things simple we will now look at two Qurans from different parts of the world which are printed according to two different transmissions. We will compare two Qurans to see whether or not they are identical as the Muslim quote referred to at the beginning of this article claimed. There are differences between the basic printed letters of these two Qurans. It was these letters that Uthman standardised in his revision of the Qur'an. (There is a link at the end of this article which examines Uthman's work on the Qur'an.)A)THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE TRANSMISSION OF IMAM HAFS b)THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE TRANSMISSION OF IMAM WARSH
A) Surah 2:132 (wawassaa)
B) Surah 2:131 (wa'awsaa)
A) Surah 91:15 (wa laa yakhaafu)
B) Surah 91:15 (fa laa yakhaafu)
A) Surah 2:132 (himu)
B) Surah 2:131 (hiimu)
A) Surah 3:133 (wasaari'uu)
B) Surah 3:133 (saari'uu)
A) Surah 5:54 (yartadda)
B) Surah 5:56 (yartadid)

The above examples show that there are differences between the basic letters of these two Qurans. DIACRITICAL DIFFERENCES - Arabic uses dots to distinguish between certain letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol represents five different letters in the Arabic language depending upon where the diacritical dots are placed. For the above example, the five letters with their diacritical dots are as follows: ba', ta', tha', nun, ya'. However, these dots were a later development of the Arabic script and were not in use when Uthman standardised the text of the Qur'an. Thus the Uthman Quran did not have any dots to record the exact letter and pronunciation. The text could be read in several ways and was in this way ambiguous in places. It served as a guide for the different Readers of the Qur'an, but not as a complete guide because the diacritical dots were not yet in use.

The oral traditions are not the same. VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Like the diacritical dots, these vowel symbols were a later development in the Arabic script and were not in use when Uthman standardised the text of the Qur'an. Thus the vowels too were not written in the Uthman' Qu'ran. With the vowels we see another difference between these two Qurans, for on many occasions they do not have the same vowels used for the same word. Consider the following examples of how the vowels differ between these two Qurans. The Quran according to some Muslims claim that the differences between the diacritical dots and the vowels are not the result of the ambiguity of the Uthman' text but that

 

[Kas]

the "accepted variants" are all part of the revelation of the Qur'an. Thus there is not one way to recite the Quran but many ways - many different oral traditions! Other Muslims though disagree with this; they say there is only one way to recite the Qur'an and that the variants come from The Readers. There is a link at the end of this article, which discusses the nature, and origin of the different readings. Regardless of the answer to this question the fact remains that there are real differences between these two Qurans and that is what we are considering in this article. There are differences in the basic letters, diacritical dots, and vowels. These differences are small, but they do have some effect on the meaning. The following is a summary from a scholar who has done a more comprehensive study of this than I have. Again he is only comparing two of the many transmissions:

The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal (vowel and diacritical points) or graphic (basic letter), between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are differences that do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought. One difference (Q. 2/184) has an effect on the meaning that might conceivably be argued to have wider ramifications. (Adrian Brockett, `The Value of the Hafs and Warsh transmissions for the Textual History of the Qur'an'

From al-Shaatebeiah and al-Dorraah and al-Taiabah Revised by Muhammad Kareem Ragheh

The Chief Reader of Damascus Daar Beirut

In this edition of the Qur'an Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has collected all of the known variants from among the 10 Accepted Readers and included them in the margin of the Qur'an (Hafs' transmission). These are not all the known variants. There are other variants that could have also been included but the author has limited himself to the variants of the 10 Accepted Readers. As the title of his book suggests this makes it easy to know what the variant readings are because they are clearly listed with the text of the Qur'an. Below is a copy of a random page from this Qur'an. You can see the variant readings listed in the margin. About two thirds of the ayat (verses) of the Qur'an have some type of variant.

We began this article by considering the following quote from a Muslim organisation about the Qur'an:

No other book in the world can match the Qur'an...The astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam, Abu Dhabi, UAE: The Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan Charitable & Humanitarian Foundation, 1996, p. 4, bold added)

I have checked this claim for myself by obtaining Qurans from different parts of the world and comparing them to see if they are absolutely identical. What my research has revealed is that the above claim about the Quran is wrong. The Qurans of the world are not absolutely identical. There are

 

[Kas]

small differences in the basic letters, diacritical dots, and vowels. In fact there are Qurans which list these variants in their margin. This means that how the Quran is recited in different parts of the world is also not absolutely identical. Since the Quran has variation within its text and oral tradition it is not superior to the Bible. Please do not make or believe such exaggerated claims about the Qur'an.

The Quran has a history, like all literary works.

What is of most interest about this destruction of all unauthorised version of the Quran not mentioned in the quote below, is that this destruction included even the original manuscripts by the caliph. Considering the penalty for apostasy though, this is hardly surprising.

From the website (http://www.geocities.com/islampencereleri/atlanticmonthly.htm) we read:

"In the early decades of the Arab conquests many members of Muhammad's coterie were killed, and with them died valuable knowledge of the Quranic revelations. Muslims at the edges of the empire began arguing over what was Quranic scripture and what was not. An army general returning from Azerbaijan expressed his fears about sectarian controversy to the Caliph 'Uthman (644-656) -- the third Islamic ruler to succeed Muhammad -- and is said to have entreated him to "overtake this people before they differ over the Koran the way the Jews and Christians differ over their Scripture." 'Uthman convened an editorial committee of sorts that carefully gathered the various pieces of scripture that had been memorised or written down by Muhammad's companions. The result was a standard written version of the Koran. 'Uthman ordered all incomplete and imperfect collections of the Quranic scripture destroyed, and the new version was quickly distributed to the major centres of the rapidly burgeoning empire."

"That a substantial body of this scholarship now exists is indicated by the recent decision of the European firm Brill Publishers -- a long-established publisher of such major works as The Encyclopaedia of Islam and The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition -- to commission the first-ever Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an. Jane McAuliffe, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Toronto, and the general editor of the encyclopaedia, hopes that it will function as a "rough analogue" to biblical encyclopaedias and will be "a turn-of-the-millennium-summative work for the state of Quranic scholarship." Articles for the first part of the encyclopaedia are currently being edited and prepared for publication later this year.

The Encyclopaedia of the Quran will be a truly collaborative enterprise, carried out by Muslims and non-Muslims, and its articles will present multiple approaches to the interpretation of the Quran, some of which are likely to challenge traditional Islamic views -- thus disturbing many in the Islamic world, where the time is decidedly less ripe for a revisionist study of the Quran.

http://carryon.oneworld.org/index_oc/issue496/abu_zaid.html

The plight of Nasr Abu Zaid, an unassuming Egyptian professor of Arabic who sits on the encyclopaedia’s advisory board, illustrates the

 

[Kas]

difficulties facing Muslim scholars trying to reinterpret their tradition.

"A Macabre Farce"

The Quran is a text, a literary text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyse it is through a literary approach," Abu Zaid says. "This is an essential theological issue." For expressing views like this in print -- in essence, for challenging the idea that the Quran must be read literally as the absolute and unchanging Word of God -- Abu Zaid was in 1995 officially branded an apostate, a ruling that in 1996 was upheld by Egypt's highest court. The court then proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage of an apostate to a Muslim, to order Abu Zaid to divorce his wife, Ibtihal Yunis. A ruling that the shocked a happily married Yunis described at the time as coming "like a blow to the head with a brick".

Abu Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim, but contends that the Quran's manifest content -- for example, the often archaic laws about the treatment of women for which Islam is infamous -- is much less important than its complex, regenerative, and spiritually nourishing latent content. The orthodox Islamic view, Abu Zaid claims, is stultifying; it reduces a divine, eternal, and dynamic text to a fixed human interpretation with no more life and meaning than "a trinket ... a talisman ... or an ornament."

For a while Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to Holland, calling the whole affair "a macabre farce." Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preaching inspired much of the opposition to Abu Zaid, was exultant. "We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion.... No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again."

http://www.geocities.com/islampencereleri/atlantic3.jpg

From the Yemeni Hoard: probably a ninth or tenth-century Quran: Photograph by Gerd-R. Puin.

Abu Zaid seems to have been justified in fearing for his life and fleeing: in 1992 the Egyptian journalist Farag Foda was assassinated by Islamists for his critical writings about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and in 1994 the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed for writing, among other works, the allegorical Children of Gabalawi (1959) -- a novel, structured like the Quran, that presents "heretical" conceptions of God and the Prophet Muhammad.

Deviating from the orthodox interpretation of the Koran, says the Algerian Mohammed Arkoun, a professor emeritus of Islamic thought at the University of Paris, is "a very sensitive business" with major implications. "Millions and millions of people refer to the Quran daily to explain their actions and to justify their aspirations," Arkoun says. "This scale of reference is much larger than it has ever been before."

We Christians believe in something different to Nazil.

Allow me to clarify the church brought the scriptures into being therefore it is the church, which is the retainer of Christian truth! The scriptures are not

 

[Kas]

the deposit of GOD’s revelation, they are inspired through the church; it is therefore the church that is GOD’s principle revelation to mankind! We the Christians are GOD’s witnesses on this earth! The scriptures are a part of our testimony...the minor alterations that occurred to the text that we have freely admitted to, do not detract from our testimony, as our faith is built upon the person of Christ, who is present and with us even now!

Furthermore, because we do not hold a belief like Nazil we believe that scriptures are GOD breathed not the very spoken words of GOD minor alterations have no significance on the overall text and our faith in them; so long as the main message is unaffected - which it is not!

Christian scripture is considered to be God-breathed, but yet it is written by men. The process of deciding upon canon is considered to be Spirit-led, but even so, it came about only through much labour, discussion, disagreement, and dispute in which the full resources of the Church and the individual Christian were all required.

Christian scripture was never considered to be a magical deliverance from above, or to have been delivered to us through the tongues of angels, but came about through Divine guidance of the human prophets struggling to relay God's message via scripture. The sacredness of Scripture is therefore not deemed to be in the characters of the text, but in the transcendent Truth of the actual message.

What is being said, God's actual message to us, its beauty and its truth, its ability to set our hearts afire, and to free our minds and our souls from the troubles of this world; this is what makes Christian Scripture Holy and Divine. In comparison to the message, the mechanics of the text and the history of what has finally been decided upon as scripture, although important, are really only of a secondary importance.

I just want to point out to my brother that I know full well the failing of the Hadiths I spoke upon them earlier in the thread however my argument is not dependent upon the Hadiths alone...but a variety of different source which go as follows:

1) Direct comparisons of different Qurans

2) Evidence of the Hadiths, which in them selves point to corruption and interference with the text

3) Comparisons of commentaries of the Quran written by Moslems...with one another and with available text!

4) Comparison of the available text with textual inscriptions on artefacts...such as coins and pillars and Mosques and such!

The final word the Quran states that it is from Allah a protected book Moslem missionaries have invested huge amount of effort and time in convincing people that this has been the case I and other people have genuinely investigated this claim willing to go where the evidence lead that lead me and many others (former Moslems included) to recognise that the Quran has indeed not remained a pure text! But has undergone alterations and change down through the years...nothing that has effected it overall message this must be conceded (that is unless you believe the Shia which I personally do not) but change non the less has occurred and that no honest scholar can deny

 

[Kas]

The Quran has not remained the same dot for dot word for word but has largely remained intact (much like the Holy Bible)

Indeed I put my arguments to an Imam, he had no answer, he said he would get back to me and six years later I am still waiting.

The fact is that the Quran is not and has never been "perfectly preserved, in every letter." Alternate readings were always allowed, and it is likely that the 'Uthmanic copies were not absolutely identical. Today, it costs $40,000 to verify a copy of the Quran, and to do this with five individually written copies would cost five times as much. There is no efficiency of scale. If one looks at old manuscripts of the Quran, one nearly always finds variations. Just looking through the Tashkent Quran to indexing it, I found several variations, including a complete omission of "inna-llaha" in a verse Sura Maryam. This variation has no great effect on meaning, since the following "yahdi" still refers to Allah, only missing the emphasis. To understand how even careful copyists could make mistakes like this, one need only spend some time memorising the Quran. Try Bakarah for starters. It is very, very hard to keep all these small variations true to the text.

From this site:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Religions/Numerics/change-qur.html

This is also an excellent site.

True History of Islam, Mohammed and the Koran

In a site that attempts to disprove changes to the Quran we read!

The reasons for changes of 11 letters in Uthmân's(R) mushâf by al-Hajjâj are not clear. This is presumably either due to the mistakes made by the scribe(s) or preference of one Qirâ'ât over the other. It seems that the changes involved a combination of correction of the errors of the scribes as well as preference of one Qirâ'a over the other.

It remains that if the Quran had remained perfect guarded by almighty Allah in the first place that non-of this would have happened but it did happen and that speaks volumes to any honest seeker after truth!

This material is taken from:

The following reading ways of Quran dictionary: (moa'agim alqera'at alqura'nia):

This is an Arabic book written by Islamic scholars and published by Kuwait University in 8 volumes, first edition 1982 (Arabic) the authors: Dr. Abdal'al Salem Makrem, Dr. Ahmed Mokhtar Omar, these are Arabic language professors in Kuwait University The publisher is: Zat Alsalasel - Kuwait

Introduction:

There are a lot of Quran books [massahif] written till the day of Uthman Ibn Afaan, he burns the other books and he keeps one authorised copy.

For example there is:

1- Quran according to Ali bin Abi Talib
2- According to Ibn Massoud

 

[Kas]

3- According to Aobi bin Ka’ab

That does not mean that these people WRITE the Quran; this does mean that
they are a references for how the Quran could be read.

There is 7 ways to read the Quran (according to the verse about the 7 letters in the Quran [alssib' ailmithani]) + 3 other ways "completed"(mokimila) + 4 additional, they call it abnormal [shaza].

The 7 ways [readers] and their disciple:

1- Nafaa': Qalon + Warsh
2- Ibn Kathir: Albizi + Qonbil
3- Abi amro: Aldori + Alsosi
4- Ibn Amer: Ibn Aban + Ibn Thkwan
5- Assemm: Abo Biker + Hafas
6- Alkessa'i: Allith + Aldori
7- Hamza: Albizaz + Abo Isa Alsirfi

The 3 ways [readers] and there disciple:

1- Abo Ji'faar: Ibn Wardan + Ibn Jmaz
2- Yaccob: Rois + Roh
3- Khalif: Almrozi + Iddres

The 4 ways [readers] and their disciple:

1- Ibn Mohisn: Albizi + Ibn Shinboz
2- Alyazidi: Soliman Ibn Alhakam + Ahmed Bin Farah
3- Alhassan Albassry: Abo Na'im Albalkhi + Aldori
4- Ala'mash: Amotodi + Alshinbzi Alshttaoi

The differences are:

1- spelling
2- tone (harkat)
3- Arab (Arabic grammar)
4- using a similar word but different (like FIGHT, KILL)
5- changing place of words.
6- adding or removing words.

What I'm trying to say is clear; nobody could say that there is one Quran.
I'm trying to make Muslims notice that the Quran is not "filohen mahfouz"
or "in saved plates".

If it was one; why are all these differeces there; Muslims do not accept
the Gospel; because it is in different versions. They want the original Gospel.

They do not accept the words "according to..." but they have it in today's Quran which we use is according to Obi IBM Kanab.

What do I mean?

Let us look at three examples from Sura Maryam.

1- First example: Sura Maryam 19:19
[English translation based on the one done by Rashad Khalifa]

* Hafs text reads:

He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to GRANT (who does grant?: the angel) you a pure son."

The Arabic word: li'ahiba


* Naafa', Abo 'mro, Qalon, Warsh ... read:

He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to GRANT (who does grant?: Lord) you a pure son."

The Arabic word: liyihiba

 

[Kas]

* Albahr Almohit, "Alkishaf" a book for Alzimikhshiry:

He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, HE ORDERED ME TO GRANT YOU a pure son."

The Arabic words: amarani 'n 'hiba


2- Second example: Sura Maryam 19:25
[English translation based on the one done by Yusuf Ali.]

* Hafs text reads:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT WILL LET FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: toosaqit


* Hamza, Al'mish:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: tasaaqat


* Assem, alkiss'ai, al'mish:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT WILL FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: yassaqat


* Abo Amro, Assem, Nafi':
And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: WILL FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: tassaqat


* Abo Nahik, Abo Haii:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT FALLS fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: tosqt


* "Al'e'rab" a book for Alnahas:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: WE WILL FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: nosaqit


* Massrouq

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT WILL FALL [someone unknown will let fall] fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: yosaqit

* Abo Haiia:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT FALLS fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: tasqwt


* Abo Haiia

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: FALL fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: yasqwt

* Abo Haiia:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: IT WILL FALL one by one] fresh ripe dates upon thee.

 

[Kas]

The Arabic word: tatasaqat


* Abo Alsmal:

And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: FALLING fresh ripe dates upon thee.

The Arabic word: yosqt


3- Third example: Maryam 19:26
[English translation based on the one done by Yusuf Ali.]

* Zid Bin Ali:

So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a FAST to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being'

The Arabic being: syaman


* Abed Allah Bin Massoud, Aniss Bin Malek:

So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man,
say, "I have vowed a SILENCE to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being."

The Arabic being: samten


* Aobi Bin Ka'ab, Aniss Bin Malek:

So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, "I have vowed a SILENT FAST to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being."

The Arabic being: swmen samten


* Aniss Bin Malek

So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, "I have vowed a FAST AND SILENCE to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being."

The Arabic being: swmen wa samten

 

[awitch]

The Quran has been changed! Textual Variances in the Quran observed.

When I was investigating Islam one of the chief complaints laid against Christianity was that the Holy Bible had been changed. (In spite of the Quran’s and Moslem scholars calls to the contrary) However, it was suggested to me that this was a reason why one should not be a Christian.

After all those cartoons, I only have a six minute attention span.

I think anyone who thinks a volume of that size and complexity can be translated by hand across cultures, spans of time, (leaving out different languages) without variance is being unrealistic.

But why should variances be sufficient to abandon a faith?

 

[Arthra]

So Kas...

Is this a copy/paste from some where? Who is the author?

 

[SanFrank]

Great post. Some arabic words have as many as 35 different meanings and 20% of classical qu'ran remains unintelligible. So why didn't allah write the Quran in Modern Arabic with diacritical marks and why is Arabic the only language in the history of the world that can't be translated properly.

Less than one person in 100,000 can read Classical Arabic and the most educated Muslims in the world can't agree on what the Quran says.

There are 6.5 billion people today and less that one person in one hundred thousand can read Classical Arabic. I have yet to find one reason to believe any Muslim because in general they would rather make it up instead of looking it up.

If I post it, most Muslims will say that it's a lie or that I can't speak Arabic or that it's out of context. So why don't they look it up and let me know what they found out. Most Muslims prefer to make up the answer instead of looking it up.

How can you know so little about what you worship and spend most of your life worshiping something you know almost nothing about?