Are there different versions of the Quran? The Ahruf & the Qira'aat

The recital modes (Qira'at) of The Noble Qur'an. (Dr. Haitham Talaat)

The recital modes (Qira'at) of The Noble Qur'an.
(Dr. Haitham Talaat)

(with English subtitles).

Did Uthman really burn the original Quran ?

Question:

Did Uthman really burn the original Quran ?

Answer:

Praise be to God.

1- There is nothing called original Quran. Quran is primarily preserved by mass-memorisation and transmission from generation to another.

Watch this for details:



2- Regarding the Mushaf compiled by Abu Bakr after Al-Yamamah battle; It was not burnt by Uthman. That single copy was with Abu Bakr. Then it was transferred to Umar. After the death of Umar, it was transferred to Hafsa, one of the wives of the Prophet, who was a hafiz.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ قَدِمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَكَانَ يُغَازِي أَهْلَ الشَّأْمِ فِي فَتْحِ إِرْمِينِيَةَ وَأَذْرَبِيجَانَ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ فَأَفْزَعَ حُذَيْفَةَ اخْتِلاَفُهُمْ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ فَقَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعُثْمَانَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَدْرِكْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ اخْتِلاَفَ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فَأَرْسَلَ عُثْمَانُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ أَنْ أَرْسِلِي إِلَيْنَا بِالصُّحُفِ نَنْسَخُهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ ثُمَّ نَرُدُّهَا إِلَيْكِ فَأَرْسَلَتْ بِهَا حَفْصَةُ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ فَأَمَرَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ فَنَسَخُوهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا حَتَّى إِذَا نَسَخُوا الصُّحُفَ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ رَدَّ عُثْمَانُ الصُّحُفَ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ وَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى كُلِّ أُفُقٍ بِمُصْحَفٍ مِمَّا نَسَخُوا وَأَمَرَ بِمَا سِوَاهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ صَحِيفَةٍ أَوْ مُصْحَفٍ أَنْ يُحْرَقَ‏.‏

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 (Qur'an) 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, Sa`id 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. (Bukhari 4987)

And Allah knows best !

Hafs vs. Douri Recitations of Quran: Mistakes or Miracles of Eloquence ?

The Quranic recitations are a well known fact that has always been accepted by Muslims since the first generation. Through out the centuries, Muslims have always been reciting the Quran in the variant recitations (Qiraat). Books have been written and lectures have been made about them.


However, many Muslims have lost touch with this important Islamic field and have begun to assume that there is only one recitation. Orientalists and enemies of Islam have used this to their advantage to sptrike doubt into the hearts of Muslims in regards to the preservation of the Quran.


Farid responds to one of these attacks by showing that these recitation are actually not mistakes, complement one another, add greatly to the eloquence of the Quran, and are therefore, a miracle from Allah the Almighty.

What if there are "missing words" in a quranic manuscript ?!

Farid gives a glimpse of Daniel Alan Brubakers pathetic book "Corrections in Early Qur'an Manuscripts" which is being perpetuated by some disbelievers who have no idea that Quran is mainly transmitted orally.

Why The Quran is a divine book ? Proving with falsification theory. (Fadel Soliman)

Why is Quran Considered A Miracle - Nouman Ali Khan - Animated

Explaining The Miracle of Quran To A Non-Muslim !

The Quran is widely recognised as a miraculous book, for the unique style and presentation of the arabic language. As muslims worldwide know, the words and surahs contained in the Quran can only have come from Allah. Unlike other religious texts, the Quran famously issues a challenge to all mankind to try and produce even one Surah just like it. To date, nobody has been able to meet the challenge, even though many have tried. To a native English speaker, this challenge sounds like it can easily be met, especially if they have read an English translation of the Quran. But the arabic language is so unique and powerful, that only after they study and learn it will they realise the great difficulty (and impossibility) of ever producing a surah which can rival that of those contained in the Quran. Nouman Ali Khan deals deals brilliantly with this subject in this video.

Linguistic Challenge of the Quran Explained - AbdurRaheem Green

The Collection of the Quran - Dr. Joseph. Lumbard

How was the Quran first put together? How did it come assume the form in which we have it today? In this video, Dr. Lumbard discusses the understanding of the collection of the Quran in Islamic sources. This video goes up until the death of the Prophet (SAWS) in 632. Part II focuses upon the collection of the Quran after the death of the Prophet and the creation of the first official collection of the Quran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4QBuV_IGQI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp2kYT1cAcI

Old Manuscripts & Various Reading of Qur'an - Dr. Shabir Ally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh57dmOenh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo_VfxZmjxA

The Miracle of the Quran for non-Arabs !

By karkooshy

One of the proofs for the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ is the Quran, which is an imitable literary miracle of unrivaled eloquence. However, the miraculousness of the Quran is very difficult to realize for someone who is not specialized in Arabic, never mind someone who does not speak Arabic at all! Such a person would not be qualified to judge the literary quality of the Quran, nor be able compare it with other literature in order to determine its imitability. Fortunately, there are ways around this problem.

One can appreciate the miraculousness of the Quran, even if one does not speak Arabic, by considering the following three facts:

First: the Quran challenges Prophet Muhammed’s opponents (the pagan Arabs) to disprove its miraculousness, by getting together and producing a chapter that rivals the eloquence of any of its chapters:

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
And if you doubt about what We have revealed to Our slave,
roduce a chapter like it, and call upon your supporters other than Allah, if you are truthful^[1].

Second: The pagan Arabs were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules. This is proof that Prophet Muhammed’s opponents were competent, and that it is nomically necessary for them to have been able to meet the Quranic challenge.

Third: Prophet Muhammed’s opponents were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving his prophethood. The pagan Arabs imprisoned, tortured, and killed many of the early Muslims. They even engaged in wars against Prophet Muhammed ﷺ and his community. Wars where those pagans spent much time, much money, and risked their very lives, in order to stop the spread of Islam.

With the above in mind, we argue:

• • If a claimant to prophethood is aided by a negation of nomic necessity, then he is a true prophet.
  • Muhammed ﷺ is a claimant to prophet who was aided by a negation of nomic necessity.
  • Therefore, Muhammed ﷺ is a true prophet.

As for the first premise, it is true because God is the creator of normalcy. So His aiding a claimant to prophethood by negating normalcy for him, signals His support for this claimant. More on this here.

As for the second premise- Muhammed ﷺ is a claimant to prophethood who was aided by a negation of nomic necessity- this is actualized in the pagan Arabs’ inability to address the Quranic challenge. For if the pagan Arabs were able to fulfill the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have spared themselves the time, money, and the risks of death in battle, and they would have simply cooperated with one another in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran literarily. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed^[2]. Thus, the Quran resulted in a negation of nomic necessity. Namely, the inability of the pagans to address its challenge, when they should have been able to do so.

To make the above clearer, Imam Al-Baqilani^[2] compares the failure of the pagans in addressing the Quranic challenge, to a prophet who challenges his opponents to move their hands, when God prevents them from this act for the timeframe of the prophet’s challenge. This is a negation of nomic necessity for those people, and proof for this prophet’s prophethood. Likewise, God preventing the pagans from being able to address the Quranic challenge, is a negation of nomic necessity for them, and proof for Muhammed’s ﷺ prophethood.

Therefore, Muhammed ﷺ is a true prophet.

Source

SHARIAH-The Islamic Law

What is ‘SHARIAH’?

Well Shariah is the Islamic Law. It is the religious legal system that governs the political,social,economical, and moral duties of faithful Muslims.The sources of Islam on which all beliefs, principles and rulings are based are represented by the two Revelations: the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is what is implied by Islam being a divinely-revealed religion: its pillars are based on infallible texts that were sent down from heaven, which are represented in the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the texts of the saheeh Prophetic Sunnah. From these two sources the scholars derived other principles on which rulings may be based. Some scholars called them the sources of sharee’ah or the sources of Islamic legislation. They are: ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) and qiyaas (analogy). Imam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: No one has any right whatsoever to say that something is halaal or haraam except on the basis of knowledge, and the basis of knowledge is a text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) or qiyaas (analogy).

But, Unfortunately the term Shariah gets people excited. And as soon as the term Shariah is mentioned People’s imagination  goes to hands and heads getting chopped off. Thanks to Media!

Time for Education

Out of the 6236 verses of the Quran, less than 9% are about law or legal issues.When analysing a typical work of Islamic “law”, we can see that 65% of it is not even “law,” instead it is personal custom and devotion.If we took the 35% of Islamic legal compendiums dealing with contracts, family law, and state power as a derived from the Quran, that would be only 2.45% of the Quran. Only 5% of those works deals with issues of state power, which if one claimed was being drawn from the Quran directly would account for only 0.35% of the verses of the Quran.

and,

So don’t fall into propaganda. Learn and educate yourself by directly going to Islamic Sources and not to any Polemical and Orientalists works.

Addendum: These charts were created after analyzing the number of verses on law, approximated by most classical scholars to be 500 in number, then comparing those on a granular basis to the overall number of verse 6236. The percentages for the categories used, other than law and related topics, are approximations due to the overlap in topics. The categories themselves are taken from Ibn Ashour’s introduction to his al-Tahrir wal-Tanweer, an extensive exegesis of the Quran. The categories used in the second slide are found in almost every standard work of Islamic law (fiqh) and the percentages here are approximations based on chapter length and topical coverage in those works as a whole.

Source:  https://izhaarulhaqq.wordpress.com//

Has Qur'an been Preserved?

By: Islamic-Life

This article covers the Muslims response and refutation to some of the common false allegations against the preservation of the Qur'an. These are my notes from a debate that I had with an atheist on the topic of preservation of the Qur'an. He mainly argued that Qur'an was not complete during the life of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him), neither it was completely written down or memorized. He also argued that the Qur'an we've today is missing ayaat (verses) and parts. The preservation of the Qur'an has been guaranteed by Allah (God): "Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)" ⁽¹⁾. Imam ibn Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) says in the tafsir (exegesis) of this ayah: "Allah is saying, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Reminder), i.e. the Qur'an, and We will guard the Qur'an against anything false being added to it that is not part of it, or anything that is part of it being taken away, whether that has to do with rulings, hudood punishments or matters having to do with inheritance" ⁽²⁾. The sound minded readers can go through my notes and analyze the truth:

Was Qur'an Incomplete when Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) died?

Non-Muslim's Argument

Qur'an was not complete when Muhammad died and was in fragments. Qur'an is incomplete because it was not completely compiled, missing parts or some parts didn't survive. If the sayings of the Qur'an was not organised into a book called the Qur'an, there is no Qur'an.

Muslim Response

This misconception is only raised due to lack of basic knowledge. The attacker thinks that when Muslims today say "Qur'an", they refer to the written mushaf (codex), which is not true as no sound minded Muslim believe in such a thing. According to the correct Islamic 'aqeedah (creed), Sunni Muslim believe that the Qur'an is the Kalam (speech) of Allah and it is not created. In addition, the literal meaning of the word Qur'an is, "the recitation". Therefore, when Muslims say "Qur'an", they're talking about the text not the written copies which contain the text. Now, the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) over the period of 23 years, it was completed while he was alive. Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an: "this day have I perfected your deen for you" ⁽³⁾. Therefore, the Qur'anic revelation was completed when Allah’s Messenger (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) was alive. Even if we assume the attacker's position, if the content of a story is complete, how can you claim that the story is incomplete? The following sahih (authentic) ahadith further confirms it:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of Ramadan because Gabriel used to meet him every night of the month of Ramadan till it elapsed. Allah's Apostle used to recite the Qur'an for him. When Gabriel met him, he used to become more generous than the fast wind in doing good. ⁽⁴⁾

Narrated Abu-Huraira: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he died. The Prophet used to stay in I'tikaf for ten days every year (in the month of Ramadan). ⁽⁵⁾

Didn't Companions (radi-allahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad(sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) memorize and write down the whole Qur'an?

Non-Muslim's Argument

No one memorized or wrote down all of Muhammad's teachings. Look at the following hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him... ⁽⁶⁾. From this hadith, it is clear that the scribes failed to note down all the Muhammad said, hence why the tale talks about his followers failing to create a book and also why the person needed to search for multiple people, multiple writings to even compile it.

Muslim Response

Again, the attacker shows his lack of basic Islamic knowledge and misinterpretation of the hadith. First, let's look at the proofs which refutes his false claims and then we'll look at this hadith within the context. Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid (May Allah preserve him) said:

Everything that was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was written down in front of him straight away, and some of the Sahaabah had masaahif (written copies of the Qur'an). After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the first khaleefah, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) gathered the Qur’aan in written and kept it. Then the third khaleefah, 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) compiled it in mus-hafs that were based on the mus-haf compiled by Abu Bakr, in addition to what had been memorized. ⁽⁷⁾

and in another place he said:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a group of his companions who were trustworthy and knowledgeable to write down the revelation. They are known in their biographies as those who wrote down the Revelation, such as the four Caliphs, 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aas, Mu'aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, Zayd ibn Thaabit and others – may Allaah be pleased with them all.⁽⁸⁾

The whole Qur'an was memorized by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look at some of the authentic sources which supports what the Shaykh said; Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) records the following hadith in Sahih Al-Buhkhari in chapter, "Who were the Qurra'/hufaz among the companions (radiallahu anhuma - May Allah be pleased with them) of Prophet (peace be upon him)?" Qari'/ hafiz (singular of Qurra'/hufaz) is someone who has memorized the WHOLE QUR’AN!:

Narrated Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b'". ⁽⁹⁾

The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "These four companions (RA) were the biggest 'ailm (scholar) and the memorizer of the whole Qur'an. There were other qurra' among them but these four knew the most". ⁽¹⁰⁾ The phrase, "Knew the most", doesn't refer to the quantity; rather it refers to the strength of their memory. This also proves that companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) perfectly memorized and learned the entire Qur'an. You can't teach others or help them memorize the Qur'an unless you have memorized the entire Qur'an and its 'alim. Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) would never have made such a statement if they were not qualified for it! We further read in 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an: "Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama". ⁽¹¹⁾ Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) has told us of great virtue of memorzing the Qur'an. Muslims for 14 centuries have been memorizing the Qur'an and passing it down as it came. Hence, it is complete nonsensical of one to say that the companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) didn't memorize the whole Qur'an. There are numerous other overwhelming evidences, which I'm not quoting to keep the response short, that confirm the fact that many of the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) memorized the entire Qur'an and the readers will soon see that the very hadith quoted by the attacker proves him wrong.

Statements of non-Muslim Scholars on memorization of the Qur'an

John Burton says: "The method of transmitting the Quran from one generation to the next by having he young memorize the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solely on written records…" ⁽¹²⁾ Kenneth Cragg says: "this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone". ⁽¹³⁾

The whole Qur'an was written down by many Companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look some of the authentic evidences proving the fact that the Qur'an was written down by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) during his life:

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons: Abu Ad-Darda'. Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring. ⁽¹⁵⁾ The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) is saying what he knew. There were other companions (radhiallahu anhuma) besides these four who collected (wrote down) the Qur'an. However, Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) means the companions who collected (wrote down) the whole Qur'an". ⁽¹⁰⁾ Some may argue that the word "collected" could also mean they memorized it or collected knowledge because these ahadith are also recorded in the same chapter as 521. However, the correct translation is that they wrote it down. The Arabic word used here is, Jam'a, and it means literally collecting objects. Therefore, they must have collected Qur'an in written form.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." ⁽¹⁶⁾

Narrated Al-Bara: There was revealed: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah" (4.95). The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: …" ⁽¹⁷⁾

The entire Quran was however also recorded in writing at the time of revelation from the Prophet's [sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam] dictation, may God praise him, by some of his literate companions, the most prominent of them being Zaid ibn Thabit. ⁽¹⁸⁾

Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Waleed and Zubayr ibn Awwam. ⁽¹⁹⁾

Explanation of the hadith and reasons for collecting the Qur'an from different people

In the refutation of the attacker's claim, I've above shown using the authentic evidences that the entire Qur'an was memorized and written down during the life of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). Now, the attacker's false claims only arise due to his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him... ⁽⁶⁾. However, when we read the complete hadith it tells us the reasons about their decision of collecting the Qur'an. We read in the hadith that many Qurra' (who memorized the whole Qur’an) martyred during the battle of Yamama. Again, the very hadith quoted by the attacker to prove his point contradicts him and it proves my point: many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) memorized the entire Qur’an during his life. The battle of Yamama took place right after Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) passed away, in fact, he (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) sent the army himself and later this army was strengthened with more men by Abou Bakr (radiallahu anho). Hence, the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) decided to make a committe which was responsible of collecting the Qur'an and Zaid was incharge of this task.

Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) says in Fathul Bari: "The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question". ⁽²⁰⁾ The restrictions placed by the committee are the sole reason for collecting the Qur'an from different people and finding a certain ayah with only one person. In other words, reading the hadith within the context of other evidences, we understand that the phrase in the hadith "other than him" exclude the members of committee as Zaid (radiallahu anho) was collecting the Qur'an from non-members and they needed two trustworthy witnesses to confirm it. Shaykh Muhammad Salih confirms it: "The Sahaabi Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) knew the Qur’aan by heart but he was methodical in his confirmation; he would not agree to write down any verse until two of the Sahaabah testified that they had heard it from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)". ⁽⁸⁾ Imam ibn Hajr further explains this in Fathul Bari:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) permitted the writing of the Qur'an and prohibited the writing of anything else along with it, so Abu Bakr did not order anything to be written down except what has already been written down, and that is the reason why he (Zayd bin Thaabit) refrained from writing the last verses from Surah al Bara'a until he found it written, for he already knew it and had people who remembered it along with him. Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. "And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious. And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down'. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being broken, and the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation. And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. ⁽²¹⁾

From above evidences, it is clear that Zaid (radiallahu anho) didn't find the ayaat (verses) written down with anyone except Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho); however, it doesn't mean that no one else knew about these ayaat beside him. Even if we assume the attacker position, then how did Zaid (radiallahu anho) know that he had to look for these ayaat? How did he know that he will find these ayaat from Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho)? How did Zaid (adiallahu anho) confirm that it was part of Sura At-Tauba and Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) was mentioning those two specific ayaat? Even, if we assume that Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) told him this then the committee would never have taken this into account because this would nullifies their basic premise for verifying the correct collection of the Qur'an (only one source). To hit the nail to the ground, we read Tafsir ibn Kathir in which Imam ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) summed it all up:

And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara'a (Surah 9) 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves' to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said 'Who is with you on this?' He said 'I don't know' and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. ⁽²²⁾

Therefore, it is clear from the above evidences that other than Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho), other companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) indeed knew about these ayaat. A more detailed Muslim response to attacker's claim can be found here.

Is Qur'an Incomplete (missing ayaat/parts)?

Non-Muslim's Argument

Many passages of the Qur'an were lost as it is related by the following narration: "Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor 'Umar nor 'Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other" [-bu Bakr 'Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif"]

Muslim Response

First, it is well known that "al Masahif" by 'Abdullah bin abi Da'ud is full of fabricated narrations. Hence, there's no point of refuting the claim if it is not authentic. It is well known and reported by Islamic scholars that if it weren't for the isnaad (chain of narrators/transmitters), the people would had come up anything they wanted and inculded it in Islam. Thus, I ask the attacker where is the isnaad of this narration? I'm assuming that Zhuri mentioned in the narration is Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn 'Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (rahimahullah). I say this is a lie attributed to a great Sunni Imam and muhadith (scholar of hadith) as the narrations goes against the well known authentic ahadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari. It has been proved earlier that there were many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), who memorised and wrote down the entire Qur'an, but we read few names from authentic ahadith ^{(9) (14) (15)}: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Ubai bin Ka'b, Abu Ad-Darda', Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.

Among these people, Ubai bin Ka'b (radiallahu anho) and 'Abdullah bin Masud (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Mu'adh bin Jabal (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Umar (radiallahu anho). Zaid bin Thabit (radiallahu anho) and Abu Ad-Darda' (radiallahu anho) passed away during/after the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Salim (radiallahu anho) was martyred during the battle of Yamama. I could not trace down some info about Abou Zaid (radiallahu anho). Therefore, out of seven people, who are proven from authentic ahadith that they memorised and/or wrote down the entire Qur’an, only one of them was martyred during the battle of Yamama; hence, the report/rumour that is either attributed to Imam Zahri (rahimahullah) or he heard is false and an utter lie.

Non-Muslim's Argument

Quran is incomplete as relayed by the earliest Muslims: "It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" [as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524].

Muslim Response

If we read this report, from Ibn 'Umar (radiallahu anho), in the context and the correct translation of it, we understand that he is talking about understanding of the Qur'an not compilation or completion of the Qur'an as the attacker claims! Dr. G.F. Hadad says:

The words used by Ibn 'Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated). The actual meaning of Ibn 'Umar's words is: "Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]". Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn 'Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn 'Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: 'There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar.' ⁽²³⁾

Non-Muslim's Argument

Different version of the Qur'an were destroyed: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm 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 (Qur'an) 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 ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman 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 the Quraish as 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. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Muslim Response

Qur'an was originally revealed in the dialect of Quraish but later was allowed to recited/read in seven different ways: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways. ⁽²⁴⁾ Hence, various readings among people from different tribes/nations became obvious and we also make a note of this from the hadith, which the attacker quoted, that they were afraid of disputes raising among people. As a result, 'Utman (radiallahu anho) set a committee to prepare a final copy of the Qur'an from the copy that Abou Bkar (radiallahu anho) left with the wife of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), Hafsa (radiallahu anha - May Allah be pleased with her). He also ordered to write down the Qur'an in Quraish dialect and burned the other copies to resolve any uncertainty, discrepancies and errors in terms of textual or reading variants. Shaykh Muhammad Salih briefly explains the reasons for uniting upon one recitation:

This Mus-haf (written copy of the Qur’aan) remained in the hands of the caliphs until the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) had dispersed to different lands, and they used to recite the Qur’aan according to what they had heard of the seven recitations from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and each of their students used to recite according to what he had heard from his shaykh. If a student heard someone reciting in a manner different from what he knew, he would denounce him and accuse him of making a mistake, and this went on until the Sahaabah feared that there would be fitnah (trouble) between the Taabi’een and successive generations. So they thought that they should unite the people in following one recitation, which was in the dialect of Quraysh in which the Qur’aan had first been revealed, so as to dispel any disputes and resolve the matter. ‘Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) was consulted, and he agreed with this opinion. 

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Maalik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan came to ‘Uthmaan at the time when the people of Shaam (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan, so he said to 'Uthmaan, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Qur’aan) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthmaan sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Qur’aan so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you." ⁽⁸⁾

We also read:

The earlier recension (Original copy prepared by Abu Bakr) was to serve as the principal basis of the new one. ⁽²⁵⁾

Any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet. 'Uthman himself was to supervise the work of the Council. ⁽²⁶⁾

It is well known that when the final recension was completed, 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of Makka, Damascus, Kufa, Basra and Madina. The action of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) to burn the other copies besides the final recension, though obviously drastic, was for the betterment and harmony of the whole community and was unanimously approved by the Companions of the Prophet as Zaid ibn Thabit (radiallahu anho) is reported to have said: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!". ⁽²⁷⁾

Non-Muslim's Argument

Editing of the Qur'an is allowed as it is reported in a hadith: Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466]

Muslim Response

So, what exactly did they edit? As I showed above that Qur'an was originally revealed in Quraish dialect but later was allowed to be recited/read in seven different dialects. I don't know by which logic using one of the seven dialects is considered editing!

Non-Muslim's Argument

There have been changes to the Qu'ran as Zaid has been reported to said: "I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: 'From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah' (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text." [As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138]

Muslim Response

Again, the attacker mixed up the completion of the Qur'an with compilation of the Qur'an. Does the attacker's source say that they came up with this ayah and added it to the completed Qur'an? All it is saying that when they were compiling the Qur'an under the supervision of 'Uthman (radiallahou anho), one of the companion (radiallahu anho) forgot an ayah but he knew that he (radiallahu anho) heard it from Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam); so, he (radiallahu anho) got it from another companion (radiallahu anho) and added it in where it belonged! Therefore, I don't see how this is changing the Qur'an. The argument of edition of the Qur'an would make sense if they (radiallahu anhuma) created or removed an ayah which was not part of the Qur'an, but there is ZERO evidence for that. I already have showed above that Qur'an was perfectly compiled and the same Qur'an exist today as it has been perfectly passed down for 1400 years.

Non-Muslim's Argument

An example of a missing verse, Verse of Stoning; One of the missing verses is the verse of stoning, where an adulterer would be stoned to death as punishment: "Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539]

Muslim Response

This has been already dealt here in details. It is important to note that there are other cases like the rajam (stoning) ayah. Other Islamic sources prove that certain ayaat were revealed but they were later abrogated; hence, not found in the Qur'an. However, the attackers quote the narrations which prove that certain ayaat were revealed but either deliberately misses out the narrations which say that those ayaat were abrogated or misinterpret them. For example, the case of missing part of 2:238, which has been dealt here in details. With this, I would like to conclude that in this article, I've shown many authentic evidences to disapprove and refute the common false allegations made against the authenticity and preservation of the Qur'an. For more information on this topic and Muslims refutations/responses to suspicious arguments raised by Islamic haters, the readers can refer to Qur'anic Variants and Qur'an. Wallahu a'lam (and Allah knows best)!

---

Footnotes:

1. Surah Al-Hijr (15) Ayah 9 - interpretation of the meaning
2. Surah Al-Hijr - The Tafsirs
3. Surah Al-Ma'idah (5) Ayah 3 - interpretation of the meaning
4. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 509
5. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 519
6. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 520
7. Is it true that there is no evidence of a Qur'an being written in the 7th century?
8. Who wrote the Qur'an and how was it put together?
9. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 521
10. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, page 527-528, published by Jami'yat Ahla Hadith of Hind in 2004
11. 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an, Vol. I, p. 124.
12. An Introduction to the Hadith, Edinburgh University Press: 1994, p. 27.
13. The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26.
14. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 525
15. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 526
16. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 511
17. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 512
18. Al-Itqan fee ‘Uloom al-Quran, Vol.1, p.41 & 99.
19. Al-Isabah fee Taymeez as-Sahabah, p.53-63
20. Fathul Bari, Vol. IX, p. 10-11.
21. Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa'il Al Qur'aan, Bab: Jami' Al Qur'aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603
22. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129
23. COMPANION MEMORIZERS OF QUR'AN
24. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 661, Number 513
25. Ibn Hajar, Bath, IX, p. 15
26. 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an, Vol. I, p. 59
27. Naysaburi, al-Nizam al-Din al-Hasan ibn Muhammad, Ghara'ib al-Quran wa-ragha'ib al-furqan, 4 vols., to date. Cairo, 1962.

Quran 8:12 – ‘I will Cast Terror ..."

8:12-13
Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by FIGHTING God and His messenger. For those who fight against God and His messenger, God's retribution is severe.

The story is mentioned in "Sahih Muslim":
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Umar b. al-Khattab who said:

When it was the day on which the Battle of Badr was fought, the Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) cast a glance at the infidels, and they were one thousand while his own Companions were three hundred and nineteen. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) turned (his face) towards the Qibla Then he stretched his hands and began his supplication to his Lord:

"O God, accomplish for me what Thou hast promised to me. O God, bring about what Thou hast promised to me. O God, if this small band of Muslims is destroyed. Thou will not be worshipped on this earth."
He continued his supplication to his Lord, stretching his hands, facing the Qibla, until his mantle slipped down from his shoulders.

So Abu Bakr ( his favourate companion )came to him, picked up his mantle and put it on his shoulders. Then he embraced him from behind and said:.

Prophet of Allah, this prayer of yours to your Lord will suffice you, and He will fulfil for you what He has promised you.
So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed (the Qur'anic verse): "When ye appealed to your Lord for help, He responded to your call (saying): I will help you with one thousand angels coming in succession." So God helped him with angels.

While on that day a Muslim was chasing a disbeliever who was going ahead of him, he heard over him' the swishing of the whip and the voice of the rider saying: Go ahead, Haizi'm ! He glanced at the polytheist who had (now) fallen down on his back. When he looked at him (carefully he found that) there was a scar on his nose and his face was torn as if it had been lashed with a whip, and had turned green with its poison. An Ansari came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and related this (event) to him. He said: You have told the truth. This was the help from the third heaven.
The Muslims that day (i.e. the day of the Battle of Badr) killed seventy persons and captured seventy.


Also, the previously mentioned laws of Jihad all applied here and the Muslims were commanded:

وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّـهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
﴿٦١﴾

 8:61
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

Furthermore, Believing in a punishment for oppressive disbelievers delivered by the unseen angels is hardly different from believing in an unseen punishment in the next life.

Re: "Jesus' Death On The Cross And The Quran." refuted

This is a response to  Aaron Goerner's article entitled  "Jesus' Death On The Cross And The Quran."  .


He said:
"Islam's denial of Jesus' death on the cross is a radical redefinition of history. Observation, witness, testimony, and human analysis have little or no role in learning about what happened centuries ago at Golgotha. The only thing that ultimately matters is that Muhammad claimed an angel revealed to him something about the past contrary to what was observed and recorded. This is all in spite of the fact that Muhammad came hundreds of years after the event, lived hundreds of miles away, and did not provide any evidence."



Reply:
We claim your historical methodology is weak, and therefore, your historical evidences for the crucifixion event are weak. If Christian's could use a strict methodology (like the sciences of hadith) to filter truth from error, they would not be able to have evidence for their crucifixion claim. The Christian above assumes that what was observed (i.e. crucifixion) was recorded down. However, majority of Christian scholars today affirm that none of the writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses to the crucifixion. The Gospels are in fact anonymous.


"Like the other canonical gospels, Matthew was originally anonymous." (The Blackwell Companion To The New Testament - Edited By David E. Aune - 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd - Page 7).

"Like the other New Testament gospels, Luke - Acts is an anonymous work, with the author concealed behind the narrative." (Ibid - Page 329).


"The text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author. Of course the probabilities are that such traditions contain at least a substantial hint as to the identity of the evangelist. Sometimes, however, internal considerations are such as to cast doubt upon the full accuracy of the later tradition." (Bruce Manning Metzger - The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, And Content - Abingdon Press, 2003).


"In the case of the Gospels, strictly speaking, all four works are anonymous. That is to say, there is no chapter or verse that gives the name of the author in any instance." (Craig L. Blomberg - Jesus And The Gospels: An Introduction And Survey - B&H Publishing Group, 2009 - Page 127).



"All four gospel are anonymous. Strictly speaking, we do not know who wrote them." (Professor Dr. Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld - Recovering Jesus: The Witness Of The New Testament - Brazos Press, 2007 - Page 56).


"Strictly speaking the four Gospels are anonymous." (Les Bridgeman - A Teacher's Notebook, Lessons on the Life of Christ for Highschool Students- WestBow Press, 2010 - Page 9).


"Like the other three Gospels the book is anonymous." (The New Bible Commentary - Edited by Professor F. Davidson M.A. D.D., Assisted by The REV. A.M. Stibbs M.A. and The REV. E.F. Kevan M.TH. - Page 771).


"What sources do we have for Jesus? Well, we have multiple sources in the Gospels of the New Testament. That part is good. But they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." (Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - Harper Collins, 2009 - Pages 143-144).


"All in all, large parts of the New Testament are not written by people directly connected with Jesus or the very earliest period of the Christian Church… But the fact remains that large parts of the New Testament were written by Christians after the initial period." (Professor John Barton - The Biblical World - Routledge 2002 - Pages 30-31).


"In fact, all the Gospels originally circulated anonymously. Authoritative names were later assigned to them by unknown figures in the early church. In most cases, the names are guesses or perhaps the results of pious wishes." (Dr. Robert W. Funk & Professor Roy W. Hoover, The Jesus Seminar - The Five Gospels: The Search For The Authentic Words Of Jesus -  New York: Polebridge Press, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1993 - Page 20).



More on this can be read here. If the Christian wants to claim the crucifixion was recorded by those who observed the event in our present day Gospels, he needs to prove this. If the Christian cannot, then we Muslims will not accept weak sources which Christians deem as reliable. It's worth noting that there are contradictions in the stories of the alleged crucifixion and burial (as mentioned by Dr. Ehrman here), which gives us more reason to reject such Biblical sources.

As for the evidence Muhammad bought, it is the miracle of the Quran and evidences for his Prophethood. One can refer to this site, for example, for evidences that the Quran is the world of God, which we use as indirect evidence that Jesus was never crucified. Moreover, it doesn't matter if he came hundreds of years later or not, because history is not the only criterion to discover truth.

The Christian then posts mistranslated verses from the Old Testament trying to give us the impression the crucifixion was predicted. However, this has been refuted here and here. He then posted verses from the New Testament trying to prove that Jesus testified to his death, but has assumed the authenticity of the New Testament without proving it. Also, the verses he posted are suspect, because in the following verses, Jesus is alleged to have said:


John 17:4:
"I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."

This statement was allegedly uttered before he even went on the cross. His mission was over before any crucifixion event. It is interesting to note that according to Bruce Metzger's works and others (see here), the Gospel of John had at least 3 authors (which we don't even know). Isn't it possible that someone who doubted the crucifixion put the above statement on Jesus' lips? Yes. This might be a reason why in this verse, Jesus affirms his mission was over before any crucifixion (which would contradict the verses in Matthew the Christian bought up).

He said:
Eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus on the cross:

Mary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James and Joseph
Mary the mother of Jesus
The disciple whom Jesus loved (John 19:26)

Reply:
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Mary the mother of Jesus are described as seeing from a distance (see here). It doesn't say how far away. Seeing from a distance isn't really strong evidence they were eye witnesses, because other people and things could have obstructed their view, and it is easier to make mistakes seeing from afar. (This is assuming the Gospels are trustworthy). Secondly, these verses follow the alleged death on the cross. So, it does not specify that they actually saw the death took place. As for John 19:26, this disciple was not an eye-witness to the death because the disciple went back to his home (see John 19:26-27).

The Christian then mentioned evidences of people who participated in the burial of Jesus, yet failed to realize this is not evidence that he was actually dead.

He said:
Even non-Christian sources wrote that Jesus died:
Josephus (Jewish historian born around 37 AD and died 100 AD) refers to Jesus' death (Antiquities 18.3.3).
Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historian of ancient Rome wrote around 115 A.D. that Christ was "executed" by Pilate (Annals 15.44).



Reply:

Let us see how authentic these sources are. A historian commenting on Josephus' mention of the crucifixion:

"This passage was probably a late third century insertion." (Daniel T Unterbrink - Judas The Galilean - iUniverse, 2004 - Page 6).


Also:

"Josephus never mentioned the life or death of Jesus. This sentiment is supported by a Christian apologist, Paul Johnson. "Josephus undoubtedly wrote about Jesus, but presumable in an unfavorable sense for all copied of his manuscript went through Christian control at some stage, Josephus's actual words were censored and an audultory passage was inserted." (Paul Johnson, Civilizations of the Holy Land, Page 123 - Quote Cited From: Ibid - Page 136, Reference Cited From Ibid, Page 272).


"In regard to Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century, there is a section in his Antiquities of the Jews (18.63-64) where he discusses Jesus, including the information that he was crucified by Pilate and then raised from the dead. Josephus also calls Jesus the Messiah. Writing in the third century, Origen - - who, despite his later problems with the orthodox church, is universally considered a conscientious historian of the church - is clear that there is no mention of Jesus in Josephus. It is not until the fourth century that Bishop Eusebius appears with the new version of Josephus's writings. The scholars we surveyed agreed that this section is a forgery, and they tend to date it to some point in time between Origen and Eusebius, or even to Eusebius himself." (Joyce Higginbotham, River Higginbotham - ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path - Llewellyn Worldwide, 2009 - Page 82).

Moreover, there were various other forgeries in Josephus' works & manuscripts (Dr. R. W. Bernard, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Life of the Ancient Essenes - Health Research Books, 1990 - Page 10). So, we could hardly deem this as authentic evidence for the alleged crucifixion.

As for Tacitus:


"Kuhn notes that the writings of the other three historians mentioned - Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius - are also considered to be forgeries by nearly all scholars, Protestant and Catholic alike. He says, "It is so rare a thing to find unanimous consensus of opinion on such matters among scholars that their practically complete agreement in this case enables the layman to accept the academic verdict with assurance." (Kuhn, Who Is The King of Glory? - cited in: Joyce Higginbotham, River Higginbotham - ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path - Llewellyn Worldwide, 2009 - Page 82).


Commenting on Tacitus:


"But his introduction at so late a date would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable." (Hilton Hotema - Secret of Regeneration - Health Research Books, 1998 - Page 100).


"Tacitus (about AD 115) describes Nero's attacks on Christians in Rome. He explains who these 'Christians' are by mentioning that in Judea 'the originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilate.' That is all, and Tacitus is only repeating what Christians in his day were saying about their origins." (Dr Richard Baukham, Rev, Dr R. T. France, Melba Maggay, Dr James Stamodis, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede (Consulting Editors), Jesus 2000: A major investigation into history's most intriguing figure, 1989, Lion Publishing plc, pp. 10-11, cited here)


More on the imauthenticity of Josephus here and on Tacitus here. Agreeing for sake of argument that Tacitus' works were not forgeries, Tacitus (55-120 CE) being a 1st century historian, he could have been influenced by Christians into believing what they wanted him to believe. We don't know where he got his information from and we can never know, so cannot be used as strong evidence.

To say that the crucifixion is a fact of history because the New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus said so is a joke, which we can't take seriously.

He said:
"The law/Torah requires that a matter be established by two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). Therefore, the testimonies of Jesus, Old Testament prophets, Jesus' followers, non-Christian historians, etc. is true, legal and believable compared to the testimony of Muhammad (or the Qur'an), which was written nearly six hundred years after the event. To put it simply, the Law of Moses makes it unlawful to believe the Qur'an."

Reply:
He is assuming the sources are reliable to begin with. He cannot objectively answer as to why they are supposedly "true, legal and believable." If he argues it is early, then the response is: something that is early doesn't make it reliable or true. You can have early falsehood. Also, the context of Deuteronomy 17 is when someone is alleged to have done an evil deed. It doesn't say that any matter can be decided by 2 or 3 witnesses. The Christian is being inconsistent by relying on the Old Testament as law, yet Paul claimed the law was abrogated (Romans 10:4, Ephesians 2:14-15).

The word "Deuteronomy" basically means "law".


"The title Deuteronomy, derived from Greek, thus means a "copy," or a "repetition," of the law rather than "second law," as the word's etymology seems to suggest." (Judaism - Britannica Educational Publishing - The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011 - Page 129).


The Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) are accepted as the "law" by Jews, which Paul abrogated. Yet, the Christian is being inconsistent by quoting from what Paul abrogated. Moreover, who said that the law of Moses should be used as an objective criteria to establish a matter?



He said:
"Here is another reason why it is unlawful to believe the Qur'an. Muhammad's claim that the angel Gabriel spoke to him is an HISTORICAL CLAIM. What historical evidence is there that the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? Is there eyewitness testimony, or is Muhammad the only witness to his claim that Gabriel spoke to him?"


Reply:
The claim is historical, but the event is theological. As stated above: history is not the only criterion to discover truth. The Christian should therefore not limit us only to history. Also, his own Christian historians will say that a miracle that already occurred (that an angel spoke to Muhammad) is the least probable occurrence, so historians cannot prove this. If this Christian accepts that miracles that already occurred can be historically proven (or evidences can be put forth), one such evidence is that the Prophet Muhammad was known to be very honest and sincere before his Prophethood and afterwards.

"He was good, so very good that he soon earned among his youthful companions the title of' "Al-Amin" which means in Arabic "the truthful, the sincere, the trustworthy", and he was worthy of this epithet which clung to him all his life, for Muhammad would never tell a lie. Even in very adverse circumstances, he would never speak anything but the truth." (Tahia Al-Ismail - The Life Of Muhammad: His Life Based On The Earliest Sources - Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1988, 1 Wynne Road, London, SW9 0BD - Page 16).


"They all knew him well, they all knew how truthful and sincere he was. So Muhammad used this knowledge they had of his character (he had lived among them for forty years) to convince them of the truth of his mission." (Ibid - Page 39).

"Quraysh did not know what to do about Muhammad and his followers. They were increasing in strength and number every day and they were willing to bear persecution and injury for the sake of their religion. They did not object to Muhammad as an individual, on the contrary, they trusted him beyond all others and when traveling they would leave their valuables and precious things with none but him." (Ibid - Page 52).

"Quraysh would not believe Muhammad, but, curiously, they would trust no one else with their valuable possessions." (Ibid - Page 79).

So, it's hard to believe that such a sincere person wouldn't knowingly lie that an angel spoke to him. Christians will argue back by saying the devil came to him and it appeared to him that it was an angel. If this was the case, that means whoever revealed the Quran to Muhammad must not be satan, as Quran speaks against satan (see here) and according to Matthew 12:24-26 and Mark 3:22-26, this cannot happen (satan cannot oppose himself). So, the Christians might say Muhammad was crazy, but will fail to prove this.

Also, we can say the same thing to the missionary by asking: "What historical evidence is there that the Jesus spoke to Paul in the vision (as in Acts 9)?" Only Paul allegedly saw such a vision, but no-one else did. Unlike Prophet Muhammad, Paul's credibility to be an "apostle of Jesus" was not established. Before seeing his "vision", Paul was a bounty hunter, that used to kill and torture Christians. Paul admitted this himself in Acts 9:1, Acts 22:4 and Acts 26:10. In contrast, the Prophet was not known to do this before and after claiming Prophethood. If the Christian objects that an Angel did not visit the Prophet Muhammad because we don't have enough historical evidences and independent sources, he must also reject that Jesus spoke to Paul is his "vision".

As stated above, we believe the Quran is the word of God and have evidence that it is, which is enough for us Muslims as evidence the event never occurred.



He said:
"Unlike Moses and Jesus, Muhammad was the only witness to what he claimed concerning the angel Gabriel. This means that believing Muhammad's claim is a violation of God's Law and is especially sinful because he contradicted the previously validated and lawful testimony of Moses and Jesus."



Reply:
Muhammad was the only one who made this claim about the Angel, but he was not the only one to have made the same type of claim. By that, I mean a supernatural claim. Paul made a claim that Jesus (whom he believed to be God) spoke to him in a vision. This is supernatural claim. Since there are no eyewitnesses to this except Paul himself, according to the Christian, this is a violation of God's law, and Paul was sinful by violating it. Moreover, to say that God (whom they claim is Jesus) was crucified is also a supernatural claim. So, the Christian not only has to merely prove Jesus was crucified, but he has to prove God was. Again, his own Bible abrogates the Old Testament, so for him to say Muhammad's claim violates the law is irrational.



He said:
"I have read that the Qur'an requires four witnesses when a woman is accused of adultery (Al-Maeda 4:15; Al-Noor 24:4; cf. 2:282). Of course, adultery is a serious charge and witnesses should be required. And yet, Muhammad's claim that the Christian Scriptures are adulterated is an even more serious claim. What testimony/witnesses did Muhammad give to support his allegation that the Christian Scriptures are adulterated?

Muhammad lacks witnesses that the angel Gabriel spoke to him. Muhammad lacks witnesses that the words he spoke are more authoritative than the Christian Scriptures. Muhammad did not and could not produce superior testimony to the historical fact of Jesus' death on the cross and neither can you."



Reply:
Correction. Surah 2:282 speaks nothing about a need for four witnesses when a woman is accused of adultery. The testimony Muhammad had was Allah who revealed the Quran. The Christian cannot limit us only to historical witnesses, because he has no objective reason to do so. Doing such a thing would mean that Paul's vision lacks historical evidence, and should not be accepted by his own historians. Again, the Christian ASSUMES that the "testimony" he uses to support the crucifixion claim is reliable to begin with.


After quoting Surah 4:157...
:

He said:
"From an historical point of view this claim is untrue. This claim was made hundreds of years after the event and has no historical support from the 1st century; none of Jesus' followers wrote or testified that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross. The Qur'an does not explain who died on the cross, it does not explain whether the disciples of Jesus were deceived, and does not explain why Allah has allowed the world to be deceived (or did Allah deceive the world?) about this for hundreds of years."


Reply:
As stated above: history is not the only criterion to discover truth. If the Christian wants to limit us only to historical evidences, the resurrection is historically false, because this is a supernatural claim (which his own historians will say). Also, his own historians will also reject the concept that it can be historically proven that it was God that was crucified, because this too is a supernatural claim. Christian historians who believe this argue on theological grounds, not historical ones. Also, which is more historically probable? That Jesus did not die on the cross, or that Jesus rose from the dead? The second is a supernatural claim, whilst the first is not, so his own historians will reject the resurrection (unless they argue on theological grounds).

Also, who said the Quran should say who died on the cross or whether or not the disciples of Jesus were deceived? Just because the Christian might not like it, doesn't prove anything. Also, just because there is no evidence that Islam doesn teaches this, this is not evidence that Islam is against it. Also, to claim that Allah deceived the world is an assumption that Allah was directly involved in ensuring Jesus was not crucified, but someone else was. The Quran does not say "Allah made it appear that Jesus was crucified", it says "it was made appeared to them." So, a supernatural event occurring in order for him to be saved isn't necessary, and there is no narration from the Prophet regarding a supernatural event saving Jesus. Christians might argue back by saying that if no supernatural event saved Jesus from crucifixion, Allah still did not stop people from believing the crucifixion. This is a weak argument, because why should Allah stop them? Allah gave us free will to choose to believe or not. Also, this argument can also be used against Christians, by saying: "Why did your God allow Muhammad to preach Islam, if he was a false Prophet?"

Even if Islam authentically teaches Allah was directly involved in ensuring Jesus was not crucified, but someone else was (i.e. if the narrations here were authentic or acceptable by hadith scholars), it doesn't mean it was Allah's purpose to deceive. Even if it was, for Allah to deceive those who were after Jesus' blood is seen as morally right, not wrong (in Islam). If the Christian still take objection to this, then he is being inconsistent, as his own Bible says:


Mark 13:22:
"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect - if that were possible."

If the Christian claims that Allah being directly involved in ensuring Jesus was not crucified is deception, that means the Biblical God is a deceiver, because the Biblical God (supposedly Jesus) claimed false prophets will come and do MIRACLES. How can anyone do miracles, except by God's permission? Even false prophets will have the ability to deceive, because God will be directly involved in ensuring the miracles will happen to deceive others (according to the Bible).

Also, I see no objective reason why Allah shouldn't have informed the disciples that Jesus was really not crucified. It would have been enough for them to believe Jesus was Prophet of God, and that he (supposedly) died a martyr.



He said:
"It is Muslims who conjecture; Muslims who have no certain knowledge; Muslims who are full of doubts about what actually happened during the crucifixion. All Christians (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) agree that Jesus died on the cross. To be sure, Christians don't agree about everything. There's a lot we disagree about. But one thing Christians all agree about is the death of Jesus on the cross."


Reply:
The Christian is using a false analogy. He is comparing the details as to how Jesus (according to the differences of opinions Muslims gave) was not crucified with the claim that all believed Christians Jesus was crucified. We can use a similar but more valid reasoning against the Bible by saying:

"It is the Christians who are in conjecture, because of the many contradictions in the crucifixion story and the fact that Acts 5:29-32, Acts 10:39, Acts 13:29, 1 Peter 2:24 and Galatians 3:13 state Jesus was killed on a tree (the Jewish method), whereas all Muslim scholars agree that Jesus was not crucified."

This would be more valid than the Christian's argument, because unlike Islam, Christianity's source of disagreement (regarding crucifixion details) come straight from the Bible. In contrast, differences of opinion from Muslims on how Jesus was not crucified come from scholars and narrations from early Muslims (who used to narrate Israilyat narrations). Christians have argued that the tree is referring to the cross, so the verses saying he was killed on a tree refer to the cross. However, Paul cites from the book of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13, indicating the author intended to refer to the Jewish law. The Jewish law is not putting the person on a cross. They stone you then drag your body on a living tree or pole. Also, the Greek word for "tree" in these verses is: "xylon" which can mean a tree. (Rodney J. Decker - Koine Greek Reader: Selections From The New Testament, Septuagint, And Early Christian Writers - Kregel Academic, 2007 - Page 126 & Michael Burer, Jeffery E. Miller - A New Reader's Lexicon of the Greek New Testament - Kregel Academic, 2008 - Page 504). If Christians still want to insist the word means cross, that means Paul mispresented the Jewish law of capital offense by implying that the cross (crucifixion) was the penalty.


Also, his own Bible in Matthew 12:38-40 disproves that Jesus was crucified, because Jesus was not like Jonah in the heart of the earth. Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale, while Jesus was dead in the tomb (according to Christians & the Bible). Christians will give speculative replies to this, but will ignore the crystal clear reading of the texts.



He said:
"Even non-Christian historians are in overwhelming agreement about the historicity of Jesus' death on the cross."


Reply:
The reason for that is because they can only go on what history alleged to have said. They already agree that Jesus living over 2000 years ago must be dead (since they presuppose in naturalism), so the only death that seems more plausible to them is crucifixion. We Muslims are not limited to history to know truth, and we are certainly not limited to western historical methodologies (which does not hold a handle compared with the sciences of hadith). The same non-Christian historians will reject the claims that:

> That God (supposedly Jesus) was crucified.
> That God rose from the dead.

They will reject these concepts, because they presuppose naturalism, not supernaturalism. Similarly, this is the same reason why they will reject the claim that Jesus is still alive (not crucified). So, Christians should be consistent here if they want to cite non-Christian historians.



He said:
"An honest look at the facts leads to the conclusion that the Christian Scriptures are superior to the Qur'an because of the superior evidence available demonstrating the death of Jesus on the cross."



Reply:
Who said that to discover which scripture is superior than others, there should be more evidence available demonstrating the death of Jesus on the cross? It is possible that can be more evidence that something occurred as compared to that if it didn't occur, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it did occur. Also, we don't consider the "evidences" Christians put forward to be strong or superior than the evidences given that the Quran is the word of God, as stated above.



He said:
"Jesus said, "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins" (John 8:24). Believe in Jesus, and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you can have certainty that you will inherit eternal life."


Reply:
The Christian has contradicted himself. He first pasted a verse saying that the Biblical Jesus said that one who doesn't believe that he (Jesus) is who he claimed to be would die in their sin. The Christian then stated that believing in Jesus would mean your sins would be forgiven. However, the verse he just cited said that disbelieving in Jesus would mean one would die in their sin. So, has the sin of disbelieving in Jesus already been paid for, or not? If the Christian says "yes it has" that contradicts the Biblical Jesus' claim that one who disbelieves in him would die in their sin.

Related Readings:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/whose_religion_teaches_an_incompetent_messiah__group_of_disciples_and_god__a_response_to_nabeel_qureshi
http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/question-the-believes-of-the-disciples-and-the-ressurection-of-jesus/
http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/a-response-to-dr-craig-on-youtube/