Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, thank you very much for attending the second debate of the day. I just recited a verse from the Qur 'an, chapter 15, verse 9. God Almighty tells us in the Qur 'an that we have revealed the scripture, the remembrance, and we will guard it against corruption.
We will guard it against corruption. This was a promise made in the Qur 'an by God Almighty to a people who were absolutely unlettered. There was no Arabic script at the time or no standardized script at the time when the Qur 'an was revealed.
In fact, the Qur 'an was the source of the Arabic script which was later on developed by the companions of Prophet Muhammad in order to pen down the Qur 'an. So, what is the Qur 'an? I would like to define the Qur 'an before I begin.
Just like I tried to define the New Testament, what is the New Testament? Who wrote it? What constitutes the New Testament? Now likewise, I would like to define what constitutes the Qur 'an. And this quote is taken from one of the classical authorities we have, Al-Darqani.
He stated, The Qur 'an is the Arabic speech of Allah, which He revealed to Muhammad in wording and meaning, and which has been preserved in the Mus 'hafs, and has reached us by mutawatir transmission, continuous transmission, uninterrupted transmission, and is a challenge to mankind to produce something similar to it.
This is the Qur 'an. So, in other words, the Qur 'an is the word of God delivered by Muhammad ï·º to his companions, who then delivered it to their companions, and this text of the Qur 'an and its recitation reaches us via a continuous reporting to this day.
We have people alive to this day who can trace back their chain directly to the Prophet. So if someone memorized the Qur 'an, and are there any memorizers of the Qur 'an here? Put your hand up.
Allahu Akbar.
How many? I have about six, seven here in this audience. These people, when they memorize the Qur 'an, they take this authority from their teacher, who taught them how to recite the Qur 'an, not only to read it, but how to recite it.
And then that teacher took this authority from his teacher, and the chain goes back to the Prophet uninterrupted. No people missing from the chain, not even one individual, and every single individual is known by name, by tribe, by character, by age, and by color and tribe.
Every single individual is known, unlike what we saw in the case of the New Testament. We don't actually know who the author were. There are speculations about them. That's not the case with the Qur 'an.
So I'm applying the same criteria here. We know who are the people who transmitted the Qur 'an from the Prophet. So this is what the Qur 'an is. So anything other than this, transmitted by the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is not the Qur 'an.
One may come along and say, I have this revelation, or I have this verse and that verse, and this.
Is the Qur 'an.
We will scrutinize that particular verse in the light of this definition. So the Qur 'an we have today, which we read today, comes directly from Uthman, the son-in-law of the Prophet, one of the earliest Muslims, who took the entire Qur 'an in person from the Prophet himself.
This is the authority of the Qur 'an and our book, unlike the New Testament. We don't have such transmission and such authority from the New Testament. We don't know when they wrote, where they wrote, why they wrote, and who they gave their books to.
The Qur 'an is a different story altogether. We have chains going back directly to Uthman. In manuscript and in oral transmission. And then Uthman narrates from his teacher, the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, peace.
Be upon him.
So anything other than the Uthmanic recension, which was conducted by a committee of scholars and companions of Prophet Muhammad, all of these people who were part of this committee, they were direct companions of Prophet Muhammad, and we know exactly who they are.
We know their names and their character, what they did and how they lived. We know who they are. And they collectively, unanimously, standardised the text of the Qur 'an which we read today and this standardisation comes from the Prophet himself.
Even the order of the surahs and the verses, the verses and chapters, comes from directly the Prophet, peace be upon him. So how did the revelation of the Qur 'an begin? Prophet Muhammad, as we know the story, was in the cave of Hira contemplating about the reality of his life and as to why he was created.
And then the angel, Jibreel, appears to him and tells him, read in the name of your Lord. Read the one who created you from a clot. Read in the name of the one who taught you to use a pen. Read in the name of the one who taught you how to speak.
And these verses were given to him. He was in a state of trauma and shock. He didn't understand what this means. He runs to his wife, he asks her to cover him and then she takes him to a man of scripture in the city of Mecca.
When he hears the story, Waraka bin Nawfal, a man close to his death, he tells Muhammad, This is the same angel who came to Moses. Same angel who came to you, came to Moses. Same angel. And when Jibreel, angel Gabriel, told Muhammad to recite, to read, to proclaim, the Arabic term is Iqra, read, and he said, I cannot read.
I am not learned. And the book of Isaiah, chapter 29, verse 12, actually prophesies this. It is clearly stated therein, when the book is given to the one who is not learned, and it is said to him, read, I pray thee, he will say, I am not learned.
I am not learned. This is exactly what happened in the cave of Hira. And the book, the revelation started coming down. It came down and teachings were being brought to the Prophet of Islam and he was teaching then his companions who would then pen this revelation down.
In the city of Mecca, these revelations were written down. Umar bin Khattab was on his way to kill the Prophet, one of the companions of the Prophet later on, who embraced Islam. This man was about to kill the Prophet.
He was told to go to his sister's house, who was a Muslim, and he went there in the city of Mecca in the year 5 Nabawi, when the Prophet had already been preaching for five years. He goes to his sister's house and he finds her reading a parchment of the Qur 'an.
It was written in Mecca. Okay, then we have other narrations and they can be found in this book, the Qur 'anic text, written by Al-Azami and it is one of the most authoritative sources I would refer you to read in order to understand how the Qur 'an was transmitted.
Then the Prophet moves on to Medina. And I don't want to go into the history of Islam, why he moved to Medina, that's not relevant to the debate here. How was the revelation penned down? How was it put down?
This is the question which I wish to address. Firstly, the revelation, when it started coming on the Prophet, peace be upon him, Jibreel came with one mode, one dialect, the Qurayshi dialect, brought the Qur 'an in Arabic language.
Then the Prophet told him that my people are illiterate. The Arabs are a very rigid people. They will not recite the dialect of the Quraysh. They won't accept it because they have tribalistic antagonism among them and they will find it difficult to recite in the dialect of the Quraysh and how many tribes were there in Arabia at the time, major tribes, Quraysh, Khudail, Taqif, Hawazin, Kinana, Tamim and Yemeni tribes.
All of these tribes had different expressions and different modes of speaking in Arabic.
Language.
They spoke the same language just like the Americans and the Irish and the Scottish speak the same language but it sounds different. They have certain words different to the other accents. So this is exactly what was the case in Arabia at the time.
So when Jibreel came with one mode, one dialect, the Prophet of Islam told him my people won't be able to recite this in one dialect. They were rejected because of the Qurayshi dialect. And then Jibreel gave two dialects, two modes.
He said even this is not enough. Eventually Jibreel came with seven dialects and he allowed, in fact he revealed the Qur 'an in these seven different modes to the Prophet and the Prophet taught his companions in these seven different modes and they were reciting the Qur 'an in these seven different modes.
So one of the incidents narrated by Imam Bukhari in book 61, hadith number 514. This incident states that Umar bin Khattab, he saw a man called Hisham bin Hakim, a Muslim, reciting the Qur 'an, the same chapter which was taught to him by the Prophet in a different manner.
So he took him, he held him and he took him to the Prophet and he said, Ya Rasulullah, O Prophet of God, he's reciting the surah Furqan, chapter Furqan, differently than you, the way you have taught me.
And the Prophet asked him to recite and he recited and he said I have taught him the way he's reciting. And then he told them that the Qur 'an has come down in seven different modes, for you the Arabs to have easy access to the book of Allah.
So that you can easily recite it in your own dialects, in your own expression. So this flexibility was allowed by God to recite the Qur 'an in seven different modes. And this is how the Qur 'an was being penned down by the scribes of the Prophet in respective areas.
So who were the scribes of the Prophet? Who were these people who were writing the revelation from the Messenger of Allah? Who were these people? We know every single of these people who wrote the Qur 'an directly from the Prophet, when he would receive a revelation.
Do we have anything like this from the New Testament?
None.
Never. Doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. We don't even know who the authors were. Here we have a revelation coming down to the Prophet and he himself dictating to his companions as to what should be written as the word of Allah.
And he in fact forbade them to write anything other than the Qur 'an. He told them, do not write my words. Write only the Qur 'an. Write only the Qur 'an, lest you may mix the Qur 'an with my words. And who were the scribes of the Prophet in Medina?
Scholars mention 60 different names and some of them are Abu Hudaifah, Abu Sufyan, Abu Salama, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Abbas, Ubaid bin Ka 'b, Arkham, Usaid bin Hudair, Aus, Bureidah, Bashir, Thabit bin Qais, Jafar bin Abi Thabit, Jam bin Sa 'ad, Juhaym, Hatib, Hudaifah, Hussain, Hanzala, Hawaitab, Khalid bin Saeed, Khalid bin Walid, Zubair bin Awwam, Zubair bin Arkham, and the list goes on.
On page 68 of this book, the Qur 'anic text by Muhammad Mustafa al-Adami, you will find some of the names of the scribes of the Prophet who were writing this directly from the Prophet himself. And all of this was collected within the life of the Prophet in written form.
So what happened when the Prophet, peace be upon him, passed away? What happened? Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, comes to power. The first caliph of Islam comes to power and he was told by Umar that now we should put the Qur 'an in one codex, in one collection, because the revelation has ceased to come.
It doesn't come anymore. The Prophet is dead, he has passed away, and now we should put the Qur 'an in one codex. So Abu Bakr said, I shouldn't do it because the Prophet didn't do it. Umar convinced him that we have to collect the Qur 'an because the revelation has ceased to come down.
So Zaid bin Thabit, one of the young companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was chosen for this task because he himself personally revised the Qur 'an in its entirety with the Prophet in his final year.
So he was the best person for the task. Some verses were abrogated which were not to be included. Others were to be included but they were still abrogated. So the decision was made by the people who were directly learning from the Prophet himself.
Prophet taught them as to what the Qur 'an is and what is to go in and what is to go out. Some verses were abrogated and they were left out. So this concept of abrogation exists in the Bible, it's there, and I doubted that Dr James White will ever bring this up as an argument, the issue of abrogation.
So the Qur 'an was taught by the Prophet to his companions, they penned it down, and then in the time of Abu Bakr, Zaid bin Thabit was told by Abu Bakr that do not accept anything from anyone when they bring the Qur 'an to you.
Now Zaid is a man who has memorized the Qur 'an in its entirety, he knows it by heart. Abu Bakr knows it by heart, Umar knows it by heart, Ali knows it by heart. And this incident happened only because a battle took place called the Battle of Yamama.
And in this battle, almost 70 of the reciters of the Qur 'an passed away. They died fighting a false prophet and they passed away. So Umar came to Abu Bakr and he told him that we should put the Qur 'an in one codex lest we may lose some of the Qur 'an because of so many people dying, so many reciters dying.
Now what did he mean by that? He didn't mean that we may lose the contents of the Qur 'an written down because the Qur 'an was already written down in its entirety. He was talking about oral transmission, oral authority taken from the Prophet as to how to recite the text, not the written text.
The written text was there in its entirety. He was talking about losing authorities. 70 men died in this battle who took the Qur 'an directly from the Prophet as to how to recite it. So we will lose this authority.
Put the Qur 'an down and increase the number of these authorities so that people can read the Qur 'an. And the Qur 'an now was penned down. And who were these people? Now James White has been claiming in some of his talks and presentations that this was a big problem.
70 people died, the Qur 'an was lost, okay. But we have clear-cut references in our histories that there were people alive even after this battle who knew the Qur 'an in its entirety by heart. For example, people like Abu Ayyub, Abu Bakr, As-Siddiq, Abu Darda, Abu Zaid, Abu Musa al-Ashari, Abu Huraira, Ubaid bin Ka 'b, Umm Salama, Tamim al-Dari, Hudayfa, Hafsa, Zaid bin Thabit, Salim, client of Hudayfa, Sa 'ad bin Ubadah, Sa 'ad bin Ubaid al-Qari, Sa 'ad bin Mundir, and the list goes on again.
All these people were alive after the battle of Yamama, and they had memorized the Qur 'an in its entirety. So the Qur 'an was penned down in that way. From the memories, from written parchments, from bones and the skin of trees, and Zaid bin Thabit was specifically commanded by Abu Bakr not to accept anything other than a parchment which was written in the presence of the Prophet himself, accompanying two witnesses, Allahu Akbar.
This is a man who had memorized the Qur 'an himself, and he was telling a man who had also memorized the Qur 'an himself in its entirety, but he's telling him for our conviction so that we today can be certain about as to what we find in the codex or in the text of the Qur 'an.
He said don't accept anything from anyone unless it accompanies two witnesses who saw this very parchment written in the presence of the Prophet of Islam, and that's how Zaid bin Thabit put the Qur 'an.
But those different readings, I don't like to use the word variants because what is a variant reading? What is the definition of variant? Variant is something which is uncontrolled, which was unintentional, or an intentional change.
That is what a variant reading is, and that's what it constitutes. But something controlled, deliberately put, deliberately disseminated, cannot be regarded as variant because that's what it is. If I write the book, one book, and I give it to someone, and then I write another book with differently worded sentences, then that cannot be regarded as variant because I am the one who is behind the book.
I have controlled it. So the Qur 'an came down in these seven dialects, and some of these dialects differed in wording. Synonyms were used by different tribes to express certain words in different ways, and these synonyms were accommodated in the copy of Abu Bakr.
But in the time of Uthman, almost 10 years later, a battle was taking place in a place called Azerbaijan, and there some people were reciting the Qur 'an different to each other, and now these are all new Muslim converts, converts to Islam.
The Arabs knew exactly how to differentiate between one tribal dialect from another. They knew exactly how to do it. But these new converts, this is a problem now. They don't know how the dialects work, and they're all claiming that my reading is the perfect one.
So he comes to Uthman, Khudaifa bin Yaman from the battlefield, he comes straight to Uthman, he tells him now is the time to standardize the text of the Qur 'an, to put it in one dialect. And the Prophet had told Umar and Hisham, when they went to him talking about the dialect, Prophet told him recite whichever is easy for you.
It's in Bukhari. Whichever one is easy for you, recite it, because the reason why God revealed the Qur 'an in seven different modes, is to facilitate ease for you. So you can recite it easily. You don't have to stick to one tribal dialect.
So now this injunction was there from the Prophet, and who is Uthman? What authority does he have? Who is he to standardize the Qur 'an without the prophetic injunction? In fact, we have a direct prophetic injunction in this regard.
The Qur 'an tells us about the Prophet, Messenger of Allah ï·º, Muhammad does not speak from himself, rather he speaks from revelation. And he told us, Upon you is my way and the way of my successors, and my rightly guided successors.
And then in another report, it tells them my rightly guided successors will govern for 30 years. Uthman is one of them. So Uthman had a direct authority from the Prophet to do what he did, and he did it via consensus.
He got all the companions together, and he said to them, this is the situation we have, people are still reciting those dialects. And now is the time, we the authorities who took the Qur 'an directly from the Prophet, we know exactly what the Qur 'an is and what dialect it came down, and we can differentiate, we need to now standardize the text and put it in one dialect.
And he established a committee headed by Zayd bin Thabit again, the same man who Abu Bakr chose earlier, and he told them, put the Qur 'an in one dialect, the Qurayshi dialect. One dialect. And if you differ with Zayd, because Zayd was not Qurayshi, but he had memorized the Qur 'an in the Qurayshi dialect directly from the Prophet.
He said, if you differ with Zayd, he told the rest of the committee members who were Qurayshis, put it down in the Qurayshi dialect. And this is exactly what was done. It was controlled, it was strictly controlled, 100 controlled by the highest authorities possible in Islam.
People who took the Qur 'an directly from the Prophet. Where is the comparison? Where is the comparison? That's the question. Where is the comparison between the Qur 'an and the New Testament? The New Testament, the oldest manuscripts are from when?
200 years later, most of them. And then we don't even know the authors. And the canonicity debate, it wasn't even established to be the scripture or the word of God. Up to the year 200, people still don't know what the New Testament is or what it looks like.
It did not exist. The New Testament up to the year 200 or even later did not exist. It was canonized in its current form in the 4th century. And the earliest or the latest testimony to this canonization we have is the letter of Athanasius, and James is aware of that.
So now, what about this Qur 'an? Now this parchment is from the time of Uthman. James kept claiming that we have nothing from that time. We have thousands, listen carefully ladies and gentlemen, we have thousands of Qur 'anic parchments written, similar to this one, from the 1st century.
I am a coin collector, I am a numismatician, as mentioned by my friend in the beginning. I have coins in my possession from the 1st century of Islam, hundreds of them with the Qur 'an on them. With the Qur 'an on them.
Entire chapters are there on the coins. Small chapters, but they are there. And we have thousands of parchments. Some of them were found in Sana 'a, in Yemen, and this is one of them. Now interesting thing about this one is that this has been dated, carbon dated, to somewhere between the mid 1st century, up to the time of Uthman, with 99 precision.
99 probability it has been carbon dated. And paleographers, people who study these manuscripts in the writing styles, they have also confirmed this, that this is a very very early parchment, in fact from the time of the companions.
The last companion was, in fact, Anas bin Malik, one of the companions of the Prophet, who took directly from the Prophet the Qur 'an, he died in the year 94. He was a young man when this parchment was written.
Companions in their thousands were alive when these parchments were written, and we have hundreds and thousands of them. Not hundreds and thousands, hundred thousands, hundreds and thousands of them. We have them, in different libraries in the world.
Now this one reads from Surah Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 265. Is there a Hafiz there? Very quickly, I'm running out of time. Any Hafiz? Surah Baqarah, come forward brother,.
Come forward.
Do you have a Musaf with you? Come, come, quickly, come. Can you recite Surah Baqarah from verse 265 onwards? Surah Baqarah 265, do you have a Musaf of the Qur 'an? Okay. Yeah, it's there, 265. If you read from 265 on, this is a parchment from the time of Uthman, and it was written then. 265, in Arabic.
Sorry, one second, I will. 265, can you read the verse 265 on? And please follow me, this is what I'm reading, and this is what I'm going to be following, and this is what this brother is going to be reading.
There is not a difference of a word, there is not a difference of a word, let alone a sentence. 265, yeah.
Surah Baqarah, 265.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, yes.
Sorry about this.
Can I quickly make this point, and James can have some extra time? This was a few sentences read from Surah Baqarah, from this parchment from the mid-first century, when Uthman himself was alive. There is not even a difference of a letter, let alone words and verses.
There may be differences in other manuscripts. Thank you very much. I have to now finish, and I will continue in my rebuttal with the rest of my presentation. Thank you very much indeed.
All right.
Well, thank you very much, Adnan, for that presentation. It is going to be interesting because I have the Su 'ana manuscripts in my presentation as well, and I'll be wondering if there's any loud Takbirs at the end when you discover that the actual original writings of Su 'ana are different than what you have now.
That'll be interesting to look at. Now, the key to this second debate is to apply the same standards here that we should have been using in the examining of the New Testament. Was the transmission of the Qur 'an a free transmission or a controlled transmission?
I think we have already actually come to the conclusion on that. We recognize that it is a controlled transmission. Now, a quote for you from Mazzar Qazi.
He says,.
Muslims and non-Muslims both agree that no change has ever occurred in the text of the Qur 'an. The above prophecy for the eternal preservation and purity of the Qur 'an came true, not only for the text of the Qur 'an, but also for the most minute details of its punctuation marks as well.
It is a miracle of the Qur 'an that no change has occurred in a single word, a single letter of the alphabet, a single punctuation mark, or a single diacritical mark in the text of the Qur 'an during the last 14 centuries.
That's the claim that I think a lot of Muslims here tonight believe. But at this point, there is truly no question as scholarly sources, Islamic and non-Islamic, both attest to the exact same story. And there's a massive difference between what Islamic scholars say and what many Muslims believe on this particular matter.
For example, in 2007, there was a publication, the top copy manuscript. I have a copy of this publication. And here you have one of the charts is produced. There are three pages of these charts showing the variant readings between major manuscripts of the Qur 'an.
This is an Islamic produce. This is from Muslim scholars in Turkey showing the variations in these Mus 'haf in regards to the text of Qur 'an. I didn't produce this. They did. And there's three pages of them.
You can look at that for yourself. But I need to show these to you. I want to get to the real issue, which is the means of transmission. But the fact that there are textual variants has to be recognized.
Because what you just did, I could put P66 up on the screen. Maybe I'll do this in my rebuttal period. I could put P66 up on a screen and read it to you in Greek, and it'll be exactly what's up there too.
That doesn't prove much. The question is, is what's in that manuscript what was originally written by the author? That's the issue we need to be dealing with tonight, not anything else. Okay, so let's try to keep the emotions to themselves.
Look at Surah 3, 158. Here's a variant that's found in Surah 3, 158. Let's sort of blow it up here so you can see it. Here's a text under consideration, which speaks of Allah surely gathering those who die to himself.
Here is the same text from Quranic manuscript 328, which is found in the National Library of France in Paris. It is dated to around 100 years after Hijra. But as reading Hijazi text is hard even for those who read modern Arabic, let's expand the text out a little bit so you can see it.
Now, what you can see is that the Paris manuscript has an extra aleph, not found in the modern printed Quranic text. But in this case, that extra aleph completely changes the meaning. In the ancient text, it says those who die will not be gathered to Allah, while the modern 1924 printed text, which I would imagine most Muslims in the audience have, says that they will surely be gathered to Allah.
Now, please make sure you understand why I point this out. I'm not saying we can't figure out the original wording, but I am pointing out how important it is to have a full, unedited, widely dispersed manuscript tradition with which to make such determinations.
That is very, very important. Likewise, Surah 2, 222. You were just looking at Surah 2, 265. All right, Surah 2, 222. Let's look at it in the Fogg's Palimpsest manuscript and also bring in the Sa 'ana manuscripts as well.
Surah 2, 222 provides another example, this time based upon Fogg's Palimpsest manuscript. A palimpsest is a manuscript where the original writing has been washed off in another version or completely different work written on the washed leather.
Using ultraviolet light, we can often read the original writing. When we read the original text in the Fogg's manuscript of Surah 2, 222, which I have here on the top, and compare the current edition, we see not just variation, we see wholesale editing.
Words are changed. The word order is changed. Verbal forms are altered. Grammatical terminations are changed, et cetera. This is clear evidence of the continued attempt, at least a century after Uthman, of reading the Quran of the readings of Ibn Masud.
But even more vital is the fact that a palimpsest portion of the Sa 'ana manuscripts, which have been radiocarbon dated, as Adnan was pointing out, to have a better than 50 chance of being pre-Uthmanic in date, contain a third reading of this text, which is different from both the Fogg's and the Uthmanic readings.
Now, this is evidence of text types, just as we will see both Bukhari and Al-Kindi record for us as we look through their texts. So here we have evidence in the palimpsest of preceding text types, even before the Uthmanic texts that exist, that you were just reading and saying, see, nothing has changed.
Well, how did that text get on there before there that was different? There was a redaction. There was an editing. And I wanna know what was originally given, not what somebody else thought should have been given.
And that's why the free transmission of the text is so superior to any controlled transmission of the text. Now, let's look at what Sahih al-Bukhari says about where the Quran came from. This is the earliest sources we have, many of the sources.
Many of the sources, you have to have two manuscripts, and they had to be done. Those are later traditions. Oh, you can talk all about Isnad chains you want. Every single Hadith that Bukhari and Imam rejected had an Isnad chain.
There were thousands of them. No one that I know of, and nobody that Adnan quotes in regards to history that he was using against the New Testament would ever accept the idea of Isnad chains as the standard of historical research.
They would never accept it. Again, we need to use the same standards. Now, you know the text, Sahih al-Bukhari 6, 509 and 510. Nuraid Zaid bin Thabit, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed.
That is a number of the prophet's companions who fought against Musalima. Abu Bakr then said to me, Umar has come to me and said, casualties were heavy among the Qur 'an of the Quran. That was those who knew the Quran by heart on the day of the battle of Yamama.
And I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qur 'an on other battlefields whereby a large part, large part of the Qur 'an may be lost. This has nothing to do with pronunciation.
How in the, why in the world would these people be afraid that a large part of the Qur 'an will be lost? And actually, well, actually we have the entire thing written down. We even actually have all the verses, all the ayahs and everything.
It's all been written down. We've got all this, but it's the pronunciation we're worried about. That is not a meaningful reading of the original. And there are many Islamic scholars that would agree with that.
That's not a meaningful reading of the original. There was a concern that the Qur 'an would be lost because the Qur 'an was not yet written down. That's why there was a concern. Therefore, I suggest you, Abu Bakr, or the Qur 'an be collected.
I said to Umar, how can you do something which Allah's apostle did not do? Umar said, by Allah, it is a good project. Umar kept on urging me to accept this proposal until Allah opened my chest for it.
And I began to realize the good in the idea which Umar had realized. Okay, so he says, I started looking for the Qur 'an and collecting it from what was written on palm stalks.
Why didn't he just go and get the original.
That was already there with all the ayahs and everything all there? No, he goes looking for the Qur 'an and collecting it from what was written on palm stalks, thin white stones, doesn't sound like it was haft to me, and also from the men who knew it by heart.
Oh, so all of it wasn't written down till I found the last verse of Surat Al-Tab, a repentance, with Abu Kazim al-Ansari and I did not find it with anybody other than him. One person knew this text, one.
What about those 70 others that died at Yamama? Did any of them know some that nobody knew? That's a question that has to be asked. It can't just be swept under the rug. It has to be asked. And we're gonna find out in the next hadith that even at this point, this is right at the days of Abu Bakr.
This is right after the death of Muhammad. 18 years later or so, 15 to 18 years later, they're gonna find another verse that they didn't find the first time around. And this is your own hadith sources.
I'm just quoting what it says. The verse that they found with one person was, verily there has come unto you an apostle Muhammad from amongst yourselves, agrees that you should receive any injury or difficulty till the end of Surat Al-Tab.
So there you have the last one bound with one person. Then the complete manuscripts, copy of the Qur 'an, remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar till the end of his life, then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar.
So there's the first collation of Abu Bakr. Next hadith. Hudaifah bin al-Yaman came to Uthman. Hudaifah was afraid of their, the people of Sham and Iraq's differences in the recitation of the Qur 'an.
Not just the pronunciation, how they're reciting it. There were differences. Why would that cause anybody a problem? Well, because they didn't have a fixed manuscript yet. And so they come traveling back and they say, Uthman, O chief of the believers, listen to what's said here.
Save this nation before they differ about the book, the Qur 'an, as the Jews and Christians did before. Oh, so we don't want to have any differences. We don't want to have any argumentation. So we need one fixed version.
There's a problem here. So we need to have one fixed version. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, send us the manuscripts of the Qur 'an so we may compile the Qur 'anic materials and perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.
So Hafsa said to Uthman. Now, let me just ask you a question. If all they did was take what was from the days of Abu Bakr and reproduce it, this shouldn't have taken much difficulty at all. There shouldn't have been any more collation.
They shouldn't be looking for new ayahs. But that's not what happens. In fact, Uthman then ordered Zayd bin Thabit, then you have the entire committee here, to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.
And why would Uthman say to the three Qurayshi men, in case you disagree with Zayd bin Thabit on any point in the Qur 'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh. The Qur 'an was revealed in their language.
Wait a minute. I thought you were just recopying what you already had. Why would you be worried about something like this? Didn't you do this back at the original collation? Sounds like something more is going on here.
And it actually indicates very clearly. 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.
That is a redaction. That is an editing. And that stops the level of certainty you can have in a transmitted text at that point, if he was in fact successful and destroyed everything that came before.
I don't think he was. But we know that he couldn't have been because Ibn Masud wouldn't give up his manuscript. That's why we have evidence of Ibn Masud's readings. But if he had been successful, that's as far as you could trace the text of the Qur 'an back.
And you just simply have to believe Uthman and his committee got it perfectly right. Was Uthman a prophet? Was Zayd bin Thabit a prophet? Were they sinners? I can understand if you said that Muhammad did this and he has inspiration.
This is coming a lot longer. And folks, if you know your history, you know that right now there is tremendous tension in the Islamic ummah between Umar and Ali that's gonna result in what? The very same tensions you have today.
You know that's what was going on back then. And don't you think that would have an impact on what Uthman does with the Qur 'an and the compilation of the Qur 'an? I think you really know that. Zayd bin Thabit added, oh, by the way, a verse from Surah Az-Zab was missed by me.
When we copied the Qur 'an, I used to hear Allah's apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and guess what? We found it with Khazami bin Thabit al-Ansari. And the verse was, among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah in Surah 33.
So that ayah had just been left out in the cold for about 18 years. And now it is put in. How many ayah were lost at the Battle of Yamama? This text raises the question. The result was that in the caliphate, now here, let me switch over.
Sorry, I skipped too quickly here. We can demonstrate that the traditions that Bukhari gives us were well-known even outside the Islamic community. One of the earliest writers against Islam as a Christian was named al-Kindi.
And around the time of 820 AD or so, he has an exchange, a written exchange with a Muslim. And the result is one of the most insightful encounters that we have. It's extremely important for us to look at this kind of information.
Here's what he writes to his Islamic friend on this subject. And notice the parallels to Bukhari. The result was that in the caliphate of Uthman, it was discovered there was no consent.
Of the true text.
One man then read one version of the Quran, his neighbor, another, and they differed. One man said to his neighbor, my text is better than yours, while his neighbor defended his own. So additions and losses came about and falsification of the text.
Uthman was told that various versions were in use, that the text was being tampered with, and that strife with all the mischief of party spirit was being engendered. They said, we do not believe that matters can continue as they are.
It is an affair of urgency. They are slaying one another. The sacred book is corrupted. A second apostasy is imminent. So there is great concern, just as Bukhari says, great concern that we don't wanna be like the Jews and the Christians.
And so this is in the time of Uthman. Now, Ubay, the son of Kab, was dead before it was made, while Ibn Masud refused to give up his copy of the Quran. Now remember, what did Muhammad say in the Hadith?
If you want to know the Quran, he pointed to four people. What was one of them? Ibn Masud. Zayd bin Thabit was not one of them. And so I can imagine, if you've ever read any of the Hadith that come from Ibn Masud, this guy, he was a man's man.
You know what I mean? I mean, this guy, he had a backbone. And I don't think he appreciated being left out of the compilation of the Quran. Because Muhammad himself had said, this guy knows the Quran.
And he was left out of it. So can you imagine if Uthman comes along? Muhammad said Uthman was the best. And Uthman comes along and says, give me your manuscript, I'm gonna destroy it. Abdullah ibn Masud says, I don't think so.
And in fact, because of that, his readings continue in the manuscript tradition.
For hundreds of years,.
Especially in the Palimpsest manuscripts. So they drove him from his post in Kufa and appointed Abu Musa as governor in his place. In fact, some historical sources say he was beaten because he would not give up his Musa.
There is differences about that particular issue. When the revision had been completed, according to the various manuscripts, four copies were made in large text, one of which was sent to Mecca, a second remained in Medina, a third was sent to Syria and is today in Malatya.
In fact, al-Kindi goes through a whole story of what happened to each one. It's amazing the type of information that he had about this particular situation. When the next Uthman gave directions, the leaves and sheets of the Quran should be gathered in from the provinces.
He ordered his agents to collect all that they could lay their hands on and destroy them till it should be certain that not a sheet remained in the possession of any private individual. That is the very definition of a controlled transmission.
That's like the government come along and saying, we now have the official version of the Bible, give us all yours. You can trust us. Sorry, I don't see Abdullah ibn Masud doing that. Their Hadith where he tells the people of Kufa, don't give up your Mus 'haf.
There were divisions, there were differences. If it was all the same Quran with no differences, why are there these divisions? Interesting question. Heavy penalties were threatened against the disobedient.
All the leaves they could secure were shredded and boiled in vinegar till they were sodden, nothing remained, not even the smallest fragment that could be deciphered. That is the Uthmanic revision. And that is a tremendous disruption in the transmission of the Quran and by the very standards that Adnan used, it makes the Quran corrupt and untrustworthy.
Now, I don't say that. I'm not making that because I don't use that kind of radical, unsubstantiatable standard. I don't know any scholar that does, but that's what we had being used from the New Testament.
And so I'm just applying the same thing, make sure that we're being fair. Then he finally says to his Muslim friend, you know what happened between Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman? How they hate each other and quarreled and corrupted the text?
How each one tried to oppose his neighbor and to refute what he had said? Pray, how are we to know which is the true text? And how shall we distinguish it from the false one? And there's the question.
Why is Ibn Masud wrong? Why are his readings? I mean, scholarly sources will tell you, for example, that in the Tafsir of Safiyan, very early on, 67 places, he mentions a difference in the Razm, the actual reading of the text and attributes them to Ibn Masud.
And this is a fairly short Tafsir. At that early period of time, they didn't have any problem talking about the fact that there were variations between Ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Qab was primarily the same as Ibn Masud's, but there's some differences there.
And now we have the Sa 'ana palimpsests, which you just had up on the screen during your presentation, which gives us another reading outside of Abdullah ibn Masud. So we have textual variation. The question is, what are you gonna do about it?
Which methodology gives us the most certainty as to the real question? Do we possess the original words of the authors we believe to have been inspired of God? Now you can sit here and say, yes, because we have Isnad chains.
And if that's good enough for you, I wasted my time for you. Okay, I'm only here for people who really want to know the truth and you're not gonna be satisfied with the answers you already brought in here.
Okay, I realize that that cuts off some folks, but that's the only way I know how to handle the truth. I can't convince you, I'm not gonna try to. But for people who have truth in their hearts and desire to be truthful, the question is, which methodology gives us the most certainty as to the real question?
Do we possess the original words of the authors we believe to have been inspired of God? The free transmission of the New Testament text precludes the editing and revision that we just saw. The manuscript tradition shows us tenacity.
The original readings still exist. No one could insert the deity of Christ in the text of the New Testament, take out some other doctrine, put some denial of the resurrection or something. They could not do that.
The transmission of the text could never allow that to happen. And it's because it was freely transmitted, widely transmitted from the very beginning. But the controlled transmission of the Quran, together with the ethmonic revision, the possible later work of Abd al-Malik, which I haven't even gotten to this evening, and the evidence of the differing traditions of Ibn Masud, Ubayy ibn Ka 'b, and possibly others, the Sa 'ana readings that we saw, raises serious questions as to the originality of the ethmonic tradition.
At the very least, what I've proven to you is that you have multiple traditions. You've got Uthman, you've got Ibn Masud, and you've got this other reading in Sa 'ana, and you've got Ubayy ibn Ka 'b. You say, well, I like the one.
Great, fine, why? How do you know? What methodology have you used? And this is not a chains, I'm gonna cut that for you, by the way. What methodology does your system provide you to know that that actually represents the original?
That is the question for all of us this evening. Islamic scholars and apologists must recognize that merely asserting the perfection of the ethmonic tradition proves nothing. The realities of the variant traditions must be embraced and examined before the Quran can be proven to have been accurately transmitted.
What you need, my friends, is a critical edition of the Quran. Now, for many of you sitting here, you look at our Bibles, and you look at those footnotes, or you look at the UBS fourth edition over there, and he holds it up and says, see all this stuff?
These are the variations. And I go, thank God I have that, because that means no one has been able to get in there and totally change this and fool me. I want that information, and we're wide open about it.
Where is your critical Quran? I'm not talking about the seven aruf. I'm not talking about that. Where is your critical Quran? Now, there's a project right now called the Corpus Quranica, but it's primarily Western scholars that are working on it.
And there are a lot of people in the Muslim world, they don't support doing that. We don't need to have a critical edition of the Quran. We don't need to be telling people there was a variation of Surah 2, 222.
I wanna know that. I want to know what John wrote, and I want to know what Mark wrote, and I want to know what the original authors wrote, not what somebody wrote 100 years, or 15 years, or 500 years later, or what they thought should have been written.
I wanna know the original. And so what I'm saying to you is, the reason for the debate this evening is to try to bring the facts to light and call for the even scales. If you embrace radical skepticism in regards to the New Testament, you have no reason to believe in the Quran.
Adnan wasn't using the same scholarship there. There wasn't a one of those scholars that he was quoting that would believe a word he was just saying about, well, we've got these traditions, and they didn't write anything down unless they had two copies, and all the rest of this stuff.
Every single person who, for example, theoretically took the Gospel of John apart and put it into pieces, would laugh at such methodology.
Not the same standards.
And I submit to you that truth is defined by consistency. Truth is defined by consistency. If you use scholarship that is serious in examining sources, tries to be fair, but recognizes that we are creatures of God, and God has spoken, that's gonna be very different than using naturalistic, materialistic scholarship.
Now you notice, I didn't quote any of the modern scholars that don't believe Muhammad existed. I could have stood up here and done the same thing he did with his liberal scholars, and quoted them and say, well, there you go.
If you're a real scholar, you don't believe Muhammad existed, and therefore the Quran is a compilation of many authors. I didn't do that, did I?
I can't, because that wouldn't be consistent.
That's what we need to be this evening. When Adnan comes up here, if Adnan just simply starts repeating the Uthmanic tradition is it, then I say to you the debate's over. We need to have serious interaction about the methodology that we are using.
Thank you very much.
Oh, James, you're in trouble now. James claimed that no one can,.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,.
No one can add anything into the Bible or add any word to make Jesus God. Can you stop the time? Okay, there is a black and white evidence, piece of evidence here in front of us where someone came and changed the word to God.
The original verse was, who was made manifest in the flesh, and then it was changed to God made manifest in the flesh, so much with James' textual criticism. Okay, so now we move on to some of the contentions raised by James.
Now, he raised a number of issues which I will discuss very quickly. Variant readings in the Quran. The readings he mentioned, he put in front of you there,.
He didn't actually tell you.
Where the readings come from. These readings come from the pre-Uthmanic codices which had what? The dialect differences. The dialect differences, which I already told you about. These dialects were revealed by God.
God is the one who allowed these dialects, these variations to exist. So all of these differences in these dialects were divinely stipulated. Contrary to what James is trying to suggest that these were scribal errors or intentional changes.
Far from it. This is why the text was standardized by Uthman. So I challenge James now to come back to produce one verse from Uthmanic recension, from Uthmanic manuscripts which we have from the mid-first century to produce a verse which differs from all other manuscripts.
He won't find any verse whatsoever. Extra alif. Can you believe that? Extra alif. This is just crazy textual criticism. I'm not even going to address that. Extra alif and wow and far. You know, anyone knows spelling differences, scribal styles may differ, may vary.
It's about the contents. This is why we have the oral transmission to tell us how to recite this book. Palimpsest, this is what a palimpsest looks like. This is what it is. I put it up there for everyone to see.
Can you all see now there is text, superior text and inferior text. You can see the text on the top and there is text in the bottom which was wiped away. This is what happened in the time of Uthman. Uthman did not burn anyone for keeping extra books.
He didn't punish anyone. All of these claims were made in the air. Quoting who? Al-Kindi. Did you remember that? Do you remember who? Did James tell you who Al-Kindi is? Did he tell you? I don't remember hearing that.
Al-Kindi was a Christian palimpsest writing in the 9th century. Please, Al-Kindi. Wait, okay, okay. I didn't hear it. I didn't hear it. Okay, it's recorded. It's being recorded. It's being recorded.
Okay, now James wants to apply the same criteria to the Quran. Should we now listen to Julian the Apostate about Christianity? Do you know what he said about Christianity in the 4th century? Should we now go to the pagan writers writing on the religion of Christianity in the 2nd and the 1st and the 3rd century?
You will have nowhere to hide. If I was to mention all those people. Quoting Al-Kindi on Islam is like quoting Hitler on Judaism. So I won't even address points about Al-Kindi and what he had to say about Islam and his source.
We don't even know where Al-Kindi was quoting from. Give us his sources. Where is his reporting from? Where are his historical sources? You don't have any. Okay, Isnad Chain are not the standard of historical source.
James is simply unaware of Isnad studies. Hadith studies carried out by Western academics. One such academic is Motski who is known to be an authority in the source. He clearly stated in his works, one of his articles recently written, that Isnad, the Hadith literature, emanating from Musannaf al-Razaq, a book, can go back to the 1st century, is a valid source of historical evidence.
Okay, and then we have Jonathan A .C. Brown, who has written recently on Bukhari and Muslim canonization. And Isnad, he said, I was baffled by this strong and powerful historical tradition and a precedent of which we cannot find in any other tradition whatsoever.
Jonathan A .C. Brown. Okay, so you don't know what you're talking about. Yamama, the Battle of Yamama, nothing was written. Did you hear him say that? That before the Battle of Yamama, there was nothing written.
That's why the concern was there. There's so many people died. I quoted the names of people who had memorized the Qur 'an in its entirety. I knew he's going to bring this up and I quoted all the names and the rest of the names can be found in al-Azmi's book.
So I don't know where James is coming from. One person. We don't want Qur 'an coming from one person. We want multiple people to write the Qur 'an. Why do you want thousands of variations in your manuscripts?
If you wrote a book, James, today on Christianity or any other topic, would you want me to copy it and change it? And then I want one of my brothers to change it and another one comes along and changes it and by the time it gets to the hundred or the thousand people, then it's already lost the original.
Would you want me to do that to your book?
Never.
So would Mark want people to do that to his book? Would Matthew want people to do that to his book? To change, to manipulate, to add, to subtract.
Come on.
You're talking about free textual transmission because that's what you have. That's why you have to defend it. You have no other choice. We have the control. Imagine if the Christians had a manuscript from the first century.
Imagine if they had a manuscript of the Gospel of Mark. He mentioned it specifically. He said there may be a manuscript coming up from the first century of the Gospel of Mark. James mentioned it in the New Testament debate.
We have thousands of them for the mid-first century. Thousands. Thousands. That's nothing. James can't see them. He simply can't see. He pointed out variations from the pre-Uthmani codices which were divinely stipulated.
That's why Uthman standardized one text for everyone to read in one way in one recitation. I hope that's clear. Was Uthman a prophet? Absolutely not. Was Mark a prophet? Was Luke a prophet? Was John a prophet?
Come on, guys. Be serious. Okay. A lot longer. He said people have come a lot longer, a lot later, and have written these books. Now, you see, I told you when James comes, pay attention. He's going to take his gloves off and the standard is going to go out of the window, which he applied to the New Testament.
Okay. When is the first manuscript of the Gospel of Mark? What date is it from? 220. 220 CE, almost 150 years after. When is the first Quranic manuscript we have, which can be carbon dated? This one from the mid-first century.
In fact, some scholars, Western scholars, believe that this dates from the time of the Prophet,.
Peace be upon him.
The undertext, not the superior text, the undertext. The text which accommodates the different modes of recitation and different dialects. The superior text is from the time of Uthman. We have hundreds of these parchments in different libraries.
Al-Kindi has already been dealt with. Ibn Masud. I challenge him to produce a report, an authentic report, about Ibn Masud when he was beaten. Why is he using this tatty version of history, which doesn't exist?
You have been corrected, James, on that point. James was actually corrected on that point and he had to come back and apologize. There's a video on YouTube about this very issue where James had to apologize that he used a wrong reference in this regard.
And this report doesn't exist in any authentic form or shape. Ibn Masud was beaten for that. Ibn Masud, his grievances were not about the contents of the Quran. He made it very clear that my grievance is about choosing Zayd bin Thabit as the manager of this committee because Zayd was a young boy when I was still learning the Quran from the Prophet.
I have learned the Quran, 70 chapters of the Quran. And this goes against your point, by the way. Ibn Masud outlived by far, by so many years after the Battle of Yamama. He said Battle of Yamama, the Quran was possibly lost.
And then he comes back with an argument. Ibn Masud was a strong man. He was a very, very good man. But he memorized the Quran, its entirety from the Prophet. It goes against your argument. It goes against your argument.
Ibn Masud, we have authentic chains of narration from Ibn Masud, going back to him, coming to us today via continuous bombardment of reports, uninterrupted reports. And Ibn Masud's recitation, transmitted by his students, is exactly what we read today.
Guess what? It's exactly what we read today. Isnad is a valid source of history. I've already shown you from historical studies and people who are best placed to comment on that. This is what we have in seven different, not different, seven recitations of the Quran originating from the time of Uthman and the Prophet.
Prophet taught his companions and these people, in Mecca, Nafi, he took his Quran recitation from companions and we move on. Dhakira, the recitation of Medina. Nafi bin Abi Naim, who died in the year 169 Hijri.
He took the Quran,.
His recitation, oral recitation, oral transmission, memorization, from Yazid bin Al-Qa 'qa and Abdur-Rahman bin Hormuz Al-A 'raj and Muslim bin Junduf and Hudayli and Yazid bin Roman and Shaybah bin Nisai.
And then all of these people took their recitations from Abu Hurairah, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah bin Ayyash, Ibn Abi Rabi 'ah Al-Makhzumi, Ubaid bin Ka 'b and the Prophet. Dhakira, the recitation of Mecca.
Ibn Kathir, another reciter of the Quran who took his authority from Abdullah bin Asaib Al-Makhzumi who took it from Ubaid bin Ka 'b and Ubaid bin Ka 'b took it from the Prophet. The second source he has, another person who took the recitation of the Quran from Mujahid bin Jabr.
He took it from Abdullah bin Abbas, a companion of the Prophet, who took it from Ubaid bin Ka 'b and Zayd bin Thabit and he goes back to the Prophet and I have the rest of the recitations there and the chains and all of these chains are uninterrupted.
There is not a verse, there is not a word which is missing. Thank you very much for listening.
Well, on any scholarly level, this debate has been concluded. That was a recitation of assertions without any accurate representation of what I myself had said and I'm very disappointed in that. For example, he started off by showing the reading, the inserted reading of Theos, 1 Timothy 3 .16.
If you're going to debate someone and they've provided you with information, you might want to, you know, take a look at what they've provided to you. This is a subject that I've addressed many times and in fact, I have a feeling that the graphic actually came from my website.
I certainly have posted it many times and have discussed the very reading and it has nothing to do with what I said. What I said was, if someone wanted to come along and take the New Testament that didn't teach the deity of Christ and try to insert it, they wouldn't be able to do so because of the distribution of the manuscripts.
We can recognize the 7th century hand in Codex Sinaiticus because we know what the 4th century reading was. It was Haas, not Theos. We know that because we have so many manuscripts that are widely dispersed.
That's the point. I can't make you hear that. I can't make you understand what I'm saying, but there are people here tonight that do understand what I'm saying and they're recognizing that my opponent is not understanding it and is not interacting with the sound scholarship that underlies it.
And that is a problem. By the way, the difference in Sura 2, 222, that I showed you, not only between the Fogg's Palimpsest but the Sa 'ana manuscript, is not a pronunciation difference. When you are changing word order and grammatical termination, if you think, oh, well, yeah, that was given in all seven different forms.
Are they all around today? Can you all find them? I mean, there's a dispute amongst Muslims on that. You don't even know whether the seven Aruf are even around anymore. But are you telling me that they actually allow you to have different words in different orders?
That makes the variations in the New Testament look really tame. And you just go, oh, but Allah decided to do that, really? Don't tell me that that's the same text that I showed you up there. It's not.
And that's the Sa 'ana manuscripts. Then, if I say, if you pray, God will reward you. Is that different than if I say, if you pray, God will not reward you? Is there sort of a difference between those two statements?
I show you a variant in the Qur 'an with an extra alif, and you all go, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. But the difference is between you will be gathered, you will not be gathered. That's 180 degree difference. Laughter is not a refutation, my friends.
Laughter is a refutation for the unthinking, not for the thoughtful. Think about that. Did I tell you who al-Kindi was? I most certainly did. I told you when he lived, he was during the reign of the caliph al-Mamun.
He was a Christian in dialogue with a Muslim. I told you that. And how many of you wanted to go, talk to me here! Because he says, because he didn't hear that. You weren't listening very well either, were you?
Adnan asked me, why do you want thousands of variants? Because I want to know what the original is, not what someone came up with later on. I don't want thousands of variants. The variants exist because human beings make mistakes in copying.
That's why there were mistakes in the Qur 'an as well. Any handwritten document will have mistakes. Do you think God, whenever a scribe was getting tired while making one of the manuscripts of the Qur 'an, he's just about to make a mistake, and all of a sudden, God just zaps him with caffeine or something?
Seriously? There are errors in handwritten manuscripts. That's why you have to have multiples of them.
To compare with one another.
It's not that I want thousands of manuscripts. And notice the complete error in category on Adnan's part here. He says, would you like to write a book? Excuse me, I live today. We don't have to hand copy books anymore.
But the fact of the matter is, if I had written a book back then, I'd rather have 7 ,000 copies of it get to the modern period with variants in it than only one that somebody later on decided to decide what I would actually said.
Because at least in the other way, there's a chance the original is there, and the original is in the New Testament. We were told there are thousands of manuscripts of the Qur 'an in the front of that book, in the back of that book, actually.
No, not that one, the Greek New Testament. There's a whole listing of the manuscripts that are cited, where they're located, and what date. Could you show me that for the Qur 'an?
The manuscripts?
Yeah, where's the critical edition of the Qur 'an that tells me which manuscripts are being cited, where they're located, when they're written, and evidently we didn't know who their authors were. I know he has.
Is there an official listing of these thousands of manuscripts that I can go and I can look at for myself? That's what I would like to be able to do. You can do that with the New Testament, because we have a critical edition of the New Testament.
That's something that's very important. By the way, as I said, the Corpus Chronicum is working on it, and I am glad that they're working on it, but there's a lot of Muslims that don't think that's a good idea, and are opposing that.
Now, we are told that what Ibn Masud says is exactly what we read today. Since there was a lot of clapping and screaming and so on and so forth, I was corrected before, you know? What I had said before, and there are traditions that indicate, and they're primarily from your Shiite brethren, that Ibn Masud died of the beating he received, but you want some, I didn't say that tonight.
I said that there are traditions that said he was beaten, and as J .C. Vade, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden Brill, CD-ROM edition 2004, notes a public scene ensued between Ibn Masud and the caliph, who had him ill-treated.
Do you know what ill-treated is? Yeah, okay. It is not known whether he died in Medina under a sort of house arrest or at Kufa, where his teaching was highly esteemed, but I will tell you what he said, which seems very odd in light of some of the things that Adnan just said.
Oh, you Muslim people, avoid copying the Mus 'haf and recitation of this man. By Allah, when I accepted Islam, he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man, meaning Zayd bin Thabit, and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Masud said, O people of al-Iraq, keep the Mus 'haf that are with you and conceal them.
Hide them. Jamiat Tirmidhi, Hadith 3104, if you would like to look it up. Why would he do that.
If there were not differences,.
If there was not a reason? That is the question, and I am not the only one who has raised that question. That is a question that has been raised by Islamic scholars who are intent not upon simply keeping a tradition alive.
Guys, tradition's easy. Tradition's easy. Thinking through your faith and finding solid foundations for it is not easy, and what I've been hearing is whenever Adnan just simply makes an assertion that I've somehow made a mistake, you don't wait to see if there's evidence.
It's just like, thank you for proving it. So, is this the face, is this the face, is this the face that you want to present to the world at this time in history, men, when what we should be demonstrating is how Christians and Muslims can control their emotions and examine their traditions and come together as people who believe that they're the creations of God, and by the way, it makes us the minority in our culture these days, and demonstrate we love the truth and that we will examine the truth and that we will do so fairly.
This is the time in history when we need to be doing this. I am so thankful that I had the opportunity of debating in the East London Mosque. Folks, when you don't let two groups argue, the only thing left for them to do is fight.
We have to engage in this kind of respectful encounter. Now, I know some of you get excited about things. There are people on my side that get excited about things. But folks, this is the foundational issue.
If the New Testament is what the New Testament is, then Muhammad didn't understand it and he didn't teach in accordance with it, and yet the Quran says that God sent down the Torah to Moses, he sent down the angel to Jesus, and he sent out the Quran to Muhammad, and they all, it's a line, it reads surah five and see it's an argument.
This is vitally important, folks. This isn't something to laugh about. This isn't something to let your emotions get run wild with you. This is vitally important, and I say to you, I believe I have presented some pretty serious evidence that if you were to use these same scales, use these same standards, I have raised questions for you about the difference between a free transmission of the text and a controlled transmission of the text as to those two methodologies' ability to give you assurance that you're reading what was originally written.
I think the thinking person hears that and you need to deal with that. Simply repeating the same things over and over again that does not interact with those assertions does not accomplish anything for you.
Okay, James, very quickly.
First of all,.
Thank you very much for attending this debate. These topics are vast topics and it is very difficult to cover everything in this short span of time, but I think we have pretty much presented the most powerful arguments we have up our sleeves.
You mentioned a variant reading and it clearly states, will we go to God or we will not go to God? And you said, you're suggesting that it is a variant reading. However, if you look at other manuscripts, which are, I'm very sure going to make the picture clear.
This clearly appears to be a scribal error. Okay, when we die, where do we go? We go to God. And if the verse is saying, when we die, we don't go to God, then what does logic tell you? Logic tells you, a child will tell you that this is a scribal error.
It is a scribal error. When we look at the other manuscripts of the same verse, time is up.
Okay, go ahead.
Let me respond to what Adnan just said. He just engaged in textual criticism. He just, what if you didn't have other manuscripts? What if you were just reading the Paris manuscript, that very early manuscript of the Quran?
That assumed a certain understanding of what gathering together means. There in biblical language, being gathered together to God can be for judgment or for life.
So you see,.
You've now taken your theology and you've taken the other manuscripts and you've done textual criticism, which I thought was why the New Testament was corrupt,.
Because we do the same thing.
Okay, James. We don't need any of the manuscripts. We don't need, if we lost all the manuscripts in the world, we still have our oral transmission, which is very, very powerful and it cannot be doubted for the reasons which cannot be stated in this debate.
If you want to have another debate on Isnaad and its validity, we can talk about that in the future. But if you go to the scholars, Western scholars in this field, they will tell you that Isnaad is a perfectly valid source of information.
Coming to Corpus Quranicum, one of the academics who has worked on this on Corpus Quranicum and the manuscripts in his possession.
Is Michael Marx.
Michael Marx is one of the people responsible for this. He stated after studying all the thousands of pictures of the ancient Qurans he has with him, he stated from the material that has been entered into a database to date, it would appear that any expectations that the old Quranic manuscripts in the old Hijazi script included in the Bergstrasse photo archive would offer a different text of the Quran are unjustified.
Comment on that please.
I'll go a little bit beyond that. I have never, the specific thing, and I sent Adnan my chapter in the book that I've written on the subject of Quran. It's not out yet, but I sent him the chapter on this.
And what did I say in the chapter? I said, what would you expect from a controlled transmission of a text? You'd expect consistency, you'd expect very few textual variants, only what you'd expect to find from handwritten manuscripts, but you would not expect to have much in the way of textual variations.
So what that scholar just said is exactly what you'd expect, but it all only goes back to Uthman. That's the point. What about Ibn Masud? What about the Sahana Palimpsest? If it only goes back to that point of editing, and we just, what Adnan just said, Adnan just said, we don't need all those manuscripts.
Why then did Sahih al-Bukhari tell us that we were concerned about the people dying at Yamama? Because a large part of the Quran might be what? I read it to you. I didn't make it up. Lost. So yes, you should be concerned about that.
Now you have the Uthmanic. That's not the issue. The issue is, does that represent the original?
Why they were concerned was due to non-Muslims or new converts to Islam. This is why, because they were reading the Quran because they were not Arabs. They didn't know the dialect. They didn't know the differences in Arabic readings and writings.
So it was necessary for them, for the Quran to be written for their convenience. So the new converts, they were the ones.
Who caused the problem.
In the first place when Hudaifah bin Jaman was in Azerbaijan in a battlefield. And then these new Muslims from Iraq and Egypt, they were reciting the Quran in their own ways. And that's when Hudaifah came back.
This problem was never a problem before. The problem of dialect, specifically speaking.
Well, I'm sorry, that's just not what Sahih al-Bukhari says. Where in Sahih al-Bukhari it says, oh, it's the new converts that are messing everything up. He doesn't say that. And it would not follow that new converts, if the Quran already existed, if it was already written down, if the surahs and ayahs had already been provided by the prophet himself, there is no reason for the words, we fear that the Quran, a major portion, kathir, a large portion of the Quran might be lost.
There is no reason for that. And then there's really no reason for the next hadith that says, well, we don't want to be like the Jews and Christians who differ about our book. And so we're going to do a complete revision and we're going to find more ayah and put them in there in the process.
I'm sorry, but this is a much later construction that does not represent a meaningful reading of those original texts themselves. And when I quoted from al-Kindi, what I was pointing out was that al-Kindi has access to the very same traditions that Bukhari has.
And from a historical standpoint, that is extremely important. It verifies what Bukhari was saying.
Thank you, James. Bukhari states clearly, Hudaifah bin Jaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudaifah was afraid of their, the people of Sham and Iraq, differences in recitation.
So these people, the people of Iraq and Sham are new Muslims. OK, so you haven't read the report of Bukhari carefully. As for Uthman, if you have accepted, which you have in front of everyone here, that the Quran can be traced back to Uthman,.
We're happy with that.
Perfect, perfect. Thank you. That's it. There's the debate.
There's the debate. You're happy with that.
And you all,.
I am not. And you know why I'm not? Because I don't want to know what someone revised my scriptures to say. I want to know what they originally said. There's the debate right there.
It's over. Thank you.
There is the difference in methodology. One side is happy to repeat a tradition and say, this is our traditional text. We'll hold to it. And the rest of us are saying that is not enough for issues of universal and final truth.
That's the issue right there. Thank you. You just established.
Oh, you're welcome, James. I'm always doing. I'll do favors. Now, now the point is, the point is, how can you possibly have the original reading.
When you don't even know.
What it looks like? You don't have an oral transmission to it. You don't have that.
All right. You don't. You don't. You don't.
You don't have any history about who Mark is, who Matthew is.
You don't even know what language Matthew.
Wrote his gospel in.
How can you even.
Think of the original when you have thousands of varying readings in front of you? How can you even construct? How can you possibly construct in the 21st century.
A text which was written in the first century? Can you explain that to me? We have a text here.
Which was given to the companions of the prophet by the prophet himself. And we have that very text with us today. Thank you.
There was the voice of absolute skepticism. He says, how can you reconstruct the text? Adnan, you've never done this. You don't read Greek. You could not use that red book sitting at your right elbow.
If you tried.
If you could open that up, could you read any of that? Could you read any of the textual critical notes? You cannot.
Anything?
Yes, I can.
I can guarantee you that Christian scholars, believing Christian scholars, can reconstruct the text. And that's why Kurt Ahland, who founded the Institute for New Testament Studies in Munster, could say the words I said, that the New Testament text has tenacity, which is why we can have confidence that we have the original readings.
That was the voice of tradition saying, we have the original and you don't. How can you know what it looked like? Because we have 5 ,700 manuscripts that tell us about it. That's how we can know. And they come from.
All over.
They come from all over the world. And they could not have been colluded. And there couldn't be a conspiracy. And scholarship recognizes that's a far better thing to have than to have one text that goes back to one revision.
That is the essence of the debate this evening. Thank you very much.
You have you have you have almost about less than 200 manuscripts from the first three centuries for the Bible. Listen carefully. He said 5 ,700. Ninety four percent of them come from the ninth century onwards.
He didn't tell you that. Of course, we discussed in the New Testament debate.
Now for the Quran,.
Guess what? For the first two centuries, we have 250 ,000 manuscripts.
Where's the comparison?
Where is the comparison?
Why?
Why can you not.
See 250 ,000? And you're only willing to see 200 in the first three centuries. Where is the comparison?
And then we have.
Uthman, which you have accepted, who gave us the Quran with the committee, with thousands of companions backing him.
They all backed him.
None of the companions.
Not one.
You cannot produce one reference who disputed about the contents.
Of the Quran.
Not one. Thank you very much. Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being such an amazing audience with all the takbeers and all the applauses. Thank you so much. Now, I would like to take you all to modern scholarship.
On the Quran.
People who are best placed to comment on the transmission.
Of the Quran,.
Its transmission and its reception by the Muslims. These are the best people who have studied the Quran in Arabic. They have spent their lifetime in doing so. And these are the conclusions they have reached.
James doesn't know Arabic.
Like I don't know Greek.
I can only quote authorities. OK, I have quoted Christian sources to tell you that the New Testament is lost. The originals cannot be found. I've already substantiated that.
The Quran,.
Bell and Watt, Richard Bell and Montgomery Watt, both of whom were Christians, wrote a book, Introduction to the Quran on page 44. They state, this establishment of the text of the Quran under Uthman may be dated somewhere between 650 and his death in 656.
It is cardinal point in what may be called the formation of the canon of the Quran. Whatever may have been the form of the Quran.
Previously,.
It is certain that the book still in our hands is essentially Uthman-i-Quran. Uthman's commission decided what was to be included and what is excluded. It fixed the number and order of the surahs and the outline of the continental text.
If we remember that to preserve every smallest fragment of genuine revelation was in an illictable requirement, the commission under Zaid must be a judge to have achieved a wonderful piece of work. And they carry on, they continue on page 46.
Thus, on the whole, the information which has reached us about the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests.
That.
There was no great variation in the actual contents.
In the period immediately after the Prophet's death. The order of the surahs was apparently not fixed and there were many slight variations in reading.
Because of the ahruf,.
But of other differences there is no evidence. What. And well. We move on to Angelica Newworth who wrote an article in the Cambridge Companion.
To the Quran.
In 2006, page number 100. She states, as a whole, however, the theories of the so-called skeptic or revisionist scholars.
Who,.
Arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of the Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the 7th to the 8th and or the 9th century and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent have by now been discarded.
Though many of their critical observations remain challenging and still call for investigation, new findings of the Quranic text fragments moreover can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture.
As an early fixed text composed of the surahs we have. And Michael Marks has already been quoted. These are non-Muslim authorities who have studied the Quran, the experts in the field who have to tell us this, that the Quran we have today is what Muhammad.
ï·º.
Delivered to his companions in manuscript and in transmission. This is what they have to say. On the other hand, the New Testament we have already discussed extensively. So, ladies and gentlemen, we have to open our hearts to the truth.
You may not like James, you may not like me. Persons, people, personalities are not important here. What is important is the truth. Where is the truth? Who is telling the truth? A lot of evidence was shared in front of you today and a lot of contentions were raised.
They were rebutted, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully. It is your job now to go and think whether you want to live your lives the way you are, whether you want to die and face God with the truth in your hand, whether you want to go to paradise or whether you want to end up in hellfire.
If you die a disbeliever believing in things which cannot be from God and didn't come from God, then you are a disbeliever and going to hell. And if you believe in God and take what came,.
In fact,.
From God, then you are a believer and you will go to paradise, which was promised by God Almighty. God told us in the Qur 'an, chapter 59, verse 9, We have revealed the remembrance, the Qur 'an, and we will guard it against corruption.
And I have substantiated it beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Qur 'an was indeed transmitted accurately and reliably from the Prophet of Islam via his companions.
First of all, thank you very much for staying here this late in the evening. It has been a pleasure here in London once again. We should be thankful that we have the freedom to engage in these types of things.
There are many lands where this conversation could never ever take place. We cannot take it for granted because I'm not sure how long it's going to be allowed in this land or in my land either, to be perfectly honest with you.
Adnan just said the New Testament has been lost to the fact we have no originals. There are no originals of the Qur 'an, therefore the Qur 'an has been lost. If we just apply the same standards, no one, I don't, Bart Ehrman does not say that the New Testament has been lost because we don't have originals and no one who studies historical text makes that assertion.
And so Adnan uses one wildly unsubstantiated for the New Testament. And then, boy, we can quote all sorts of scholars.
Who says that.
We know what Uthman said, as if that means you know what Muhammad said, you just jump there, but be it as it may, we know what Uthman said. So in other words, conservative scholarship of the Qur 'an and naturalistic, materialistic, liberal scholarship of the Bible.
I told you it was going to happen because that's what's happened every time I've had a debate with a Muslim all around the world. And that's the problem. I'm still searching for the consistent Muslim apologist.
I'm still searching for that first Muslim who will use, who will obey the Qur 'an. Seriously, who will use the same standards.
And you see,.
Once you do that, you cannot substantiate what the Qur 'an says about the Bible, because the author of the Qur 'an didn't know the Bible, didn't know what the New Testament taught and misrepresented what the New Testament taught.
We've already debated that issue before. Now, this evening, we've had a lot of talk about original texts. I don't think there's any question whatsoever that any scholar could ever raise to the fact that in Colossians 2, 9, the original words that the Apostle Paul wrote to deliver to the church at Colossae.
Was.
Hati enauto katoikai panta pleiroma teis theatetas somaticos. I know of no textual variance. That is the text that was written. No one could argue otherwise. You know what those words mean? So we can talk Arabic and we can talk Hebrew.
I can guarantee you my Arabic is a whole lot better than his Greek is. But those words were what were written. There's no variation. The manuscripts are more than sufficient on any meaningful basis, any meaningful historical basis to substantiate that that's what Paul said.
You know what those words say to us tonight? Speaking of Jesus Christ,.
It says,.
For in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.
You see,.
We can have fun talking about these things and we can get all excited.
But you see,.
What we're really dealing with is eternal truth. And if Jesus Christ is who the New Testament says he is, then he's your maker and he's your creator. And every breath you take and every beat of your heart comes from his hand.
And you cannot dismiss him as a mere prophet. And so you see, the issues that we're dealing with are vitally important issues. And my hope is that after the rah-rah and emotion wears off, you will take the time to look at the sources.
That we've used.
And the arguments we've used. I'm sure this will be up on YouTube pretty fast.
Check it out for yourself.
And ask yourself the question, who was consistent? Who applied the same standards both to his text and to the other person's text? Because if you apply different standards, you lost this debate. That is the nature of truth.
Inconsistency detects.
These things.
To be truthful is to be consistent. I submit to you that Adnan, as much as I like him, I love his grin, I'd love to have his hair, as much as I like as I like Adnan, he did not use the same standards.
This evening.
And so take the time, consider, and think, because if the New Testament is right, the Jesus it presents is one you need to deal with. Thank you very much.