Is the Quran a Reliable Record of the Teachings of Muhammad

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Incorporated is prohibited.

The Quran as a Preserved Revelation and the Case for Controlled Transmission

I was a bit like a shit on a regime. Is Miller Roman Rahim a Beginning name of God. Most gracious most merciful. You've seen what we've discussed shortly About the text in the New Testament and the problems that we have and certainly James is going to race.

You know, there's a there's a there's a statement call. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. Who made that up me. And actually it's James quotation. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and we're gonna probably see that there's gonna be a level of inconsistency.

Yeah, even though that there are few variations in the Quranic text. James is gonna make a mountain out of a molehill and we'll see how it goes as a discussion goes on. Is the Quran a Reliable record of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Number one. The Arabic word Quran is derived in the opinions of many scholars from the verb Qara meaning to read. The Prophet was keen to preserve the text of the Quran to convey the message to humankind.

The Quran is regarded as divine in origin and with regards to the prophets intense Interest in this regard and he's obedient as to this particular dictum in surah 15 verse 9 you read the expression in Anahnu nazzalna zikro wa inna lahu la hafizun.

Indeed It is we who sent down the Quran and indeed it is us Who will be its guardian. You see even though you believe that the Quran is not the Word of God. This verse gives an indication who is as us who is as we.

It says if God himself is speaking. Can you see that this is part of the tidings of things unseen that we reveal unto thee Oh Muhammad by inspiration. Even though you might not believe that the Quran is a word of God.

Reading it gives you an indication that it sounds to be like the Word of God as if God is speaking. So the preservation of the text is considered critical in the Quranic text itself. That's not the case in the Bible.

You don't find mention where God says I'm gonna preserve the New Testament. I'm gonna preserve this as mine. The Quranic revelation started in 610 in One of the surahs it tells the Prophet do not move your tongue with it to make haste surely on us.

Rests the collecting of it and the recitation of it. So number one the Prophet was well aware that there was a possibility that the Quran could be distorted. Intentionally and so in the Hadith literature.

There are indications where he announced his followers that any other writings you have like Hadith. Secondary traditions what the Prophet said did wrote ate how he behaved all of that was written in the Hadith.

That was to be scrapped out eliminated in order to preserve the Quranic text in case Additions are basically added. Number one. The Prophet asked his scribes to write down each verse after revelation.

Number two. He recited the Quran during prayers as we do it today. Number three. He asked his companions to recite it in front of him. Number four he urged ordered those who had learned the Quran to teach those who had not learned.

You see today in the Muslim world. There is a tradition called Hibbs hafezoon where we memorize the Quran. I might not know a single word of Arabic not understand it, but I can memorize it from beginning to end.

That's a tendency that you have in the Muslim world today that they can recite the Quran in Arabic without understanding it. Even people who don't understand the Quranic text. It's that easy to memorize.

Number five number six he made the learning of the Quran a scale of piety amongst Muslims. He said with this book Allah exalts some people and lows others. He urged Muslims to make a practice of reading the Quran.

He gave the privilege of leading the prayers to those who had memorized it. And he condemned the forgetting of memorized verses as a grievous sin. So number one. Transmission of the text was critical, then you've got a passage like this here in surah 80 verse 11 to 16 by no means indeed.

It is a message of instruction. Therefore whoever wills should remember it on leaves purified held in honor exalted written in the hands of scribes noble and pious. James says that this possibly refers to angels, but I've looked at four different Quranic translations.

Muhammad I said Muhammad Ali Yusuf Ali Muhammad you pick at all all give the indication that this in fact refers to scribes. Writing the Quran in the time of the Prophet so to sum up the Prophet did his best and imposed all Precautions to keep the Quranic text both in pure form oral and in written form although It was not compiled in a book in his time and one might wonder Why is it that the Prophet did not order one official copy to be kept you see in the time of the Prophet there was?

There was no book called the Quran in a book like this here, and why was that not the case? It's because of the fact that Verses of the Quran were being revealed to him continuously up until the day he died and so even up to the last day the book Was open and so the the multi readings of the text could not fit one sole particular written copy.

Therefore one cannot say that there was any obscure zone When referring to the history of the Quran as there was when it concerning the history of the text of the New Testament you see There's an obscure zone when you look at the history of the text of the New Testament, which is not there in the Quran the earliest record of the Quran Was basically written seven years before the Hijra when the Quran was being revealed.

This is in the Hadith literature which speaks about Omar's conversion that his sister had a parchment That one of the companions had brought for with him to teach her family, so you see that we've got Traditions indicating that there was a written text that was available in the time of the Prophet himself.

Besides the above verses which refers to the Quran's form there also a number of Hadith which agree with the above verses. Zaid who's a scribe is reported to say we used to compile the Quran from small scraps in the presence of the messenger.

Meaning they used to write it on scraps of paper on blade on stone on bark tree. The above Hadith tells us that the Prophet Muhammad was not only unaware of the condition Was not unaware of the condition of the Quran and also it tells us that the Quran Used to be compiled for the Prophet Muhammad meaning that he possibly had an earlier copy his own personal copy.

Malik said no one should carry the Masaf by its strap must have mean book no on a pillow unless it's clean. So it's clear that the Quran was available in some type of written form during the time of the Prophet.

Qatada in the Hadith said I was asked by Anas Ibn Malik who collected the Quran at the time of the Prophet. He said for all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubaid Ibn Kab, Muad Ibn Jabal, Zaid Ibn Tabit and Abu Zaid.

So it's very clear then that in One sense you could say a written form of the Quran was available at the time of the Prophet and that particular proof Inescapable which contradicts or challenges any Hadith which presents the opposite.

Why was the Quran not compiled in one entire book during the time of the Prophet as I mentioned there was a continuous revelation. Arrangement of surahs and verses were not chronological. Numerous companions memorized the Quran and there was no pressing need during the lifetime of the Prophet.

You see the first chapter of the Quran is not the first revelation. The 96 chapter is in fact the first revelation. So if today I were to take the Quran and I would to change the order and arrangement of the surahs.

It will still be the same Quran. I can start with surah Baqarah, surah Yasin, surah Maida, surah An-Nisa. It'll still be the same textual Quran. More importantly the oral transmission of the text even today.

Many people completely memorized the Quran and these people are known as Hafizun and I challenged earlier on I said that look if you were to destroy all the copies of the Quran every single copy. We burned them like that chap in the United States wanted to burn them.

Let's assume we burn them. We create a bonfire and burn them. Will we be able to construct the Quran? Yes, why because people memorize it in a secular 21st century society. There are millions and millions of Hafizun.

Every Ramadan when we go to the mosque We recite the Taraweeh, Salah, where you recite the entire Quran from beginning to end by memory and each one knows the text. If we were to burn and destroy every single New Testament manuscript and book and Bible in the world, would we be able to reconstruct it?

How? How can we reconstruct the New Testament? Have we had anyone memorizing the entire Bible from cover to cover? Impossible. Well, where have you seen that? Can you give me a where has it happened? And that's a difficulty that we have here.

The first man to speak the Quran loudly in Mecca was someone called Abdullah Ibn Masud. And we told that the Prophet's companions came together mentioned that the Quraysh had never heard the Quran distinctly.

Quraysh were those who were the pagans and when Ibn Masud came and he started reciting. Then they subsequently got up and began to hit him in the face. But he continued to read it so far as God willed that he should read now.

I don't know but in a debate with Shabbir Ali James White says that Ibn Masud was beaten to death because he was apparently that forgive me if I'm wrong James's indication was that apparently he may have been reciting the Quran differently and so he was beaten to death.

Am I correct? And and when Shabbir Ali questioned him, where did he get his source? He said well, he got it from a book called an introduction to the sciences of the Quran. So I decided to bring myself a copy of that book and I've got it here.

And I want James White to show us in his session and perhaps a rebuttal where in this book. Does it say that Ibn Masud had been reciting the Quran differently and was beaten to death? That's a source for James.

I brought it here and I'm gonna leave it on the desk. So when James White comes he can probably give me a reference to something that I have perhaps not seen. So what you basically find here is that Hafizun had basically Memorized it.

The Prophet ensured memorization. The Prophet said the most superior amongst you are those who learn the Quran and teach it there are numerous hadith giving account of the various efforts made and In addition to that that was my challenge today, and that's my challenge to James.

The Quran was memorized by hundreds of Muslims and those who had met the Prophet. Just as a whole Quran was preserved by writing the Quran was preserved by memorization. Was the New Testament preserved in this particular manner and The answer is no and that's why we have the difficulties that we see today and that's a more in my view honest perspective of addressing and Looking at these particular test texts without wanting to necessarily score points Against each other in any particular given fashion.

Now after the Prophet had died During the Caliphate of the Prophet of Abu Bakr There was a battle which took place called the Battle of Yamama and in this battle not Yamama the Battle of Yamama. In this battle Many people had memorized the Quran and they were martyred those Hafizun were in fact martyred so Abu Bakr feared that The Quran might possibly be lost by virtue of the fact that a number of Hafizun had basically Martyred and they had not had a complete copy available with them at that time.

So in view of the fact that a number had been there what he did was he ordered an individual called Zayd ibn Athabit who was a personal scribe of the Prophet and Zayd finished the job. Perfectly now James makes a point in the Hadith which refers to the fact that Zayd a scribe Compiled the Quran in a kind of a book form.

He says how can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done meaning that in the time of the Prophet? You never had a Quran in this kind of book form cover to cover you never had that so Zayd is asking How can I do something which has not done in the time of the Prophet?

But that doesn't mean that the Quran was not written in the time of the Prophet. But it means that the Quran was scattered and not Collected in one particular volume and what the Prophet did is that he didn't leave the complete Quran in a single volume.

Why not? Because the vast majority of his companions had memorized it. I mean look at it from this perspective. We are thousand years later We are secular people and yet today So many people 1 .5 billion who take their faith seriously can memorize their Quran and recite it to the T.

So if I have to for example Open this and you recite it. I can confirm what's in this particular book. Wouldn't it be possible or similar though or greater that in the time of the Prophet the process of memorization and the Concern for preserving the text of the Quran which would be far more greater than it is in the 21st century.

I thought I had an hour. I'm joking. Thank you. So that's basically the reason and that's a Hadith that gives you an indication in terms of that. Then there are other passages in the Hadith where Zayd says I found with Huzaymah two verses of Surah Tauba.

Which I had not found with anybody else. In other words the Hadith collection. We don't have a manuscript which says this we have a Hadith which says that in the process of Collecting the text of the Quran Zayd was collecting parchments and he found other verses.

What does the words of Zayd mean that doesn't mean that the Quran was not written it basically means Effectively that those particular written verses were only to be found in the possession of an individual called Huzaymah.

Meaning it may not have been written elsewhere, but it would be written in this particular. It's like this if someone has to memorize the an essay all of you memorize the same essay and you come to an examination and someone has the last Paragraph of the essay, and I'm trying to look at all your writings that you particularly possess.

And I basically discover only the last paragraph of an essay with one particular individual. It doesn't mean that none of you know what the last paragraph is and that's the case here. It doesn't mean that that was a new verse that he particularly discovered and on that point What we can note is that the collection of Abu Bakr Was meant to preserve the Quran in its entirety and ensure that none of the actual Verses were in fact lost during the period of Khalif Othman the third Khalif of Islam Abu Bakr Omar Othman and Ali Islam spread to many areas and what then subsequently happened is that This looks better.

Muslims who are not Arabs couldn't read the Quranic text. So they changed the meaning of the verses and many variant readings sprung out. Because the people were ignorant of the particular Arabic. All Arabic was written as lines and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks.

But this was not the case in the old times. So what happened here was that the Othmanic copy? Limited the accepted readings to what was the skeleton of the Arabic? Consonantal text and let me explain this to you in Hebrew and in Arabic both are without vowels in the classical period.

The vowel ization is there to aid you in respect of your pronunciation but without the vowel ization. So it's possible that a particular style of recitation which would technically be viewed as a variant and That would then subsequently circulate at a particular point in time and would unnecessarily create dispute.

So to ensure the accuracy of one copy what Othman did was he set out five groups of educated reciters. Reciters each had a particular copy of the written Quran and they would proceed under the watchful eye of the teachers.

And he ordered Zaid bin Thabit the scribe that I mentioned to teach the people of Medina With the mashaf of Medina and others in respect of how it should be recited and so the Othmanic project Resulted in the making of several copies of the Quran Which was sent to the largest cities of the Islamic State with one copy being kept in the capital.

That's in Al Medina all the companions of the Prophet Were alive at the time. Approved of what Othman was doing as stated by Musab the son of the companion of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqas. You see James said well, he'd prefer a Free transmission as opposed to a control transmission.

A text by government is a problem. I agree. If anything comes from the government, I would view it in South Africa Certainly with the greatest degree of caution. But the point here is that the the copy that was in a sense in inverted commas authenticated by Othman Which in a sense made several copies of the companions at the time of the Prophet Who were present when the Quran was being revealed?

Had obviously seen the copy of Othman, so if there was a Divergent difference in terms of what was originally there then James, isn't it? Probable that they would have raised a significant objection. I Mean it stands to reason.

James says well I cannot accept a controlled text and I'm saying that well look in actual fact it wasn't controlled per se. What he was simply doing was eliminating those readings that were creating problems and The companions were present at the time of the Prophet had heard the Quran from the Prophet.

Were now with Othman would obviously have made a major Created major consternation had the Othmanic copy been significantly different, and that's the point. Could there be any doubt about the faithfulness of the particular Othmanic text?

No, why not because the short span of the time between the death of the Prophet and the distribution of the written copies of the Othmanic Masaf was only 13 to 15 years. 13 to 15 years. Wednesday earliest manuscript.

Wednesday earliest manuscript in the New Testament the 2nd century. So compare the the 2nd century. 200 years. 150 years to 15 years. Are you telling me that the text prior to the Othmanic collection was significantly different if that was the case?

Why is it that the companions of the Prophet never had any issue with what Othman did? Number two the dedication and eagerness of the Islamic State. Number three Othman used the original text at the time of Abu Bakr so Abu Bakr Used Zaid bin Thabit to collect the various writings that were there he commissioned the scribe Zaid bin Thabit.

And what Othman did was he used the official copy of Abu Bakr and those? Companions who were present at the time of the Prophet saw what Othman did if there was any difference in the text of Othman. They would have had a major issue with it.

Which they didn't and so other copies which are not from Othman were basically burnt. But burning is not a negative act you see today if I want to get rid of the Quran. What would I do? I'd either bury it why burn it you know that we can burn the copy as a means of disposal.

You can bury it. But so burning is not a negative act necessarily in Islam. And that would be the best means of disposal at that particular point in time and then from the standard copies. More copies were made and this time they were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Quran.

You see had Othman not done that. Then it would have possibly been the case that what happened to the New Testament would probably have happened to the Quran and. That's why he took this particular steps.

And so Christian missionaries have been alleged that Othman ordered all the copies of the Quran to be burned because of the varying content. Well. Suppose that there were at any times Variations in the Quran other than those caused by scribal areas of failures of memory or due to some minor differences in script that he supposed.

That some individuals or groups deliberately held on to a text of the Quran that they knew was different from the one followed by the other. How could it happen that from century to century and from country to country we find in?

Principle at least the same text of the Quran and. And this is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars. In principle, you've got the same skeletal text and I'm not talking about rearrangement of surahs or Minus the addition of an alif or for example a particular verse might be rearranged.

The essence is basically the same looking at it in a providential sense. It is said that Othman ordered people to burn the text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order? Even if they thought the Othman's text was not the authentic text you see if the companions at the time of the Prophet Thought that what Othman was doing was an aberration.

They would have had an issue a major major issue with what he had particularly done. If you look at The number of manuscripts that there are in existence of the Quran James spoke about 24 ,000 if you take the Latin and the Syriac 5 ,700 with the Greek.

I'm not. According to M .M. Azami in the collection of the Quranic text there are no less than a quarter million manuscripts of the Quranic text subject to correction. 450 ,000 manuscripts of the Quranic text come contrast that with 5 ,700 this is a text called the palimpsest of the Codex Sanaa.

The Codex is one of the earliest fragments which are found in 1972. What the Yemeni government did was that they commissioned a scholar called Jher Puan to do some sort of study and research on this he studied until 1980 83 84 and then it went on into the hands of another professor.

I think it was Hans Caspar Graf von Bothmer for another two years and interestingly enough in a letter After the publication of an article in the Atlantic monthly where there was a bit of a scandal in terms of what the original Sanaa manuscript stated Jher Puan said the most important thing Thank God.

Is that these Yemeni Quranic frambuance do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere. With the exception of details that do not touch the Quran itself. But are the rather differences in the way words are spelled.

This phenomenon is well known even in the Quran published in Cairo. Which is written you've got variations in the oldest Yemeni Quranic fragments for example the phenomenon of not writing the vowel a leaf is common.

Why was the older layer wipe out you see the palimpsest is a text over another text? Where you rub it off, and then you write over it now some scholars and apologists and polymuses have said well the the text Underneath the text showed us a different type of Quran.

Well. This is what had point says. He says it doesn't necessarily imply an alteration of the very text since the formative period of the Quranic text already May have been completed when the first script was written most probably the arrangement of the surahs was altered.

That's all and this hypothesis corroborated by the fact that amongst the findings in Sanaa They indeed Quran's with an arrangement of surahs different from the transmitted Quran, so what? If I were to open the Quran with surah Yasin.

And then I go to surah al-e-Imran. And then I go to surah fatah, and then I go to surah Nisa then I go to surah Maryam. Is it not the same Quran? When you start memorizing the Quran you don't start with surah bakra you start with the last chapter surah naba.

I'm made to saloon. It doesn't matter whether the arrangement of the surahs are the same or not and that's the point that he was basically making here. And and that's effectively the case that he has in respect of the palimpsest.

And that's a source that you basically have. Hans Caspar Ruffin Bothmer had poor observations in early Quranic manuscripts in Sanaa check it up. There's nothing significantly different. What you need to show us is that there's a Quranic text.

Which tells us now that the Prophet is not indeed the Prophet or that Allah is not God or there's some Significant change in dogma or doctrine like I showed you About the Trinity about the Ascension about the nature of Jesus about the evolution of Jesus show me that in the Quranic text.

If you're showing me one or two minor variations rearrangement of the surahs perhaps Misspelling of words, it's meaningless. The Consonantal text overall except for a few variations are primarily the same.

If you look at the Uthmanic text the Uthmanic Quran basically, you'd find that also in certain instances it is written on a palimpsest and Interestingly enough, and I've got the list of differences that are basically here many of the non readings in the palimpsest of Uthman Can be said to be as a result of a faulty reading for example There are scribal errors meaning there's a there's the there's a palimpsest of Uthman.

There's a text and there's a text which has been rubbed off in the text that has been rubbed off. It doesn't necessarily correlate with the text that is there but these mistakes that are in the text that has been rubbed off can be easily seen and Have been analyzed by scholars, and I've got them in front of me.

And you can make out the difference surah 2 verse 20 Fa Ikhwanuhum instead of Fa Ikhwanuhum Ikhwanukum as a standard reading. Ya'muruna instead of Ta'maruna which does not fit the context the palimpsest has al-munafiqeen which is grammatically incorrect.

It should be al-munafiqoon as a standard reading and so on but that doesn't necessarily affect the text in a general. It doesn't affect the status of the Quran. The inferior text cannot in any way throw doubt on the integrity of the text.

This is a scholar Called Angelica Neuwirth. She's a contributor to a book called the Cambridge companion to the Quran. These are Quranic scholars. These are professors. They study the Quran. This is what she's saying.

New findings of the Quranic text fragments moreover can be adduced to affirm rather than to affirm. Rather than call into question the traditional picture of the text of the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the surahs.

Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image. Succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Quran as we know it. Basically what she's saying that there are lots of people out there that are trying to discredit the Quran.

Trying to change and suggest that the Quran says something else. It hasn't been accurately preserved in principle. And she says they haven't succeeded. I'll give you certain scholars and I know my time is limited the following excerpts are just views of the Quran.

By two non-muslim scholars. James an apologist he's not a Quranic scholar. In my like humble humility I can say I'm not a biblical scholar but I use the sources of Biblical scholars to come to my conclusion.

What James has to now do is use the Analysis and scholarly works of Quranic scholars. Why is it that in your? Discussions and debates you've never gone to the Cambridge companion of the Quran. You never looked at Angelica Neuwirth for example or William Montgomery Watt or for example People even a classical orientalist a bit orientalist like William Muir who says that the text of the Quran is unimpeachable.

Why don't you go to those particular? Why is it that always? Christian apologists have to rely on revisionist material. Like for example John Wansbrough he says the Quran was developed in the eighth and ninth century even though his student John Burton says That the Quran that we have today is in principle almost Identical to the must-have that we have in the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

So why is it that Christian apologist take it upon themselves to go to? Either the revisionist or pseudo scholars in order to substantiate or Justify their particular point look at what right water and bells say they say the very fact that varying and even Contradictory deliverances in certain instances have been preserved is strong proof that With perhaps minor exceptions we have the whole of what was revealed to Muhammad.

On general grounds it may be concluded that the Othmanic revision was honestly carried out and reproduced as closely as was possible to the men in charge of it what Muhammad had basically delivered and Effectively I'll end with a quotation by William Muir who says William Muir was a hostile critic of Islam.

An Orientalist maybe he never had Access to manuscripts that we have today, but he was hostile to Islam and he concludes yet. But one Quran has been current amongst the Mohammedans Muslims and the Constantaneous used by them in all and every age after the present day is an irrefragible proof that what we have now Before us is the very text Preserved there's probably in the world no other work Which has remained 12 centuries now 14 would so pure a text and I'll leave you at that if you want to come to the final conclusion is the Quran a reflection of the teachings of Muhammad.

I've in principle pointed out to you that we can at least Dated to the very time of the Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago in contrast to the New Testament. Thank you.

The New Testament’s Free Transmission and the Limits of a Controlled Text

Now I'm a little concerned that when we approach these subjects and somewhat of a Scatter gun effect and we raise all sorts of issues. But the result is that those of you who are trying to follow we're not gonna be able to follow what the real issues actually.

Are there are all sorts of things I could raise about the canon the number of surahs by Ibn Ka 'b Abdullah bin Masood. There are all sorts of things I could raise that would be parallels to what Yusuf Ismail did in regards to the New Testament.

But I want to remain focused upon the actual thesis of the debate and to focus upon this issue because very clearly what Yusuf is Saying is no a controlled text is the best way it is the best way. We want Uthman to make a revision and we want to have that that that certainty of that text and I want to illustrate Why that is a bad thing.

I do want to just say one thing if when we're done this evening if the folks here at the University Want to leave the microphone on it. We've said good night. It's everybody. I will go back there. I will put John 1 1 in Greek on the screen and I will take seven minutes to explain to you Why it teaches the deity of Christ and then ask Yusuf to do the same thing from the Greek text.

I will do that only take 15 minutes if anybody wants to do that. I make that offer. But that's not why we're here this evening. The key of the second debate is to apply the same standards here that we did in examining the New Testament.

Was the transmission of the Quran a free transmission or a controlled transmission? Well, we already know Yusuf has already admitted it is a controlled transmission and he believes that that is far better.

Muslims. Muslims and non-muslims both agree that no change. This is a this is a a quote. Muslims and non-muslims both agree that no change has ever occurred in the text of the Quran. The above prophecy of the eternal preservation purity of the Quran came true.

Not only for the text of the Quran but also for the most minute details of its punctuation marks as well now. You just heard Yusuf say that's not the case. Interestingly enough. He said well when there are variations, they don't matter any variation in the New Testament text does matter.

But any variation in the Quranic text doesn't matter. Even when it affects the actual meaning of the text it goes on that quote goes on to say it is a miracle of the Quran 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 Quran during the last 14 centuries. Now Yusuf has already contradicted this fellow Muslim on this particular subject and it has admitted that's not the case and that's a good thing.

I'm glad that he has he has done that now at this point. There is truly no question as scholarly sources Islamic and non both attest to the exact same story for example. In the almost half al-sharif the top copy of manuscript from 2007 published by Turkish scholars you have a number of pages like this where you have Differences in readings of the major mushaf of the Quran listed now.

This is sort of a beginning a sort of movement toward a critical edition of the Quran. But no critical edition of the Quran exists today. You cannot go by the Nessia on it's currently the 28th edition by the way 28th edition of the of the Quran.

If you look at the Arabic Quran, there's not gonna be any notes at the bottom. Let's say well sums on a manuscript say this and and some Palimpsest manuscripts say that it doesn't exist. There are cut-ons that note the differences between harsh and warsh and some of the other Printed editions because those those differences are relevant, but I'm not getting into them this evening.

I want to focus upon the real issue and that is what level of confidence can we have? In light of how these texts were transmitted to us and. So here's an example from an Islamic source of where you have variations now the question that I have to place before everyone is how do you know what the original is in light of The current manuscript tradition of the Quran.

I just heard it said 450 ,000 manuscripts. I challenge that I want a list. I can give you the list of all the new testament manuscripts. You can go online get it right now. Look for the New Testament Institute in Munster, Germany.

You can find the entire catalog available online. Where is that for the Quran? I've actually had people say there are 5 ,000 first century manuscripts. The Quran where where's the list? I was just looking at Islamic awareness.

Calm I believe is the address and they have an article there on first century manuscripts of the Quran and it looks almost identical in The New Testament. There are very few of them. They admit only 87 of the text of the Quran exists in first century manuscripts now, ma 'am.

No made another statement here comparing the New Testament in the Quran is apples and oranges. You have in the in the Quran is only 56 the length of the New Testament. Did you hear that the memorization stuff?

It's it's barely half the length of the New Testament. It's only about what 14 length of the Bible. It's a small book in comparison and it's a much younger book it should have an absolutely perfect text because it's it's a much younger book than the New Testament and It wasn't the people who wrote it weren't persecuted for 260 years during the time period was being transmitted either and had to hide their copies.

So you're comparing apples and oranges if you don't think about the reality of the history of the text itself now I do want to point out some important texts Ibn Masud surah 222 and fogs palimpsest manuscript now.

This is an example of where we have a variation in the text of the manuscripts that we have. The problem is I can't even tell you whether it's only two sources or three sources. Why do I mean? What do I mean by this?

Well, I Know that the material that I have on the bottom of this screen is from fogs palimpsest manuscript. But I'm not sure whether that is the Saana number one manuscript or not because the sources don't seem to agree.