Islam critiqued learns a new term; what is ruach hakodesh?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.

As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity seperate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of

"an evil spirit from God"

and of

"a spirit of perverseness".

If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea

"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".

This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independantly in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created wordly entities, like the waters and the earth.

The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1. 

All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, seperate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a seperate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are seperately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interracts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they seperate entities to be individually worshipped.

The phenomenon of collective revelation, as is alleged to have happened at Pentecost, through the descent of the holy spirit on several people at once, will only reoccur in the messianic age

Joel3:1"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions".

This is the passage which the Christians link as the fulfillement of Jesus' prophecy of the paraclete, based on the faulty future tense in Jn14 as shown earlier. As stated in the following verses and preceding chapters, this will only happen in the end of times, and will be accompanied by obvious cataclysmic signs. This further shows that the holy spirit is always linked to the field of prophethood.

This, as a side note, poses a problem to the peculiar Christian notion of being filled with the holy spirit once they have accepted Christ and yet are unable to prophecy and never will be.  Similarly, no Christian today is able to "speak in tongues" as is alleged to have occurred at pentecost. Nothing prevents the miracle from being reproduced as the NT does not say the phenomenon ceased after pentecost. The purpose was to spontaneously evangelize in any audience's language, something missionaries are obviously unable to do today. Further, was the holyspirit limited that day, so that others who were present and heard the phenomenon Acts2:13"made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine"? The spirit left them out, their tongue was unworthy of being represented. To them, the spectacle was that of drunkards speaking unintelligibly. Where were Paul's interpreters when one desperately needs them 1Cor14? As Celsus, the early pagan intellectual opponent to Christians said 

"Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".

Not a single of the well known criteria of the messianic age as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, have occured until now, and neither were those criteria fulfilled at pentecost were God's spirit is said to have poured on several people as described in Joel. Yet we have Paul claiming the opposite throughout his writings, including Peter, based on that very messianic passage of Joel that negates the events of pentecost. The pentecost story cannot have occured as it is believed it did, and what descended on the people could not have been the holy spirit, let alone the paraclete.

There is a reason why the Pharisees in Acts2:13 mockingly alluded to these people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet. Christians thus need to "loosen up" the definition of a prophet, despite it being firm and precise, in order to make place for their unscriptural ideas.

The deeper difficulty however for Christians is that this passage from Joel, and other similar eschatological passages, rejects any attempt at identifying the end time king/messiah with Jesus. In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfillement of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death. Obviously none of those criteria ever occurred anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. 

There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.

The paraclete is the spirit of truth, because of holding the correct belief in Jesus 1Jn4. He acts according to what he is inspired

Jn15:26,16:13-14"When the paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."

Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"

Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.

Muhammad was given Al-Mizan (The Balance) and Al-Furqan (The Criterion) of truth and falsehood and told to

42:15"go on inviting, and go on steadfastly on the right way as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say: I believe in what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allah is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return".

Through the Criterion and the Balance, Muhammad truly convicted the world of sin for rejecting Jesus, he honored and testified about Jesus' true identity; his humanity, the truthfulness of his prophethood to the Jews ONLY and a precursor of the last prophet. He reminded those claiming to be Jesus' followers of all truth regarding his message

43:59,5:14-16,75"O People of the Book, There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. Allah guides thereby those who follow His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of darkness into the light by His permission and guides them to a straight path....The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away".

Muhammad stayed with humanity forever, obviously through the Quran. How is the holyspirit with us today and forever? What is the instant effect to an individual, of the indwelling of the holyspirit according to every single time it occurs in the HB? The person becomes a prophet and starts prophesying. Where are those prophets today?

Islam critiqued trusts the unseen judge; holy ghost convicting the guilty?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

As Jesus prophesized many times in the NT, the rejectors were going to be punished for their rejection. For example, he alludes to this in the parable of the King, His Son, and the Servants. The paraclete will receive revelation, will establish justice and convict the guilty. That never happened in the life of the apostles. Men will see this person, and judgement will be laid down, because the people rejected Jesus. Did the apostles ever judge the world and condemn the guilty after allegedly receiving the indwelling Paraclete at Pentecost?

Did judgement ever descend on the gentiles at the hands of the apostles? It never did. Jesus in those statements is speaking in prophetic terminology by addressing them directly as is the case of the long term prediction made in Deut18 where God addresses the ISraelite community directly, saying that a specific prophet will come to them, but the intent is for the future.

In Jesus' days, the Pharisees still awaited the fulfillement of that prophecy and questionned John, asking him if he was "that prophet". Even within the Greek writings, it is a recognized terminology to involve the audience in a long term prophecy. For example it is accepted that Jesus' second coming predictions, although explicitly spoken to the disciples and telling them that they will witness his return, was not meant for their generation.

In Jn14:26 the paraclete is also called the "holy spirit" although the early Codex Syriacus omits "holy". The scribe that redacted that particular codex wasnt writing from memory but was copying from another manuscript. This shows again the well known evolving nature of the NT text, more particularily as regards the paraclete prophecy, progressively blurred, willingly or not, with mystical and abstract concepts.

In any case, the spirit of truth and the holy spirit refer to the same thing; the spirit of God indwelling those who believe Jesus to be God's envoy. Anyone holding that correct belief, including the paraclete can be termed the spirit of truth 1Jn4:2-3.

The paraclete, filled with the spirit of truth, only acts according to God's orders Jn15,16. This parallels with the prophecy in Deut18:18 where the prophet shall only speak what he hears, a personality guided by revelation. When the group of Israelites heard God speak at Sinai, received the holy spirit and became prophets Numb11:16-30 that was a specific event that would no longer happen in the future, per their own request fearing they would die, and God accepted their request.

He decreed that the phenomenon of revelation will be a personal experience.

Islam critiqued's vision is enlarged; context of Jesus' prophecy

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The persecution and rejection of Jesus by his people, the murders of John the Baptist and Zechariah Matt23:30-37, along with the fact that punishement would be unleashed on the nation of Israel, were the main reasons why the apostles grieved. To comfort their grief, Jesus gave them the glad tidings of the paraclete who would honor Jesus' name and bring justice to the world.

The Holy Spirit was already acting before Jesus, and during these times of sorrow for the apostles.

The apostles already believed in Jesus, and according to Jn14:17 they even already experienced the indwelling of the holy spirit. If the paraclete was the holyspirit and not seperate from it then how could an indwelling phenomenon cure the reasons of their grief and bring justice considering it has always been present and did not solve anything. They grieved, among other reasons because the people did not believe in Jesus. Since the apostles already believed in Jesus then how does an indwelling paraclete resolve this particular grief?

By the time of their death, the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was sacked by the gentiles. So how did the situation change for Jesus' followers? How does the intangible paraclete judge and convict the guilty according to Jesus' prophecies, when many of the apostles were persecuted and killed, after Jesus and after the alleged descent of the holyspirit on them at pentecost Acts4-5,7–9,12:1, 13:42-51,14:2-5,19,17–18,24:5,26:9-11,Gal1:11-16,4:29,Phil3:5-7,1Thess2:14-16. Even some prophets who received the Holy Spirit were killed by the Israelite leadership, as Jesus reported Matt23:37. Such a prophecy about the paraclete being the indwelling holyspirit would never have consoled the apostles, and it is quite clear that by "another" paraclete Jesus was referring to the coming of "another" prophet.

The very first phrase of Jn14 is

"Do not let your hearts be troubled".

Jesus is clearing making this statement in the context of their total helplessness. In the precedent chapter Jn13 Jesus is speaking of his future betrayal, hinting to his death at the hands of the unbelievers. This added to their already existing sorrow from John and Zechariah's unjust murders which further emphasized their marginalisation and powerless situation. The disciples grieve, prior to the prophecy of the paraclete, at their master Jesus' rejection by his own people and over the fact that according to Matt24, and Jn16 they will all be persecuted and slaughtered as well as

"hated by all nations because of me",

as repeated in Jn15. They grieved over the coming abomination and destruction of the Temple because of their nation's rejection of Jesus, and their repeated transgressions. In Matt24 Jesus was predicting gloomy days ahead which put the apostles in great distress. Their grief is about what Jesus prophesized as a whole regarding Israel.

The prophecy of the paraclete comes at the climax of their grief, after he announces his disciples' future torments, his impending death, betrayal and denial by his close disciple

Jn16:6"Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief".

He comforts their troubled hearts by giving them the glad tidings of the paraclete, a powerful salvific figure who will put an end to this injustice which he and his followers suffered by judging the guilty, bringing justice and honoring Jesus in a world where he wasnt given any

Jn16"and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged"

he will convict those who rejected Jesus as a worthless liar.

Islam critiqued investigates Greek imagery; the disciples already know the spirit of truth?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

So the disciples, per Jesus' words already know "the spirit of truth", because it is with and in them, during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus therefore did not need to go away as a precondition for that other paraclete to come, if "the spirit of truth" the holyspirit and the paraclete all refer to one and the same thing. Besides the fact that there was never "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was "another" paraclete.

The Greek "spirit" is pneuma and is neutral, without gender. According to 1Jn4 "the spirit of truth" is what distinguishes, among all the "spirits" those who accept Jesus as God's envoy

1Jn4"do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".

Anyone recognizing Jesus as a human being sent by God has "the spirit of truth" in him such as Muhammad, and by extension the Muslims, as opposed to the spirit of falsehood dwelling in the world that rejects Jesus as God's human envoy. This paints trinitarians as spirits of the antichrist since they do not recognize that

"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"

but that

"God has come in the flesh".

It says that God dwells, through His spirit, in those who recognize Jesus

"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit..God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them".

The spirit of truth is therefore coming from God and filling those who recognize Jesus' true identity. This applies to any individual, past, present and future. The disciples addressed by Jesus "know" this "other" paraclete because he is like them filled with the spirit of truth

Jn14:16-17"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and is in you".

If by "another" paraclete Jesus meant "another" holyspirit then it would mean the disciples never knew or experienced the holyspirit. Besides the fact, again, that there never was "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was another paraclete.

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT and its application for both physical and abstract subjects. Trinitarian proof texting has obscured the meaning of that expression, as it did in so many other cases. The plain meaning of Jesus, and any other entity being "in" another one simply is to share a common position, as is amply used throughout the NT.

Islam critiqued turns to his NT; Muhammad is the paraclete?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.

Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi". Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance."

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

The prophecies speaking of the prophet Muhammad that were written down were not removed which is why the Quran says that the people of the book

2:146"recognize him as they recognize their sons".

The Quran does not speak of alteration but of deliberate misinterpretation of these prophecies by those who heard the Quran, because of the implications

2:146"and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)". 

Jn14:16"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (paraclete) to be with you forever. The spirit of truth, the world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you"

Jn15:26"When the Counselor (paraclete) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me"

Jn16:7"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (paraclete) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you"

The Greek "paraclete" is used in the New/Greek Testament for a comforter, advocate, counselor etc.

1Jn2:1"..we have an advocate (paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here the paraclete is translated as "advocate". This is one of a prophet's functions, and although anyone could potentially be qualified as an advocate, the context of its use in the Greek writings is that of an envoy from God. It is applied to Jesus the human prophet, who identified himself as a prophet, and who was similarly recognized by the multitudes as a prophet Matt21:11,Mk6:3-5Lk13:32-4 who was a human being

"made like his brothers in every way"Heb2:17.

So when Jesus prays God to send "another" paraclete in Jn14, one can justifiably argue that he is asking God to send another prophet like him who will be an advocate, a counselor and comforter, all of these being the descriptions of a prophet. Like Jesus the advocate 1Jn2:1 and prophet of God Matt21:11. There was never "another" holy spirit. More on that point later on.

The paraclete predicted to come by Jesus cannot be the same thing as the holy spirit filling the people who subsequently become prophets, because of several reasons:

In Jn16:7-8 Jesus sets the condition that he has first to go away for the paraclete to come, while throughout Luke and other places such as Jn20:21-22 the Holy spirit is present during Jesus' life time and he is even already indwelling the disciples if one wants to equate paraclete with holyspirit in Jn14:17. The NIV footnotes on this particular verse show that it is in the present tense in early manuscripts which renders the verse

"But you know him for he lives with you and IS in you"

and not

"But you know him for he lives with you and WILL BE in you".

What gives even more credence to those present tense early manuscripts is that the beginning of the sentence itself

"But you know him for he lives with you"

in all available manuscripts is in the present tense, whether the ones that end in the future or the ones that end in the present tense. The aim of bible editors is to promote the idea that the holyspirit was present in Jesus' lifetime but not indwelling the believers yet until Pentecost where the disciples where filled with the holy spirit, and that this is what Jesus meant when he said he will pray God to send "another" paraclete. But this verse's tense in early manuscripts clearly contradicts this notion, besides the simple fact that there was never "another" holy spirit.

Further why would it be impossible for the holyspirit to come to the disciples in Jesus' presence when it is established that it can indwell a limitless number of people simultaneously?

Islam critiqued ruins it again; where are the Quran manuscripts?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

It is important to emphasize again, authenticity of the Quran isnt contingent on whether we have in our hands manuscripts written or approved by Uthman. The authentification and transmission of the Quran was always, since the time of the prophet, primarily oral. The Quran allows such endeavour because it isnt a text whose meaning and applicability is locked in time. And that is why the Muslims have not attached much importance to transmitting the minute detailed meaning of every passage, from the prophet and his companions, but they have instead focused on transmitting the text of the Quran itself.

It was always the purpose of the Quran and its sharia to be adaptable accross time and space. That is why we have very few reports by the prophet giving his interpretation of the Quran. We are not talking of the core messages which are agreed upon, but of passages with multilayered meanings and implications, whose interpretations are open depending on the socio-cultural background or even the scientific knowledge of its contemporaries. These passages are open to many interpretations so long as they do not contradict the firm and unambiguous verses, which the Quran calls muhkam.

It is these supposedly "obscure" parts of the book, that most modern critics of Islam use to build their theories on the origins of the Quran. They begin by discrediting the oral transmission process of the Quran based on the presence of these "blind spots" of Quranic exegisis. They think this constitutes proof that the oral transmission chain was broken, hence the absence of a consensus on the meaning of these passages. These critics then dismiss centuries of accumulated Muslim scholarship, debates on all levels of the religion, textual, historical, sectarian, juristic, exegetical, theological, that led to the conclusions Muslims hold today as regards the Quran's authenticity, and all this, despite their awareness of various layers of meaning to certain passages. The critics then propose readings based on emendation of the text, changing letters and words so as to prove that "their" reading is more in line with what they individually think the message of a specific passage should be.

The effortless cohesive theological structure of the text, the intricate connections between all of its passages and words is irrelevant and not worth considering. What is primordial is that their "improved" reading be violently forced into the text so as to integrate the Quran in the wider socio-religious context in which they suppose it came. The main purpose being the find their holy grail, to reveal the underlying sources that inspired it. The end result is an incoherent new book that has nothing to do with the original, with sometimes theological implications that Muslims of the past and today would never agree with. But in their minds, the purpose has been accomplished. The uniqueness of the Quran as a religious text orally transmitted, is now a pious legend, regardless of the thousands around the world in our own time doing just that, emulating their predecessors.

The reality of the matter is that as a result of that revisionist approach to the Quran, all these critics converge on the same grounds; they do not know how the Quran originated, where it came from, and when it first appeared, how and in what language it was written, what form it first took, who was the first audience, how was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years, when, how, and by whom it was codified. These are all basic issues taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts, much older than the Quran. Muslim tradition has for long resolved all these issues. Recent critical scholarship will eventually go back to the initial, much more constructive approach of pionneers in the field, by considering the historicity of the events agreed upon over the centuries by the Muslim scholars, and then try and build up their claims, whatever these might be.

The strong oral tradition is the reason why we find reports stating that the process of compilation was never a priority until memorizers started dying out in battles. The priority given to oral transmission is a phenomenon ongoing today and will remain so. It is irrelevant to Muslims whether we have many or few manuscripts attesting to our Quran, even if those few are found to be filled with errors and differences in comparison to what we have today. Neither would the availability of early manuscripts confirming the written text we have today, constitue strong proof for the Quran's authenticity. Someone with enough power and authority could have decided to write the first Quran compilation and disseminate it as the original left by the prophet. This however would have only been possible if the Muslim tradition, like the Judeo-Christian one, had neglected its strong oral tradition.

So what would really challenge the Quran's authenticity is whether we have a variety of conflicting and competing traditions, primarily oral.

Assuming for argument's sake that there are textual variations among manuscripts, or that we have no manuscripts belonging to Uthman, who by the way wasnt the first but the second compiler of the Quran into book form, is irrelevant, even laughable to a Muslim audience when trying to undermine the Quran's preservation. Because again, that preservation was, is and always will be, primarily oral. Trying to criticize the Quran from that angle is thus a fruitless effort, especially when the critic is coming from a background whose religious texts have a known history of neglectfulness or total loss of textual tradition. Such criticism only is valid from the view point of these critics because in the transmission process of their own tradition, they have entirely disregarded the oral aspect. Written texts and manuscripts thus become crucial to them in order to validate and authenticate their current scriptures and beliefs, even though such attestation in and of itself isnt strong proof of authenticity.

So, coming from such a poor background in terms of oral tradition, it is thus but natural for these critics to boast of their numerous manuscripts in comparison to the Quran, even though these early manuscripts of theirs contradict one another and sometimes are very damaging to their current pillars of faith. To this we may add the revisions and corruptions of the text, unknown or confused authorship, broken transmission chain, or even loss of the language of the person to whom the text is ascribed. All these, and other issues are problems that plagued the Biblical traditions, even to the point that the majoritarily accepted canons was different throughout the ages, even today with different Judeo-christian traditions having their own canon as God's word.

Nothing even remotely similar happened to the Quran.

Again, we are comparing an oral society that made the progressive transition towards written with its first ever book, the Quran, of which we have abounding 1st and 2nd century Hijra manuscripts, comparing it with a well established written society. This Graeco-Roman written civilization is expected to have abounding written evidence for its central scriptures. Yet its manuscript attestation, the earlier we go back to the source, the more scant, obscure and inconsistent it becomes. The theory of late (post 200AH) composition of the Quran has been discarded even among the most hardened revisionists and orientalists, in light of the substantial and constantly increasing discoveries of 1st century hijri (622-719CE) Quranic manuscripts. The total texts extracted from these early manuscripts amount for over 90% of the current Quranic text. Contrast this with the single credit card size manuscript remnant of the NT whose dating is disputed somewhere along the 1st century CE. The issue of individual scribal errors is natural, to anyone who knows the various difficulties of copying a lengthy text prior to the printing era. The more essential question would be whether these individual errors were reproduced on a large enough scale so as to corrupt the majority of the transmitted text. This of course never occurred with the Quran, due to its dual, oral/written, mode of transmission. Even the variant readings, approved by the prophet, recorded and attested in books of tafsir, even those readings that change the skeletal Uthmanic text (a tiny minority of all variants and which are not contradictory), were never scripturally transmitted on a scale that would alter the majority of manuscripts throughout time. This again, attests to the well known and established phenomenon of mass oral transmission, as is done to this very day. These textual variations were for the most part restricted to companion codices, meant for the companions' personal use, hence their label by the scholars as companios' readings.

Islam critiqued searches in the old libraries; the Sanaa manuscripts?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

As to the Sanaa manuscripts, they were found along with non Quranic material during a dig at the Great Mosque of Sanaa that was built in the 6th year of hijra under the prophet's orders. The Sanaa manuscripts are there for all to see, some that were dated were compiled in a CD by the UNESCO as a part of their "Memory of the World" program. Other manuscripts are awaiting publication. These facts silence the unjustified conspiracy theorists among the critics who claim that the "embarrassing" manuscripts are somehow hidden by the Yemeni authorities. Sanaa did not reveal anything Muslim tradition did not already know, especially not in terms of variant readings among the early companions

(Nicolai Sinai)"Thus, the Sanaa Palimpsest would appear to provide us with an exciting glimpse at a moment in time at which the hegemony of the Quran’s standard rasm had not yet become fully established. This, it must be said, is in line with the general drift of the Islamic tradition, which reports that during the first decades after Muḥammad’s death a variety of quranic recensions were in circulation. Although none of the exact “companion codices” described by Islamic sources have yet been discovered in manuscript, the general types of textual variants ascribed to them correspond to the types of variants found in the lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest. 17 The latter thus lends credence to the idea that there was originally more than one recension of the Quran and that the Islamic literary sources preserve a broadly accurate view of the scale and character of textual variance between these different versions of the Arabic scripture".

The Islamic hadith corpus and scholarly works, although written late, turn out to be remarkably accurate in reporting the phenomenon of variants. This is significant as the issue could be deemed controversial in terms of the preservation of the Quran, yet the Muslim scholars related every aspect of it. What does it say on how faithful the Muslim community was in preserving their tradition, history, morals, prophetic example? Sadeghi who studied the Sanaa manuscripts and how they relate to the Islamic tradition conclude that:

"It is now equally clear that recent works in the genre of historical fiction are of no help. By “historical fiction” I am referring to the work of authors who, contentedly ensconced next to the mountain of material in the premodern Muslim primary and secondary literature bearing on Islamic origins, say that there are no heights to scale, nothing to learn from the literature, and who speak of the paucity of evidence. Liberated from the requirement to analyze the literature critically, they can dream up imaginative historical narratives rooted in meager cherry-picked or irrelevant evidence, or in some cases no evidence at all. They write off the mountain as the illusory product of religious dogma or of empire-wide conspiracies or mass amnesia or deception, not realizing that literary sources need not always be taken at face value to prove a point; or they simply pass over the mass of the evidence in silence. A pioneering early example of such historical fiction was Hagarism, written by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. While few specialists have accepted its narrative, the book has nevertheless profoundly shaped the outlook of scholars. It has given rise to a class of students and educators who will tell you not only that we do not know anything about Islamic origins, but also that we cannot learn anything about it from the literary sources. All this would be good and well if the mountain of evidence had been studied critically before being dismissed as a mole hill; but the modern critical reevaluation of the literary evidence has barely begun. And, significantly, any number of results have already demonstrated that if only one takes the trouble to do the work, positive results are forthcoming, and that the landscape of the literary evidence, far from being one of randomly-scattered debris, in fact often coheres in remarkable ways. A good example of such findings would be some of Michael Cook’s own fruitful recent studies in the literary sources in two essays of his already discussed here. It is not his confirmation of some elements of the traditional account of the standard Qurʾān that I wish to highlight here, noteworthy as it may be, but rather his demonstration that we can learn from the study of the literary sources".

Among the aspects of the known variant readings confirmed by the most recent scholarly observations is the phenomenon of qira'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitation. According to Hilali’s general characterization,

“[m]ost of the variations in the lower text include more lengthy text than the corresponding passages in the Cairo edition”. This has led the major works of Hilali and Sadeghi to conclude that "the lower text of the palimpsest is derivative from the standard recension".

Hilali further reflects exactly what the Muslim authorities have stated concerning the shaad qiraat. She opines that the authors of the palimpsest integrated interpretative passages into the text without clearly demarcating the 2 because they did not consider their writings to be transmitted to the general public. Their works were meant for personal use. Ibn al Jazari says that some companions would

“insert exegesis into recitation by way of explanation and clarification because they were endeavoring to ascertain the true meaning of what they received from the Prophet by way of recitation; they were safe from confusion [between the text of scripture and the explanations added to it], but some of them may have written it [the explanations] down together with it [the recitation].”

It is important keeping in view that in many cases there is disagreement among scholars in deciphering the lower text. Successive scholars that have studied images of the lower layer have had different conclusions on what is readable and what isnt. With that being said, an interesting observation is that the sub-text, which was erased and then written over, not only corroborates some of the variant readings known and reported among the companions, but also attests to the truthfulness of the Islamic traditions. These traditions have reported much more variations in readings in the companions' codices in comparison to the ones found in Sanaa. That is why the scholars that have studied the manuscripts, such as Sadeghi and Goudarzi, have observed that the Uthmanic recension, in the minor places where it disagrees with the Sanaa manuscripts, was because it was compiled from a critical examination of other sources and is thus a more faithful reproduction of the prophetic prototype. In other words Uthman did not "invent" a new Quran and especially not "change it", given the nature of the differences between the standard rasm and the Sanaa variants, but instead represents the prophetic recital accurately.

This gives further weight to the already well established Muslim tradition concerning the early companions having their own compilations of the Quran even before Uthman's standardized copy, and Uthman's compilation effort motivated by the need to accommodate all of the variant readings in his skeletal structure. 

Other types of noted differences have no bearing on the text, but relate to the order of suras and aya separations, as well as a faulty writing of the hamza letter. Even today for academic reasons, both Muslims and non Muslims have rearranged Quranic suras in their own studies. Many times and especially in those days, mosques were used as study spaces. Sometimes a copyist can make mistakes in reproducing certain letters, his own style and writing level may also be erroneous. These variations, some of which could be deliberate for personal studies, memorization or prayers, do not undermine the integrity of the Quranic text. Puin's main observation of those differences is that eventually, these manuscripts will show that the medieval Muslim scholars who improved upon the primitive orthography of the text so as to make it more accessible, misread certain vowels, writing a long alef instead of the ya. This again, is irrelevant to determining textual corruption as the vowels are known to have been added so as to conform to different readings. 

Another interesting way in which the Sanaa manuscripts confirm the Muslim tradition is through the use of near-synonyms with certain passages from the Uthmanic recension. These near synonyms, known and listed in the Islamic tradition as parts of the prophetic approved readings, have led scholars that do not give much weight to the Muslim tradition, to actually confirm it once more as truthful. Commenting on various studies of the Sanaa manuscripts, Nicolai Sinai says

"The phenomenon (that is, of near symonyms) does, however, shed valuable light on the initial stage of the Quran’s transmission history, insofar as it suggests some degree of oral transmission in which transmitters were forced to rely on their memory of the gist of what was being said, rather than being able to check a written original. As Sadeghi has highlighted, the fact that an examination of the lower layer of the palimpsest yields a fair number but not a downright overabundance of such synonymic substitutions is best explained by an admixture of oral and written transmission. One may accordingly follow him in conceiving of the Quran’s textual transmission as being ultimately rooted in the transcription of oral proclamations recited at speed, thus accounting for the original transcribers’ occasional disagreement about whether a given verse employed, say, alnār or jahannam. The fact that Islamic works ascribe similar synonymic substitutions to some of the non-ʿUthmānic codices of the Quran reportedly com- piled by certain companions of the Prophet adds further weight to this hypothesis".

Kohlberg and Amir-Moezzi claimed that the Sanaa manuscripts contain “significant variants in relation to the official version of the Qur’an”. But an examination of their source, a statement by von Bothmer, shows that in actuality they have very badly misread him. What von Bothmer said is that approximately 22% of the 926 Quranic manuscripts of Sanaa, 208 manuscripts in total, contain a varying number of lines per page. This has nothing to do with their claims concerning the order of the suras. Furthermore, von Bothmer argues that the Sanaa fragments prove that a complete standard text of the Quran, including the Fatiha and the final two suras, existed in the first Islamic century, all the while acknowledging that the only dated fragment is from AH 357/AD 968.

Another important thing to be kept in mind is that there exists numerous partially written copies of the Quran dating well into medieval times that contain a variety of sura orders. This is simply due to the fact, as stated earlier, that some people only wanted a few or partial suras for personal or public use, without consideration for their chronological order. Thus one must carefully consider to what extent the manuscript in question was originally a full or partial copy.

Other Kufic Quranic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century hijra are found in museums today, like the ones of Austria and Bahrein. In fact even the style of the script of the Samarkand codex which the missionaries want to push the dating as far as the late 8th century is found in inscriptions from the 1st century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions, predating Uthman's collection of the Quran.

Islam critiqued searches the manuscripts; No 7th century Quran, so what?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The Quran was transmitted to the next generations both verbally and in script form, on a scale never seen for any document, let alone religious, a process which is still continuing today.

But the primary source of transmission was always oral, all written texts were dependent on it and it still is the case today as all written texts must be attested by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz. Writing down was only meant to consolidate the process of preservation which was mainly oral.

This is what the novices to Islam, which is the case of most its self-proclaimed critics, fail to grasp. They approach Quran authenticity with their own scriptural history in mind. This dual method of control, textual but mainly oral, which was never practiced by the transmitters of the Bible, made it impossible for any textual tampering as it would immediately be detected by the thousands of memorizers in all corners of the Muslim territories.

The number of people having transmitted the Quran is so vast that any error in the transmission became impossible. This is why the Quran is labelled "mutawattir", a level of authenticity attributed to an oral transmission when it has been related exactly the same way by countless independent sources. Extremely few ahadith have been labelled as such or reached the level of multiple independent sources as the Quran. Most ahadith are based ahad reports or singular transmissions. Further and in contrast to the Quran, the ahadith require isnad (detailed chain of transmission) to be validated, because the earliest communities often disputed and argued about the veracity of these statements. The Quran never required any isnad to gain a sense of credibility and authenticity because the text and veracity of the Quran was agreed to by a consensus of the earliest Islamic communities. Despite the abundance of 1st-2nd century hijra manuscripts, there is zero proof that the Quran was transmitted in anyway other than tawatur. Hence the position of mainstream academia as regards the authenticity of the Islamic narrative of compilation, preservation, transmission of the text and recitals. See further below.

The Quran, contrary to both hadith and sunna does not seek support because it has community consensus or reliable transmission chain. Rather, it requires one to believe in its veracity based on it clear arguments. No scripture can be accepted purely on the basis that the same community profess its Divine origins and have themselves sought to protect it.

The script chosen for the Uthman compilation was Kufic, a script still readable today thanks to the dual preservation and transmission of the Quran, textual and oral. Some misinformed and misleading critics have tried arguing that the Kufic script did not appear until the late 8th century in an effort to push forth the dating of the Uthman codices exposed at Samarkand and Topkapi, as this youtuber is trying to claim.

That assertion is totally devoid of any historical basis since it is known that Kufic is the earliest script from which the others developed. That assertion is mainly based on a misquote of Martin Lings who was actually referring to the calligraphic perfection of the script, not its genesis. The Kufic script was known in Mesapotamia at least 100 years before Kufa was even founded, which was during the period of Umar in the 17th year of hijra/638CE. The reason for the layman confusion is because the script is named after the city of Kufa, though it did not originate there. The Kufic script in fact originated in the town of Hira and the Kufans inherited and took on that script that later became known as Kufic, the adopted script of the major learning center of the Islamic world. Several rock inscriptions, as well as coinage, scattered throughout Egypt, Syria, Iraq or the Hijaz attest to the prominence of the Kufic script in Muslim lands already in the 1st century AH.

To further corroborate the point, the manuscripts found in Sanaa were Kufan manuscript, and those are dated the first century hijra. It is also well known that early Quran manuscripts are present in museums worldwide, besides those that are in private collections in the west and those that were lost or destroyed. A huge collection was kept in Germany, but destroyed during the Second World War. Even the manuscripts present in Muslim museums are available as copies in the non-Muslim countries, such as the Uthman Samarkand codex that has numerous copies disseminated worldwide in private and public hands. There are countless 1st century Hijra (622-719CE) Quran fragments, as well as a 99% complete manuscript of that period, the Huseini mosque Cairo manuscript.

Islam critiqued investigates further; missing Quran verses?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Nobody in the hadith has argued that some verses had to be part of the FINAL compilation of the Quran. 

Here is a concrete example, as regards the stoning verse.

Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime. 

The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occured, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls 

"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".

In another narration, the Prophet said in response 

"I cannot have it written". 

This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could get confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occured with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran. 

Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications. 

A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization comitee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032). 

The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication 

"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)". 

Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. Here is another example with sura ikhlas 

"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".

The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon 

"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".

This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people 

"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an" 

Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet 

"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place". 

Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.

We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.

Another important issue often missed by those approaching hadith literature is that, besides the many motivations to create forgeries, the language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter, the most important thing to consider before drawing any conclusion on a hadith's meaning, and which is probably forever lost, are the intricacies of the context of a hadith, as with any discussion between individuals. For example it is possible that while the prophet was reciting a certain surah he broke up his recitation in the midst and gave an explanation which some might have thought to be actually part of the Quran. 

Aisha once asked her scribe to add "and the asr prayer" or according to Tabari "and it is the asr" in the known verse

2:238"Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer [and it is the Asr] and stand obedient to Allah".

A similar report is attributed to Hafsa. The verse was known unanimously in the time of Aisha, who quotes it as is known today. She might have wanted to add in her own personal manuscript, an exegesis the prophet had made while commenting on the verse and which Aisha wrongly thought was part of it. It is interesting to note that we find the same type of elaboration in the following hadith

"We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. The Prophet said, "May God fill their graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy (in battle) that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and it is the 'asr prayer".

The last part is supposed to be an insertion by the prophet, although it obviously runs against the flow of the speech. It could have been an addition by the narrator the same way the addition in 2:238 is attributed to the prophet. As already noted, some others might mix up a prophet's hadith with the Quran even though it remained orally transmitted. Then they might imagine it to be part of a larger sura. For example, the statement attributed to Ubayy ibn Kaab where he speaks of a verse he heard the prophet recite from sura 98 

"If the son of Adam had a valley of wealth..". 

The "verse" clearly has hadith wording and expressions not found in the Quran (yahudiyyah, nasraniyyah and hanifiyyah etc). Besides, this "verse" is found in ibn Majah solely as a hadith, without any mention of sura 98. We also find many ahadith where the prophet recites sura 98 to Ubayy without any mention of the missing "verse". Some might remember a particular verse in a flawed manner, or even mix up several verses together and think that they were originally as they remembered. For example Maslamah ibn Khalid al Ansari claimed 2 verses were absent from the Quran, which clearly seem to be 8:74 and 32:17 and joined together.

Even AbuBakr and ibn Abbas once recited 50:19 and 90:1 respectively slightly differently than is found in the Uthmanic recension. But witnesses stated they heard them at other occasions reciting with the same wording that has reached us. They, like any other companion, and the prophet himself, were of course not immune to momentary memory lapses.

All these cases, again, are irrelevant in regards to the question of preservation of the Quran. In each case, as it occured even to the prophet himself when he had a memory lapse, the consensus of the community was thereto safeguard the correct transmission.

There are other relevant things to consider when evaluating such reports. Including, the many known motivations to forge ahadith, their language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter.

Hadith interpretation is a delicate science and Muslims never take any report for granted simply because it is compiled in a book deemed "authentic". No human being is faultless, except the prophets who were preserved in a single aspect; receiving, communicating and practicing the divine revelation. In fact the prophet himself stated that

"lies will spread after me, so whatever hadith comes to you compare it with the Book of God".

Content of a report thus supersedes even the reliability of the transmitters. 

Islam critiqued wonders at an Arabic peculiarity; Different recitations of the Quran?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

There are 10 qiraat/reading methods which have been approved by the scholars of Islam due to their mass transmission. The differences between them lie in the manner in which the basic Uthmanic text (absence of vowels and dots) was read. As stated earlier, besides the purpose of protecting the text from corruption by locking it with the oral tradition, the defective script allowed the preservation and integration of most authentic readings into the Uthmanic mushaf. Other authentic readings which modified the skeletal text could not be accommodated and thus people progressively ceased reciting them. This is a view shared by al Dani, Ibn al Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al Jazari.

This formidable flexibility of the text allows for people of all cultural-linguistic backgrounds to choose which Quranic Arabic is easier for them to pronounce. These readings are preserved till this day, the names of the most prominent teachers, and their illustrious students, eachone reciting exactly as his predecessor taught him. The name given to a particular qira'a/reading was after its most excellent or famous reciter, not necessarily after the one that first transmitted it from the prophet. Scholars of fiqh/law must consider all readings of a verse before extracting a ruling.

The various readings, all of which are based on the very same text, are actually an integral part of the Quran's miraculous eloquence, with words carrying multiple but complementary meanings whether in areas of story-telling, beliefs or even divine laws. What is further remarkable is that there are "only" 10 readings while the basic script allows for many times more reading possibilities, with all of them making sense. This in itself is enough to dispel the notion that the 10 qiraat were due to a defective arabic script, rather than inherited by the oral tradition we already know to exist and is well attested. An evident example to corroborate is that of the skeletal m-l-k in surah fatiha read maalik or malik. The word appears in several other places where both reading could equally be applied yet the only place with divergent readings is sura fatiha. This is because the readers were not free to apply their preferences, they were constrained by the sunna of the qiraat.

These Recitations were accommodating to the major dialects of the Arabs, thus leading to unifying the Arabic language, and validating all of its variations and subtleties. This not only allowed a faster spread of Islam but also solidified and preserved the language, as part of the divine pledge to protect the Quran. Had there not been approved recital variations, going back to the prophet's time himself, it would have opened the door to tampering with the text to adapt it to different dialects. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. As time passed, the phenomenon of fame and spread of one religious, political center instead of another led in the Muslim world, movement of students and teachers led to some qiraat being supplanted by others more popular ones. Today the one most spread is that of Aasim through Hafs.

There are several examples, among them the known case of m-l-k in sura fatiha that can be read maalik/possessor or malik/ruler. It might say in the Hafs reading of 2:271

"If you give alms...yukaffir/this will cover up some of your evil deeds"

while the Doori reading is

"If you give alms...nukaffir/We will cover up some of your evil deeds".

Both readings perfectly complete eachother, with the latter saying Who will provide the covering (God) and the former saying through which action (charity). 9:66 is very similar with Hafs saying

"If we pardon/naafu a group of you we shall punish/nuaadhib another group"

while Doori says

"If a group of you is pardonned/yuaafa another group will get punished/tuaadhab".

Doori explains what the contrasting behaviors spoken of in the passage will result in (a group will be pardonned while another will be punished) and the Hafs says Who will grant forgiveness or inflict punishment.