Acts17apologetics warn women; Quran allows domestic torture?

In answer to the video "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"

Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence.

The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships.

Verses such as 30:21 and others

"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.

Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishment. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them.

Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused. Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes.

This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage.

One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".

Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few

"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".

If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physically. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point.

However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.

First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationally and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps.

In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immediately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationally by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".

These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.

At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurious attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.

So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her.

So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says

4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words

"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then

"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".

4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife 

"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)". 

In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery 

"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".

A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force.

Secondly, it is a deterrent to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him.

The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife. None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment.

 This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so. The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.

This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective. 

In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.

The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined. 

The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants

"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".

In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said

"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".

This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.

Acts17apologetics denounce inapropriate language; Muslim women a tilth?

In answer to the video "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"

The Quran directs men and women to complete and comfort eachother. They have been made from the same essence and should therefore relate to oneanother 4:25. They are eloquently depicted as garments of tranquility and protection to eachother

2:187"They are raiment (libas) for you and ye are raiment for them"  

9:71"And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other".

"Libas" is a clothing used to cover the physical body, also used in the Quran as a means by which one is spiritually covered with God-consciousness/taqwa 7:26. It is to that sort of covering the verse 2:187 refers to because each spouse restrains the other from unchastity, and protects society from debauchery.

"be in contact with them and seek what Allah has written for you".

This is just another instance of the Quran's supreme pragmatism. The coming together of men and women in lawful sexual intercourse isnt primarily a means of being

Gen1:28"fruitful and multiply".

Otherwise the divine law should have banned sexual relations between married infertile people or in any other case that doesnt cause, or at least has the high probability of ending in procreation. Rather the Quran's approach addresses human nature and reality. It considers lawful sexuality as a means by which a natural need is satisfied, first and foremost. Regardless of whether being "fruitful and multplying" results from it or not. Sexual attraction is a pressure God has ingrained in human nature. When a couple engages in that action, they are in reality seeking what Allah has written for them, even if at that time their only aim is to satisfy their sexual desire.

The Quran refers in many places to the positive, God-ordained nature of sexuality within limits, that there is nothing wrong in satisfying carnal desires in lawful ways. What is evil is to deny or forbid those needs or that one should transgress the prescribed limits for satisfying those needs

23:5-7,2:187,222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".

God awareness therefore remains in all situations, even while seeking to fulfill what is an indispensable basis for a healthy husband/wife relationship

2:223"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers".

Man is told to consider the spouse's affectionate disposition aforehand meaning he does not have the entire monopoly of the right to sexual intimacy. This statement goes both ways, which means that neither of the 2 is permitted to withhold the sexual act without a valid reason. Such a behavior would  amount to abuse and mistreatment of the husband or the wife, hence reports the likes of which stating that angels curse the wife that refuses her husband's invitation to sleep with him, making him angry. This speaks of a wife not giving any reason for her refusal, hence the husband's upset feelings.

When informed of Abdullah Ibn Amr’s neglecting of his wife’s conjugal rights, the Prophet reminded him that

"Your wife has a right over you".

Some traditions relate the importance of both being satisifed after physical intercourse. The Prophet once said,

“When a man approaches his wife he should not hasten until she is satisfied because women have needs”

also

“You men must make yourselves tidy and be prepared for your wives, as you would like them to be prepared for you”.

This is about the importance for the husband to be well groomed for his wife, as a sign of love and respect. As shown from the Quran earlier, the spouse's affectionate disposition, his or her mood, must be taken into account aforehand

"None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you. The companions asked, what is that messenger? The prophet replied, Kisses and (romantic) words".

Contrast this with the NT in 1cor7 saying  a wife has no right over her body but her husband does, which leaves the door wide open to marital rape. Back in the HB itself, a rape victim is sometimes forced to marry her rapist. He may not divorce her at any point, giving him free license to keep on abusing his victim for the rest of her life Deut22.

The Quran urges man to be considerate towards the wife, he cannot forsake his spirituality and obedience to God in the process

2:222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".  

Anything going against the prescribed way in which sex is to be performed, is forbidden.

The language used in the verse 2:222 evokes tenderness and deep consideration between the mates with the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with great care. The words allude to liberty in this regard like the farmer is free to approach his land and cultivate it, as well as responsibility, caution and care which he must exercise in approaching his land. A farmer may not mishandle his land nor plant it anyway or anytime he likes.

A somehow similar metaphore is employed in the HB, as it compares a wife to the vine, a weak and tender tree, that needs support, often fastened to the sides of the house, on which it cleaves, runs up and bears fruit. The image creates a parallel with the weakness and tenderness of the female sex, their fruitfulness in bearing children and care for the household in which she is to stay in and exert herself

Ps128:3"Your wife will be as a fruitful vine in the innermost parts of your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table".

The Quran's eloquent words leave no room to them being read with the notion of forced sex in mind. Firon's crime of keeping the Israelites' women for himself and his men as a humiliation and torment, ie to abuse them sexually, as fasad fil ard meaning it is a crime punishable by death 28:4,5:33.

Acts17apologetics denounce mysoginy; Islam says women are inferior to men?

In answer to the video "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"

The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentioned in 2:282 is a general advice

"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".

It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning

"get two witnesses out of your men".

The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.

The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realistically and pragmatically. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.

If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4. Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.

The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent. The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect? The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce".

This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men.

The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too.

Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as saying that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men.

A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked 

"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."

Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.

Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.

Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.

Acts17apologetics accuse Muhammad; prophet ordered to kill or convert?

In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"

This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics.

As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first. These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. Because Muslim rectitude forbids treachery in agreements, the Quran commands the believer to do so openly so as to avoid any misunderstanding as regards the state of war between the parties 8:58. The same principle is observed with the very first verse of sura tawba, where Muslims openly proclaim their dissociation from the treaty breakers. Once the Muslim position is made clear, they should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.

The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:

- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths

4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get 
thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority". 

It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says

"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".

What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting

88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".

This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya

"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".

No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca. 

- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then

2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".

That is because

8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".

These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee. One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement. 

Acts17apologetics warn likely apostates; Quran 4:89 allows killing ex-Muslims?

In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"

18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"

When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion

"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".

The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.

Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained "the right way has become clearly distinct from error". This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.

Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137. 

As reported by ibn Abbas 

"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."

Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter.

This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are

3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".

Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent 

4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly". 

It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because

2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity". 

Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.

Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:

"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".

Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion

4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".

They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief

4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".

Ties with them can only be restaured when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environement where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case

4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".

They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for

4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"

or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandonned all hostilities

4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".

This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishement solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical.

 

Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet 

"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him". 

Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementionned Quranic passage.

However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilising factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilising factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.

Acts17apologetics horror stories; Hypocrites fearful of Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"

After the warmongerers among the Idolaters were dealt with, the sura Tawba turned to the hypocrites, plotting and sowing dissension among the Muslims, recognizable through various traits such as sluggishness in rising for prayer, stinginess or reluctancy to take up arms to the point

9:57"If they could find a refuge or cave or a place to enter into, they would certainly have turned thereto, running away in all haste".

Refusing to defend the larger community in times of war is the central blame attached to this group throughout the sura, living and benefiting from the selfless sacrifices and martyrdom of others. When they were pointed out they would swear they were faithful and sincere. They feared for the repercussions of their treacheries and sabotaging efforts of a community in times of war

9:56,95"They will swear to you by Allah when you return to them so that you may turn aside from them; so do turn aside from them; surely they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they earned".

Although fully justified should he decide to seize them, bring them to justice or even execute them as any governement, past and modern would do to such individuals in times of war, God tells the prophet to let them be, they have been exposed and wont delude or deceive anybody but their own selves.

The prophet of God did exactly that and didnt even imprison such traitors. The most that he did was to socially ostracize them, refusing their unworthy charitable contributions and even their participation in battle, although the community at that point was in need of financial and human resources to defend itself. He even refused pronouncing himself on those who came out in repentance, asking the prophet to pray for their forgiveness, and to accept their charitable donations. Until God revealed His command

 9:103-4"Take a portion of their money as charity, so that you may cleanse and purify them thereby; and pray for them: for your prayers are a source of comfort for them. Do they not know that it is God alone who accepts repentance from His servants, and He is truly the One who takes charitable offerings, and that God is the oft returning to mercy, the merciful?”

Acts17apologetics cpnjecture in the dark; Uthman creates a new Quran?

In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"

An important thing to note here is that Uthman was leader when the Muslim lands had already expanded over a third of the known world and the Quranic transmission was an on-going phenomenon mainly through memory. It would have been impossible for him, or anyone more powerful than him, to destroy all personal, private copies had there already existed differing traditions on written Qurans and manuscripts spread throughout the empire, let alone destroy all these "alternate" Qurans from the Muslims' memories and prevent their recitation.

It should be easy to provide empirical proof for these claims, like in Christianity, where there is manuscript evidence as well as a whole history of textual revisions, disagreements of what should or shouldnt be canonical. There is nothing even remotely similar in Islam.

Also it is well known how Uthman's control on his own far regions, including Iraq and Egypt was weak. Hence his inability to control the rebellions and the rulers of the farthest regions of his empire, until he was finally assassinated in Medina. These rebels and their rulers who never accepted Uthman's authority and upon whom he had no control did not need to reach the seat of the caliphate to have and propagate their own Qurans in their own regions upon which they had authority, just as their predecessors who never swore allegiance to the previous caliphs.

So despite their hatred for the caliphate, these rebels that the caliphs could not even control, magically followed Abu Bakr then Uthman's Quran in their own prayers, abandoning what they thought was God's word for the person they had actually revolted against and assassinated? Not a single source speaks of dispute between competing texts or of a rejection of Uthman's copy in favor of another.

Similarly the tensions surrounding the succession of the prophet had every reason to incite people to alter the Quran in their favor yet we find that all disputes and arguments between leaders and supporters against the opposite camp were never based on the Quran but on sayings of the prophet and his companions. The authoritative consonantal skeleton of the Quran is unanimously traced back to Uthman, not only by the Sunni tradition but also by eir historical enemies like the Kharijites and the Shia.  These groups and even sub groups were willing to go to war for their theological positions. They fabricated ahadith in defence of their views yet none ever tampered with the Quran. Not that they were not tempted, rather the oral and textual dissemination was such that corruption became impossible without being detected and discredited. So how could this pan-Islamic consensus have formed at a time when the Islamic community had spread from Spain to Iran, had split into several hostile groups, unless the Quran had attained the level of mass transmission/tawaatur? How could Uthman or even  Abd al-Malik after him, have coerced their various adversaries to adopt "their" version of scripture, in addition crediting Uthman for it? There were other existing recensions, compiled by the prophet's companions such as that of Ibn Masud which he received from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet. Why didnt the Shia adopt it in order to demarcate themselves from the sunni? They could have in addition credited Ali for the compilation instead of Uthman. Also, variants are all still attested in many scholarly works throughout the centuries, with their chains of transmission, some authentically attested to the prophet and others of weaker authenticity. There is no widescale conspiracy to hide or suppress anything nor would it have been possible by the wildest stretch of imagination. And burning the defective copies did nothing to erase the knowledge of the variants from the hearts of the people, well after Uthman. Why didnt someone or at least a group of people who had preserved their alternate versions, somewhere in the vast caliphate begin the process of rewriting and propagating their own copies allegedly suppressed by Uthman?

It is obvious Uthman, who could not assert his political power in those lands, would not have been able to control something even more complex and dynamic and far ranging, which is the recitation and transmission of the Quran. And if Uthman had his own enemies to the point they revolted in Iraq and Egypt, and marched to Medina to have him assassinated, why would these people agree to Uthman's Quran? They surely would have kept their own "Qurans" but it didnt happen.

So how did these multiple Qurans just disappear out of the collective conscience of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, through the introduction of just 6-9 manuscripts, considering the fact that the vast majority of Muslims was illiterate anyway. And all this through the "force" of a man who was assassinated in his own house, as said earlier, unable to assert his political authority, yet he supposedly and just magically controlled all these various competing traditions of not just manuscripts, but RECITED words?

We have over 15 years, including Umar's extensive rule of Africa, Asia and parts of Central Asia, to Persia, meaning one is talking about a deeply embedded culture prior to Uthman even taking the reigns of rule. How did all these millions upon whom he in addition had no control line up in such a short-time to relearn and re-memorize the Quran due to a few manuscripts they couldnt even read, and abandon their differing tradition?

The opposition against Uthman, his growing unpopularity, and for which he was eventually assassinated, was due to divergence from the practice of the two preceding caliphs in handling the public trust of the Muslims, and other such issues. But his work relating to the Quran was appreciated equally by his friends and foes and it was never made a point of stigma on him by his adversaries. Had Uthman altered the Quran, that would have served as the clearest argument for, and major justification of, his public assassination.

Acts17apologetics seek the details; how was the compilation done?

In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"

Zayd ibn Thabit was the main scribe along with several other prominent Qurayshis tasked by Uthman to compile the Quran in book form. The same Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Abu Bakr's time as well, collecting the revelation in the form of suhuf or loose pages, from both oral as well as written sources that were in the prophet's house. Zayd remembered how

"the prophet was taken from this life while the Quran had not yet been gathered into a book".

The use of "gathered" instead of "written" is significant as it proves its existence in written form, although scattered on different supports. Zaid, after gathering all that was physically available, then demanded two witnesses for each piece, attesting to its oral transmission. Here Zaid was just following the prophet's dual authentication method, oral/textual. It is to be noted, none, not even the prophet himself as attested in the traditions, is able to recite flawlessly from memory each and every time. That is why the Quran was transmitted through massive consensus, with reciters and laymen checking one another for errors, in addition strengthening the transmission process using their physical copies.

To corroborate this great care in performing the task entrusted to him, there are at least 2 recorded incidents where Zayd would not validate a verse despite knowing it by heart from the prophet's mouth, until he found it in written form between the hands of a reliable believer. This was the case concerning the last 2 verses of sura tawba/bara'a, known and cross checked through the memory of several reciters including Zayd, and yet he would not include it in the text unless corroborated by a written copy. Once the unique hard copy of 9:128-129 was found between the hands Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari it confirmed what the comitee of compilers, including  Umar, Uthman, Zaid and Ubay bin Kaab had already memorized and were looking for in the first place. There has never been any doubt across the spectrum of Islamic sects as to the authenticity of these 2 verses.

Other reports show how this double testimony denied even Umar's claim of the missing verse about stoning, because he was the only one to make the claim. This authentication process was even more stringent than the one the other religious texts (hadith, tafsir, fiqh etc.) would later be put through, which already is in itself a method unsurpassed in the world for any other document, let alone religious.

This is how serious, meticulous and careful Zayd was in accomplishing his mission

"By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur’an".

Zayd is here speaking retrospectively and implying how the successfully completed task was a heavy duty obviously hard to accomplish considering the level of care he had imposed upon himself. 

This highly noble assignment, entrusted to the young Zayd, did cause resentment among some of the older companions, the most vocal of whom was Abdullah ibn Masud. That resentment was further fueled by the fact ibn Masud had to give up his own personal mushaf. The early Muslims held their Quran writings in high esteem, and ibn Masud compiled his own in greater part based on the recitation learned from the prophet in person. But he now had to give it up in favor of Zayd's approved standardized rasm/orthography. Zayd's compilation was superior to ibn Masud in that its rasm could absorb many potential qiraat while the scripts of the individual copies held by Muslims could not be read in all qiraat. 

It is only natural that he, out of pride, who hold on to his "superior" mushaf and by the same token try and discredit Zayd 

"'O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" Az-Zuhri said: "It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas'ud". 

In this correct rendition of Az-Zuhri's report in Jami' al Tirmidhi, not the misleading translation often used among Islam critics ("Avoid copying the Mushaf and the recitation of this man") several important things transpire. Firstly, the leading companions disapproved of that selfish, prideful stand from ibn Masud. Second, what ibn Masud really resented was not Zayd's capabilities. Rather it was Uthman's decision not to appoint him instead of Zaid as leader of the 2nd committee for the compilation. Al Asqalani discusses that particular point, saying ibn Masud simply was absent from Medina when Uthman urgently appointed the committee. He was in Kufah. Furthermore, because Uthman did nothing more than reproduce the pages compiled under Abu Bakr into one mushaf, and that Zayd Ibn Thabit had already been among the top scribes charged of that compilation, then it was natural to designate him to lead that 2nd compilation. 

The other issue ibn Masud had was in giving up his precious mushaf, which he was emotionally attached to 

"whenever the prophet and Jibril finished reciting to eachother, i would recite to the prophet as well and he would inform me that my recitation was eloquent". 

As already pointed, Zayd was already entrusted with a similar task under Abu Bakr and ibn Masud didnt voice any objection then, as he was now doing under Uthman. Uthman chose Zayd for his experience under Abu Bakr. Despite his initial opposition, ibn Masud eventually understood Uthman's plan and agreed with his effort, surrendering his personal mushaf. As later attested by ibn Qurazi, the mushaf of ibn Masud which he used for recitation and teaching was no different, including in its sura sequence, than the ones of Ubayy and Zaid ibn Thabit. The names of his most illustrious pupils and their transmission of the entire 114 suras of the Quran is also known, names like Alqama, al Aswad, Masruq and many others. 

The spurious reports by the historians, saying Uthman ordered the beating of ibn Masud are "fabrications" according to ibn al Arabi and some of the "most well known lies" according to al Dhahabi. The reality is that despite temporary tensions, Uthman and ibn Masud had high regard for one another, with Uthman even leading the funeral prayer at ibn Masud's death in Medina (ibn Saad/Tabaqat).

Uthman's compilation was thus written, as alluded to earlier, in a particular rasm (orthography) which became known as al-rasm al-Uthmani. That orthography included addition, deletion and substitution of letters to clarify the right pronunciation. That rasm made it possible from the beginning for some words to be read in more than one authenticated qiraat/readings/recitations method, going back with strong certainty to the prophet

“I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting Surat al-Furqan (Sura 25) differently from me, and it was the Messenger of Allah who had recited it to me. I was about to rush up to him but I granted him a respite until he had finished his prayer. Then I grabbed him by his cloak and took him to the Messenger of Allah and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way you recited it to me.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Let him go.’ Then he said, ‘Recite, Hisham,’ and Hisham recited as I had heard him recite. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘It was sent down like that.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite’ and I recited the sura, and he said, ‘It was sent down like that. This Qur’an was sent down in seven ways, so recite from it whatever is easy for you.’ ”.

This undisputed hadith shows 3 major points; the Quran as we have it today, along with its authentically reported variations is preserved just as it was revealed. The second point is that no companion, including Umar ibn al khattab, the 2nd Caliph, quoted above, mastered all the qiraat/recitation types at once. The final point is that the companions were on the lookout for the slightest unapproved variant in recital. 

What had happened to Umar as he came across a mode of recitation other than his for the first time, had also occurred to Ubayy ibn Kaab 

"I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah's Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation)". 

We see again the same pattern of the close companions being on high alert at all moments to the matter of the transmission and preservation of the Quran. The matter was so dear to Ubayy that 

"there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance". 

Although Ubayy did not verbally express his thoughts, the prophet felt his unease 

"he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear". 

The prophet engaged him physically so as to bring him out of his state of confusion and make him focus on what he was about to tell him

 "He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession)". 

This state of momentary doubt is something that might affect any believer of the highest degree, even in the presence of a prophet. It is interesting that Christian critics bring this minor issue up of Ubayy's inner feelings as if it is anything similar to what is depicted in their own books; Peter, the pillar of the church and chief of the apostles forcefully denied Jesus after his arrest. Prior to that, he did Satan's work by being a "stumbling block" to Jesus. Judas explicitly gave Jesus up to the authorities. Eventually all of the close circle "forsook him, and fled".

Another instance involving Umar is when he heard a variant from someone who had studied under Ubay ibn Kaab. He immediately took the man to Ubay for confirmation and even made Ubay testify three times that the variant had come from the prophet, prior to letting the man go. It has also been reported that Ubay read 48:26 with the addition 

"and if you had felt disdain like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted". 

Umar was unaware of that reading and again objected, showing once more how the companions never felt complacent in the preservation of their sacred scripture. Umar did not simply let that pass based on the precedent of their being variants he did not know that proved to be true. He went and asked for the testimony of Zayd ibn Thabit, who sided with him. But upon Ubay's insistence, Umar let him read as he pleased, based on his virtues and trustworthiness in the transmission of the Quran (Al Haakim, Al Mustadrak alal sahihayn). What is clear however is that Ubay did not transmit this reading to his students, because it was an exegetical variant, as seen earlier, approved by the prophet but aimed at helping the companion personally in his own understanding and assimilation of the text. This is supported by 2 important points; Umar was not aware of that recitation although he heard this sura directly from the Prophet on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. And second Ubay's reading through Abu Jaafar, Ibn Kathir, and Abu Amr, does not report this addition (Kitab al Mabani, Muqaddimatan 91-93). 

There is a reverse case with Umar's reading of 62:9 being dropped in favor of Ubay's. This shows that the rule in regards to readings that changed the structure of a word or verse, was to adopt the consensus reading, and that the companions knew that the permissions the prophet had given them in that regard were meant for their personal use. An explicit example is Bukhari's report of ibn Abbas' reading of 26:214. He is sometimes quoted reciting it with additional words and at other times he recites it exactly as is found in the Uthmanic recension. This is because he was aware the different reading was meant for his personal assimilation and elaboration over the text, and that the consensus was to read it according to what has come down to us, and as massively reported through multiple chains.

And if the companions themselves were not aware of every aspect of all readings approved by the prophet, then it is only natural that their students would sometimes encounter the same problem 

"The companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as `Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear `Abdullah bin Mas`ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- 'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them." 

Both Alqama and Abu Darda recited 92:3 without "ma khalaqa", as we find in today's Quran. Alqama heard it from his master ibn Masud and Abu Darda confirmed the authenticity of that variant as coming from the prophet. But other readers recited differently, according to what their own masters and companions of the prophet taught them, meaning without those leniencies recited by the prophet to his companions. Since the prophet this time was not present to arbitrate, each side remained on a reading traced to the prophet. However the reading of ibn Mas'ud has reached us today and is called the reading of Shu'ba. Yet we do not find this variant in their recital. This shows that it was eventually dropped in favor of the massive consensus/tawaatur, the ultimate criterion of preservation of the Quran. Ibn al Jazari (see his Nashr) was thus completely justified in rejecting that reading of 92:3 based on it being transmitted through ahad/isolated report that contradicts the consensus.

Even Ibn Abbas came across a manuscript thinking the scribe had made an error. These errors, such as 24:27 or 17:23 were simply variants he wasnt aware of. They are all present in today's Quran. When he became aware of the authenticity of these readings, he accepted, them, just as Umar quoted earlier. This is because when ibn Abbas was asked 

"Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)". 

This declaration is significant because it shows that even in the extreme case where ibn Abbas stuck to an exegetical reading, as is reported concerning 4:24, he still ultimately agreed with the consensus reading that has come down to us. 

As to 24:27, Al-Tabari reports ibn Abbas' comment on it. Ibn Abbas first quotes the conventional reading, after which he juxtaposes his own reading, showing what is already known about the 2 words tasta'nisu/tasta'dhinu being near synonyms. This also proves that he had approved the conventional reading. The situation is similar with 17:23. At Tabari quotes a report where Nusayr ibn abi Al Ashaab says that a person was given a mushaf by ibn Abbas that read wassa instead of qada as we have today. At Tabari then quotes another report where the same reading was found in a mushaf with Nusayr, who then said that wassa and qada are near-synonyms. This shows again that those companions whose mushaf diverged from the consensus in near-synonyms, ultimately adopted the majority reading.

The standardized written Qurans were thus sent to different parts of the Caliphate. They ranged from 4 to 9 according to different narrations (al-Ya'qubi,al-Suyuti,al-Jawzi,al-Salih) and were sent to Kufa, Basra, Mecca, Syria, Bahrein, Yemen, Egypt, al-Jazirah and Medina along with a qari to demonstrate the correct reading to the people who obviously were in vast majority illiterate. These Qurans were copied and spread to Muslims throughout the Islamic territories. Compare this effort by the compilers of the Quran, just 10 years following the prophet's death, in making the text as readily accessible to as many people, to the Church effort in locking the language of the Bible into Latin for a 1000 years so as to purposefully prevent the common people from accessing it by themselves.

But even after Uthman, additional work had to be done on the Quran script to make it easier to read for both Arabs and non Arabs Muslims who werent familiar with Quran recitation. As shown earlier, the first compilations of the Quran were written in a defective script, lacking vowels and dotting. This wasnt a problem to those that already knew the proper recitation but could confuse the others.

Steps were thus taken to gradually improve the orthography, by adding vowels and dots. Ibn Umar (73/692) disliked the additions; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Quran as received from the Prophet, and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world.

With the last mushaf written and sent to the distant provinces, while a copy remained in Medina to serve as a blueprint for further copies, the original scattered and partial pieces of written Quranic text in the hands of the Muslims had served their purpose of being a secondary preservation method next to the memorization, and could now be safely discarded and burned.

Once again, not because there were competing traditions and texts, but because, in light of parallel evidence provided by multiple memorizers, they were incomplete, or erroneous. The miraculous preservation of the Quran isnt undermined by the presence of scribal errors, which is inevitable, but whether the entire written text is lost from the hands and especially the memories of the community, which has never happened as it did with the Biblical tradition several times over. In addition to the imperfections that prompted the destruction of those personal copies, even those texts in Muslim hands that were correct prior to Uthman's standardization, their basic script did not integrate the multiple qiraat/recitals.

The whole idea behind Uthman's compilation effort was to standardize the written text in a manner that could facilitate its reading depending on one's recitation. No written text prior to his, integrated as many potential recitations in its skeletal structure. That is the truth about the whole mountain of conspiration created by Islam's misleading critics, seizing upon this opportunity which no Muslim ever protested against, to build their baseless charges against the Quran's authenticity.

Scholars contemporary to Uthman, such as Abu ad-darda' made comparative studies between the mushaf of Medina and the others. The findings revealed no variation in the skeletal structure but a total of 40 single letters differences scattered over 6 mushafs. These 6 mushafs were not private copies based on the ones approved and sent by Uthman, but were the very ones compiled under his watch then dispatched throughout the Muslim territories.

This shows that these variants were known and approved. The compilers might have left them in because they agreed with the authenticated prophetic qiraat. This is the view of al Dani who stated that because Uthman could not accommodate all the qiraat in a single mushaf, he spread them throughout the masahif. Although the Medina mushaf was lost during the unrest that followed Uthman's assassination, based on the comparative notes left by the scholars that studied it, the present day Quran is in perfect congruence with what has been transmitted to us from the Medina mushaf.