The Islam Issue "Aisha testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Aisha testifies to Quranic corruption"

4:162 is a grammatical construction where case markers are switched, having the effect of highlighting a particular thing. It says muqimin instead of muqimun. Highlighting prayer here is understandable in the light of the stress laid several times in this same sura on its observance. 

In 5:69 it is the nominative sabiun instead of sabiin like other accusative nouns in the sentence. In the passage, the Jews and the Christians are repeatedly alluded to. Now the verse mentions a third group not spoken of before and thus marks a sudden shift in pronoun so as to turn the reader/audience's attention on them, integrating them in the passage's overall notions of forgiveness and good deeds. Arabic is known to be a highly elliptical language, with omissions involving all elements within a sentence. This is seen as a major feature of its eloquence.

In 22:25 it says 

"The unbelievers who debar others from the path of God and the Sacred Mosque.." 

It does not say what happens to them, or what punishment they will receive. Their mere description is enough to determine their fate. In 41:41 it says 

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in the message after it has come to them... And indeed, it is a mighty Book". 

The sentence is again left without a predicate; the mere mention of their condition is enough to deduce the horrible consequences.

Another example is 

9:31"They have taken their rabbis and their monks (as) Lords besides Allah and the Messiah, son (of) Maryam. And not they were commanded except that they worship One God. (There) is no god except Him. Glory be to Him from what they associate (with Him)." 

The ellipsis allows for a more concise statement. Rendered fully it would be 9:31"They have taken their rabbis and their monks (as) Lords besides Allah and the Messiah, son (of) Maryam has been taken too as Lord besides Allah. And not they were commanded except that they worship One God. (There) is no god except Him. Glory be to Him from what they associate (with Him)." The verse warns to worship only one God, besides Whom there are none and Who has no associates. It would have made no sense to include that warning had it meant that Allah and Jesus are to be worshiped together. Jesus' deification is on a different level than that of the religious scholars. It was appropriate for the verse to mention him apart from that group, especially considering the message of divine unity at the end.

These types of sentence structures are the reason why we may find different valid grammatical explanations for an elliptical construction.

That is why some have stated that sabiun is in the nominative/mobtada because of the omitted "khadhalika", ie "the Sabeans AS WELL". That literary feature allows for a concise speech, and the Quran initially was uttered as a piecemeal oral discourse, whenever the revelation came to the prophet. This very recurrent feature of the Arabic of the Quran makes its translation difficult, hence the addition of many words in brackets that we see so as to convey the full meaning. For instance in the famous aya of birr 2:177 it literally says 

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is those who believed in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets..." 

This genitive construction allows for an obvious omission. The full rendering would be 

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF those who believed in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets..." 

Some reports attributed to Uthman and Aisha state that 5:69 quoted earlier, along with 4:162 and 20:63 are scribal mistakes. Before getting to the reports, in 20:63, the grammatical construction combines negation "in" and restriction "la" hence the reason why haadhani is declined as such. Other grammarians have said that in the Kinaanah dialect, the dual form always appears with the alif. Still in accordance with grammar rules, the subject of inna is omitted and thus in the accusative. These and other valid grammatical constructions that apply to the verse were reported by Al-Suyuti, who himself quotes the reports attributed to Uthman and Aisha stating this verse and a few others are erroneous. 

Further, these reports, narrated by Urwah in his Iraqi period are considered weak due to the hadith scholars, including imam adhahabi recognizing that 

"when he, ie Urwah, came to Iraq at the end of his life...there were a few hadith that he reported that were not sound". 

But that is not the sole reason undermining the authenticity of these reports. The one attributed to Uthman has a broken chain of transmission, as well as contains narrators whom no scholars vouched for their integrity, such as ibn Aamir. Neither Yahya ibn Ya'mur nor Ikrimah were contemporaries of Uthman to have heard anything from him, as corroborated by ad Daani. Bukhari deemed the chain broken and Qataadah said it was ambiguous. Further, the various names in the chain appear in different chronological orders depending on the channel of transmission. At Tabari even quotes Ubay ibn Kaab's recitation of 4:162 as "walmuqimeena", just as in the mushaf of Uthman we have today. 

This further undermines the notion of a widespread grammatical error among several independant masaahif. And why didnt anyone else notice the "errors" among the multiple independant channels of transmission of the Uthmanic text, other than Uthman and Aisha? How could the exact same "errors" be repeated in the multiple copies which Uthman had compiled? Lastly, why would Uthman, whose task was to harmonize and standardize the Quranic text, destroying all imperfect copies, leave erroneous manuscripts to be disseminated under his watch? 

Al Suyuti himself considered these rational implications and others as damaging to the report's authenticity. Al Suyuti also reports from abu Ubayd how Uthman would immediately correct scribal mistakes which were brought to his attention, citing the examples of 30:30, 86:17 and 2:259 containing very slight errors by the copyists. Why would he then neglect supposedly blatant grammatical mistakes elsewhere? Al Zamakhshari states in Al Kashshaf says those who talk of orthographical error here or elsewhere simply do not know the various ways the Arabs use their language. When the Arab grammarians and philologists, such as those of Kufa and Basra, disputed the grammatical validity of a reading known for its authentic transmission, it was because they neglected the principle of the 7 revealed ahruf which integrated various Arab dialects. They began instead reflecting their own criteria of fluency to these dialects. The fact is that both grammar schools did not assimilate every parts of Arabic into their rules. Many parts of the Arabic is transmitted by the Kufans and others parts by the Basran (al bahr al muhit).

More recently, the Islamicist Nicolai Sinai while quoting John Burton's claim of grammatical error in 20:63 based on that hadith from Aisha says 

"The Hafs aan Asim reading of Q 20:63 (in hadhani la-sahirani..) is of course not, strictly speaking, incorrect, for in al-mukhaffafa does not require the accusative (see Wright, Grammar, vol. 2, 81D). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the majority of canonical readers seem to have read inna hadhani, at the price of linguistic correctness (Ahmad Mukhtar Umar and Abd al-Al Salim Makram, Mujam al-qiraat al-qur'aniyya, 2nd ed., 8 vols (Kuwait: Dhat al-Salasil, 1988, vol. 4, 89–90). There must consequently have been a strong oral tradition in favour of inna instead of in al-mukhaffafa; and it seems probable that this was the original wording, as it is surely the lectio difficilior. Abu Amr and others read inna hadhayn la-sahiran, probably by tacitly going against the rasm. What is significant in the present context is that this oral tradition in favour of inna did not result in an emendation of the rasm".

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Aisha testifies to Quranic corruption"

-  Islam critiqued on the lookout; Where are the stoning and suckling verses? (Aisha on 2:238)

The Islam Issue "Aisha endorses FGM"

The Islam Issue "Aisha endorses FGM"

Although there are ahadith that depict the prophet as saying male circumcision is part of the Abrahamic legacy, nowhere does the prophet instruct female circumcision. The most that is found leaning in favor of the practice are statements where he speaks about unrelated topics where the female involved is already circumcised, or a weak and disputed report where he is comenting on a pre existing practice, in both cases not instructing nor recommending it. In that latter hadith (sunan abu dawud) he says to avoid doing it in a way that would affect both men and women in their sexual life, meaning the procedure must be negligable. And that is why nor he, nor the companions, spoke against it even though it seems it was commonly practiced among the Arabs. Even if one sees prophetic approval for female circumcision in a prophetic saying, it stays far from the image of genital mutilation in the mind of those who jump for joy at anything that superficially seems to paint Islam in an unfavorable light.

The Islam Issue "Ibn Masud testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Ibn Masud testifies to Quranic corruption"

3:81"God made a covenant with the Prophets: “If after what I have vouchsafed to you of the Scriptures and wisdom, there comes to you a messenger confirming the truth of what you have in your possession, you shall believe in him and you shall help him. Do you,” said He, “affirm this and accept the obligation I lay upon you in these terms?” They answered: “We do affirm it.” Said He: ‘Then bear witness, and I am also a witness with you". 

At-Tabari reports a variant reading of 3:81 attributed to ibn Masud in which the covenant is with the people who were given the book, instead of "with the prophets". The narrators are trustworthy but the information they reported is not. On the same page in his Tafsir footnote, At Tabari quotes ibn Hayyan as saying that other trustworthy narrators have reported that ibn Masud's reading of the verse was in perfect congruence with that of Abdullah ibn Kathir and others, as is found in the Uthmanic recension.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Ibn Masud testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Sam Shamoun "The Third Caliph’s Abuse of the Quran’s Greatest Compiler" (ibn Masud rejects Uthman's recension)

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot...(variants 51:58,92:3, missing chapters)

The Islam Issue "Ubai bin ka’b testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Ubai bin ka’b testifies to Quranic corruption"

"‘Umar found a Mushaf (manuscript) with a boy wherein it was written, ‘the prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and he is a father to them, and his wives are their mothers.’ He said, ‘Erase it O boy!’ The boy replied, ‘By Allah I will not erase it and it is so in the Mushaf of Ubayy bin Ka’b.’ So ‘Umar went to Ubayy bin Ka’b". There Ubayy replied; "[Occupation with] Qur’an causes me the lapse as you are caused a lapse by the noise in the markets …" 

So even the renouned Ubay could make an error in his own reading and text. He admits to the correct reading by ackowledging his error. Years later, he was part of the comitee charged with supervising the standardization of the Quran. This error, of one scribe, in one manuscript made while writing 33:6 isnt found in any of the manuscripts he was in charge of, meaning he had agreed with the correction years before. The report in At-Tabari's tafsir on 24:25 where 2 words are supposedly switched in the mushaf of Ubay is attributed to Jarir ibn Hazm (see the full tafsir in Arabic). This was most certainly a scribal error, as At-Tabari goes on saying that the correct reading is the one as we have it today and as transmitted by the readers throughout the Islamic lands (Amsar).

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Ubai bin ka’b testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam Critiqued cannot ask with humility...(variant 48:26)

- Islam critiqued goes back in time; Early Muslims opinion on the Quran? (200 missing verses)

The Islam Issue "Sayd Bin Jubayr testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Sayd Bin Jubayr testifies to Quranic corruption"

When a reading variant is only reported by a few or single individual on any level of the chain, they were termed shaadh/anomalous. If only a taabi'i would report such readings, they would equally be termed shaadh. Jalal al Din al Bulqini classified the reading of the taabi'i Saeed ibn Jubayr as shaadh. That is why we do not find his reading of 18:79-80 for instance in the canon, nor through any other channel. As a side note in regards to this category of qiraat, they are not completely different qiraat, they in fact overlap with the mutawaatir 10 in the vast majority, just as the mutawaatir overlap among eachother except for a tiny number of words.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Sayd Bin Jubayr testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam Critiqued cannot ask with humility... (variant 24:27)

- Acts17apologetics unearth a disastrous scandal; the devil interfering with the prophets? (ibn Jubayr transmits the story)

Anthony Rogers "Allah, Neither Omnipotent Nor Immutable"

In answer to a video by Anthony Rogers "Allah, Neither Omnipotent Nor Immutable"

Each of God's attributes manifests itself in some way in our world, to provide mankind with indications of a superior being. If we take His attribute of power for instance, among the most compelling and mind-blowing manifestations of it is the physical universe, unceasingly amazing and confusing the greatest minds that ever lived the deeper they observe and ponder upon it 

67:3-4"Who created the seven heavens one above another; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any disorder? Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued". 

The discovery of countless worlds beyond our solar system, all stranger than the other in terms of their inner conditions, enhance even further the significance of the signs of nature man is repeatedly told to ponder upon, testifying to God's bounty. When one sees how improbable it is for life to be sustained in this seemingly boundless universe, and yet how flourishing it is in our world, how could one negate intent and purpose in creation? And when one adds the element of ease and all encompassing control over originating and sustaining the universe, then how could someone argue that our relative insignificance entails disinterest from the Creator? The more we look into the universe, the more there is in fact indication that we are not insignificant. 

Looking closer to us is the moon. It controls the length of the day and ocean tides, which affect the biological cycles of lifeforms on our planet. The moon also contributes to Earth's climate by stabilizing Earth's spin axis, offering an ideal environment for life to develop and evolve. The size ratio between the earth and its satellite is unique from all the worlds observed until now, and it is this ratio that allows these vital phenomena to occur 

25:2"It is He who has created all things and ordained them in due proportions".

The self-evident truth in the cosmos of intelligent design is among the major arguments stressed by the messengers. Casting doubt on this clear truth is at odds with human nature 14:10"Their messengers said, "Can there be doubt about Allah, Creator of the heavens and earth?". The passage continues, saying that this reality is self evident to the extent that one can literally see God's imprint in the universe 14:19"Have you not seen that Allah created the heavens and the earth in truth?"

The existence of a Creator is now clearer than it ever was. In this age we live in, miracles in the sense of occurrences that bend the expected laws of nature are obsolete. Although the general scenery of creation described in the Quran as a sign to reflect upon is enough to alert the conscious heart to the miracles surrounding us, the advanced tools at our disposal have magnified these miracles to an unprecedented degree, ironically the very tools of those who are often the first to deny God's existence. Those whose minds are bent at denying it are left with nothing more than engaging in sophistry, pushing the boundaries of probabilities to unreasonable extent so as to allow for the most infinitesimal chance for doubt.

In the meantime, anywhere mankind concentrates its most advanced scientific observation, the more the signature of an intelligent design is apparent. This reality applies to the vastness of the universe down to machine like programming of the DNA. An entity capable of initiating massively complex information must have preceded all things. That entity must, as a consequence be transcendental ie beyond matter, as well as unbound by time and space which both had a beginning. There is an impressive amount of theories to explain the great mystery of how the very first gene and self replicating molecule originated, among them one that focuses on montmorillonite clay. This abundant, inorganic blend of minerals is known to be a chemical catalyst, the crucial precursor to RNA formation, as well as a means by which chemical reactions can be confined and protected until the possible development of cellular membranes. But until now science has been unable to test and repeat any of those suggestions, including the clay model, to produce the first living cell. Even on a theoretical level, the attempts to explain the pathway from non-living to living matter have so far not achieved the states of complexity that are anywhere near that of the simplest known living systems. In fact some have began arguing that the "p-value" (calculated probability for a hypothesis to be true) for nature to produce the complexity of the genetic code is so small that it should be soundly rejected by science. The only counter to this inevitable conclusion is the multiverse theory, the existence of an infinite number of unseen, untestable entities, which is actually just a way of conceding that the only alternative to obvious reality is utter absurdity. Only intelligent minds can produce significant levels of functional information. Since even the simplest lifeforms require high levels of information, the scientific evidence for intelligent design becomes impressive. Even then, one still has to explain how does intelligent design initiate an information without any previous examples, references, experiences. This, the Quran answers through the phrase 

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth". 

The connotation of the word is that, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience. He does so through His word "and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is". This is why God is the "best of creators".

This vast universe is a highly complex entity that will keep on evading man's grasp despite his ability to observe it and physically test it. Its complexity is such that God even swears by 

91:5"the building of it"

as denoted with the impersonal "ma". That complexity however does not entail difficulty to Allah, who brought it to existence through His creative word "Be". Neither did the process tire Him in the least. If that is true, as repeatedly affirmed in the Quran, then how relatively insignificant is man's initial creation 79:27? 

These allusions to difficulty and simplicity are all from the human being's viewpoint. The idolaters acknowledged God as the Originator of the Cosmos, and yet denied the concept of resurrection of that same universe, more particularly of mankind. This denial was rooted in the argument of difficulty, complexity 

17:49-51"And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say, "Be you stones or iron or whatever you think is harder to bring to life". 

But if, as they thought, God was able to originate creation, then it logically follows it should be easier to repeat that task 30:27. This is clearly speaking from their perspective as is the case in 17:49-51, using an imperfect example that denotes mutability to God; a hard task becoming easier the second time. The Quran denies elsewhere the flawed logical deduction from the point of view of God's might 

50:15"Were We then fatigued with the first creation? Yet are they in doubt with regard to a new creation". 

This is the correct logical way to look at creation vs re-creation from the angle of difficulty. It wasnt hard the first time, why will it be the second time 

46:33"Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not tired by their creation, is able to give life to the dead? Yes indeed, He has surely power over all things". 

Again

31:28"Neither your creation nor your raising is anything but as a single soul" 

Clearly both creation and re-creation are as easy to Allah, the Supreme. 

The verse 30:27 ends by stating that the loftiest example/mathal is with Allah. This is because the previously mentioned example that implies mutability from the human perspective, was an imperfect simile, addressed to imperfect minds that can never grasp the true extent of the divine. No worldly process can accurately describe God's attributes of might and creation. He may give us examples to illustrate how His attributes manifest in our world, but these examples are bound to be deficient, none of them can even come close to describing God's reality 

42:11"nothing is like a likeness of Him".

Further reading on the subject;

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (1)

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (2) 

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (3) 

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (4)

The Islam Issue "A grammatical error in Quran 6:151"

The Islam Issue "A grammatical error in Quran 6:151"

Along with not killing one's children for fear of poverty, not committing the fahisha/(anything that is abominable, morally reprehensible, in words or deeds) and not associating with God, voluntarily and benevolent goodness to parents is included amongst the major things that God harrama 6:151. 

h-r-m means forbidding and forbidden to violate as in 7:33 or 22:30,27:91. The context decides and this verse is part of a whole passage listing in total 4 positive and 5 negative commands, as denoted with the jussive mood of the verbs, meaning that rather by starting with the idea that what will follow will be a list of prohibitions, the verse is saying that what will follow are the commands God made inviolable upon Muslims. It is placed among such important bounds forbidden to be transgressed in order to stress its weightiness.

The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

Ibn Umar said 

“Let none of you say ‘I have acquired/ahatta the whole of the Qur’an’. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared/faatahu? Rather let him say ‘I have acquired what has survived/ma tayassara minhu.'” 

This is a blatant mistranslation. The Arabic speaks of knowledge/understanding

 "Let no one say: I have encompassed/understood the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated (for me to grasp).” 

ibn Umar, to whom the quote belongs, wasnt refering to the Quran's collection. He was from a conservative school of thought in matters of Quranic exegisis, even criticizing ibn Abbas' zeal in commenting the sacred text. That is why he warns against those assuming that they are capable of fully grasping this mighty, intricate and deep word of God.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot..(variant reading in 65:1)

The Islam Issue "Muhammad explains non-Menstral bleeding"

The Islam Issue "Muhammad explains non-Menstral bleeding"

"Sneezing, drowsing and yawning during prayer, also menstruation/hayd, vomiting and nose bleeding come from the devil". 

Some misleading critics have unfortunately tried associating that hadith, despite its weakness, with the prophet's statement elsewhere in regards to a woman's frequent bleeding. The prophet told her that was not hayd/menstruation. This in itself discards the attempted association of the 2 statements by the critics. 

He further says that this bleeding is from a aarq/vein 

"That is not menstruation, rather that is a vein". 

He is evidently speaking of a ruptured blood vessel. That rupturing, as he says elsewhere is caused by a rakd/running from the womb, not from the devil. The blood from the womb ran fast causing the vein to break 

"That is not menstruation, rather it is a rakd min/from the womb". 

Rakd means running. It has been rendered in some english translations as "kick". This is because the running in concrete is done with the legs that kick the ground, however the word can apply to other things that run, including blood in the veins as is clearly meant here by the prophet.

The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption"

Scholars contemporary to Uthman, such as Abu ad-darda' made comparative studies between the mushaf of Medina and the others that were dispatched to the provinces to teach people the correct reading. 

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 accomodate 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. 

That is why Uthman is depicted as unbothered by copies based on his standardized text having grammatical flaws in them, to be disseminated because eventually "the Arabs will be able to recite it correctly". Again, this isnt speaking of errors in the script. Uthman would never have allowed such phenomenon be spread under his watch and despite his compilation efforts. These mistakes pertain to recitation. 

It isnt straightforward to grasp for non Arabs but some words if written in accordance with a particular recital can change the structure of that word. For example having 2 dots above a letter in one recital, but 1 dot in another. Or having an added ya at the end of a word. This may confuse the one unfamiliar with that particular recital and trying to read the word. Here is a similar situation 

"When the writing of the Mus-haf was finished, it was brought to ‘Uthmaan and he looked at it, then he said: You have done well. I see something but we will be able to correct it according to our dialect". 

Uthman saw something written differently from the way Quraysh would pronounce it, as happened with the word taaboot, which can be written with 2 different taa. He promised and did correct it according to the dialect of Quraysh.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption";

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot...(variant reading of surah layl)