Sam Shamoun "QURAN ONLY DILEMMA: HOW MANY PATHS TO PARADISE?"

Sam Shamoun "QURAN ONLY DILEMMA: HOW MANY PATHS TO PARADISE?"

The Quran uses the term Muslims to all those that voluntarily submit to the divine will, whether that will manifested through Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Submission to the Divine Will, willingly or not, is according to the Quran, an observable reality in the universe down to our inner selves, since the origin of things 3:83-5,13:15,19:88-95,22:18 until all are commanded and made to disintegrate and resurrect 84:2.

 That submission however is different in the spiritual realm. 

The creatures, including the humans, endowed with a spirituality, are to volontarily choose submission to the divine will. It will never be enforced upon them. No other din/way is acceptable to Allah, other than volontary self-submission, the meaning of Islam 3:19,2:127-130 because it is the natural fabric of the universe. Those who choose not to surrender totally to God or humbly and freely comply with His order of life, appear out of place in this design 

3:83"Do they seek a religion other than God’s, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they shall all return?" 

Islam and its derivatives (muslim, aslama) are used throughout the Quran to denote one's adoption of the divine will with his heart and soul, symbolized by "the face" in classical Arabic 

2:112"whoever submits his face (aslama wajhahu) to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others)..". 

To further corroborate, those claiming to adhere to the Quran are told to further 

2:208"enter into the silm/the volontary self-surrender". 

Being a "Muslim" is thus on a higher level that mere acceptance of the Quran and Islam, it transcends the simple label as understood nowadays. What it really entails is subordinating all aspects of one's life to the divine will. With the revelation of the Quran none may be labelled Muslim except those who adhere to it in faith and deeds. This isnt because of following the Quran per se, but because it is the final manifestation of the divine will. Prior to it, every individual that followed the latest manifestation of the divine will through a prophet of the time, could equally be labelled Muslim. With the Quran, the path to voluntary self-servitude to the divine will has been defined is such a clear way, that no compulsion is necessary for it to be adopted by a reasonable person 2:256,18:29. Through it, the divine will manifests in its purest form. 

That is why people of all ages and backgrounds have been entering into its fold like waves upon waves 110:1-3. There was no need to forcefully spread it. 

Any appellation that carries a connotation other than the one conveyed through "Muslim" and "Islam" is nothing but a distortion of this simple originality taught from Adam to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and down to Muhammad. When concluding in sura anbiya the stories of some of the most eminent prophets and pious personalities, the passage ends with a statement that these people that preceded, including the newly established nation of the last prophet are in fact a single nation with the same ultimate aims, despite the apparent disconnect between those that claim spiritual affiliation to them 21:92-3.

No prophet came between Ibrahim and Muhammad but that called their people to be upright/hanif in their submission to God 10:72,84,98:5. 

In pre-Islamic times, the term hanif had a strict monotheistic connotation. It was used in contrast to those that abhorred polytheism, but also who rejected the God incarnate of the Christians on one side and the ethno-centered monolatry of Judaism. It applied to those who exerted themselves to return to their original predisposition to uprightness as exemplified by Ibrahim. Like him, the prophets that followed him were all voluntary self-submitters, meaning Muslims, steadfastly constant on the path of servitude to God until their last breath 2:132-3,5:44,12:101,27:44 (the Queen of Sheba voluntarily submits). All belonged to the same community, under the same purpose 3:44,21:92,23:52-3, preaching monotheism 42:13.

They are not responsible for the perversion of their message by their followers, including potentially the followers of the last prophet 

42:14,21:93,23:53"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them". 

These prophets all followed the same pattern of spiritual thought, hence the necessity for anyone to reject any proposition that clearly goes against the re-establishment of that way 3:83-5. No appellation therefore is of any importance in Islam, so long as those claiming to belong to a certain group, submit themselves in words and deeds to the divine will as expounded by a prophet of their time 2:62,5:69. These 2 verses, which speak of righteous believers of the past as is clear from the context, are Medinan. They were recited in Medina after the prophet was confronted to the rejection of some among the people of the book. The idea often propounded by orientalists as regards Islam's supposed initial conciliatory tone towards other faiths, which then changed after the prophet's conflicts with Jews and Christians is therefore baseless. Further, Sura 5 is universally recognized as among the last revealed, much later than sura 3. The contemporaries of the prophet among the people of the book are spoken of in both Medinan and Meccan suras 2:121,3:113-115,199,4:162,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4 where they are either praised or condemned, irrelevant of the political tensions with Muslims, as is here the case for Christians in a late Medinan revelation

 5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses".

The appellations of Jewry or Christianity came into being after the time of the Patriarchs, and long after the times of Moses or Jesus 2:140. Objectively, these terms do not carry any connotation in relation to the divine will, as opposed to self-submission to God, as is intended with the descriptions of "Muslim" or "Islam". They are rather labels describing an affiliation to a race or individual. 

The very early few ones that believed in Jesus, and their contemporaries that followed in their footsteps werent even known as Christians at first but as Nazarenes. They were strict followers of the Torah and its laws, as Jesus enjoined on his community. These 120 small band of believers in Jesus, an inconsequential number considering the spectacular wonders that accompanied his life, death and resurrection, were the followers of "the way" Acts19:9,23,22:4,24:14,22 and known as the Nazarenes Acts24:11. The Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few core elements that valiantly stood by him, when he started sensing disbelief among his followers 3:52,61:14. This inner circle are not the cowards presented in the NT as fleeing Jesus when adversity came or unable to understand most if any, of his teachings which is why they abandoned his instructions to abide by the law soon after his death. In the Quran they pray Allah to make them witnesses of the truth, that their life becomes an embodiment, a testimony to Jesus' teachings.

"Christian" is a later appellation Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.

Nasara is phonetically close to the historical Nazarene/Nazoraios (Greek) or Nasraya (Syriac) Acts24. In the region of the Levant from where the Christians of the Hijaz originated, Christians called themselves Kristyane. It is expected that the Quran would address them by that same name just as it addresses Jews and other groups by their own names. Instead it chose to bring back to the spotlight an appellation forgotten by Christians themselves, found in their books, in reference to the first followers of Jesus, so as to illustrate how far they have gone astray. The last revelation this way vindicates Jesus' true followers, the Nazarenes, by bringing them back to the forefront of history after they had been relegated to darkness by the Christian pauline movement.

Another similarly remarkable feature of the Quran, is in its emphatic description of Jesus' mission as exclusively meant for the Israelites. To the Jews of 7th century Arabia, as is the case today, the reason for Jesus' mission and to whom it was directed to, was of no importance. No Jew would have walked around teaching the notion that Jesus was sent to the Jewish tribes. Christians on the other hand, teach that Jesus' mission was meant for all of humanity. The NT itself makes the claim, contradicting itself. It is thus expected for a 7th century Arab who is neither a Jew nor Christian, and who awkwardly decides to reveal Jesus' target audience, to similarly state that Jesus was sent to all people. Or at the very least that he was sent to Christians just as Moses was sent to the Jews. 

 Then the Quran addresses the Israelites as those who literally 62:6"became Jews" because what Moses and the other Israelite prophets really taught was essentially Islam, or lit. volontary self-submission (to the divine will). There is a reason why the Quran exposes it as utter ignorance to claim that the patriarchs and the tribes/asbat were Jews; the Torah itself makes no mention of those people as Jews, rather as Israelites.

The root of "hadoo" includes the meaning of "those that were guided" and the Quran has attached this meaning to the Jews obviously because no other people ever received such manifest, continuous guidance. There are no Jewish prophets prior to Moses and there are no Christian prophets at all and all true prophets are Muslims in principle. So the most that can be said in this regard is that among those prophets whom the prophet Muhammad emulated, are some Jewish prophets.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "QURAN ONLY DILEMMA: HOW MANY PATHS TO PARADISE?"

- Acts17apologetics needs belonging to a group; is a label important? 

- Acts17apologetics seek the just rankings; which religion came first? 

- Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed" (1) (prevailing of Islam over all religions?)

- Acts17apologetics crack Islamic code; Quran is easy to understand?

The Islam Issue "The death penalty for drinking Alcohol in Islam."

The Islam Issue "The death penalty for drinking Alcohol in Islam."

The Quran does not prescribe a punishment for drinking alcohol. The prophet told his followers to beat the one that does, but did not specify the manner. It was not a systematic command and neither was it often applied despite alcohol being deeply embedded in the society of the time. Abu Bakr to whom a drinker was brought, had to search for witnesses to establish a precedent through the prophet's practice in a similar case. That this closest companion had to make such an inquiry shows how rarely the prophet applied physical punishment to drinkers. 

If beating was so seldomly applied then it means the case of the drinker brought to the prophet and whom he ordered be beaten, and which Abubakr inquired about, had to be significant enough to deserve such a decision. The caliphs that followed Abubakr equally conjectured in their own way as to the details of the punishment for drinking 

"I saw the Messenger of Allah on the morning of the conquest of Mecca when I was a young boy. He was walking among the people, seeking the camp of Khalid ibn al-Walid. A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him). So they beat him with what they had in their hands. Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals. The Messenger of Allah threw some dust on his face. When a man who had drunk wine was brought before AbuBakr, he asked them (i.e. the people) about the number of beatings which they gave him. They numbered it forty. So AbuBakr gave him forty lashes. When Umar came to power, Khalid ibn al-Walid wrote to him: The people have become addicted to drinking wine and they look down upon the prescribed punishment and its penalty. He said: They are with you, ask them. The immigrants who embraced Islam in the beginning were with him. He asked them and they agreed on the fact that (a drunkard) should be given eighty lashes. Ali said: When a man drinks wine, he tells lies. I, therefore, think that he should be prescribed punishment that is prescribed for telling lies.."

The Islam Issue "Why Muslims should not marry infertile women"

The Islam Issue "Why Muslims should not marry infertile women"

On a general note first, the marital history of the Prophet reveals that all of the women he married were either divorced or widowed with the exception of Aisha. Although the prophet willfully chose this despite having had the full power and Quranic right to have much more women that were much younger, yet he did not necessarily push his followers to shoulder the same responsibilities and self-restraint. 

For example when the prophet learned that his young companion Jabir, who had lost his father in battle, married a woman older than him, in addition previously married, he told him he could and should have chosen among the virgins, who would playfully interact with someone like minded and of similar age. Virgins tend to be young, especially in ancient societies where girls married early. Girls still lose their virginity young today, but for the wrong reasons as compared to older times. Also, for a young girl to be infertile is very uncommon, under normal circumstances. Jabir's purpose was to have someone care for his younger siblings, and thus thought that marrying an experienced woman would help him from that perspective. The prophet was a fatherly figure to the community and was here giving a common sense advise to a young man who should be looking for a more cheerful, playful female companion. 

Similarly, most of the prophet's marriages were childless. He had in total 7 children, 6 from his first wife Khadijah out of whom 4 girls survived beyond infancy, and 1 from his right hand possession/mulk yamin Maria who died in infancy. He married divorcees that didnt have children before and after marrying him. But he neither stigmatized nor separated from them on that basis. Yet among the criteria he advised his followers to look for in a woman, which include the known Quranic principles that the best quality of a spouse and of a human being in general lie in his/her uprightness and nobility of character 2:221,66:5,49:13, were love and fertility 

“Marry one who is loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers to the Prophets on the Day of Resurrection.”

Anyone would agree that fertility is a justified criteria for one seeking a spouse, although not the main one. And of course the prophet and any Muslims should and would be proud in seeing the members of his/her community increase in numbers. When someone asked the prophet if he could marry a wealthy and noble woman despite her infertility, he said no. That is because wealth and social status should not be the main reasons for marriage. Had there been other justified reasons, such as love and uprightness in character, the prophet wouldnt have advised against such marriage, despite the woman's infertility, as he himself did.

The prophet thus had no children by any wife other than Khadijah, except Ibrahim born in Medina to Maria the Copt in 8AH and died in Medina at the age of one year. After so many years without children, in addition losing 2 of his boys in infancy, one can imagine the prophet's profound joy, bordering on disbelief when his son Ibrahim was born. A narration by ibn Kathir, although unreliable as given without isnad, reflects that state of mind 

"When Maria give birth to Ibrahim, something would have almost fell upon the prophet's mind but Jibril came down and said "Peace be upon you, father of Ibrahim". 

Doubt was not permitted to enter the prophet's mind the moment Ibrahim was born. Not only that, but his birth was greeted by the angel Gabriel. Later however, the prophet came to know of the people's slander against Maria, which he demonstrated were totally baseless. (see link below).

One interesting incident related to the young Ibrahim's death, revealing once more the prophet's sincerity, humility is that, according to several reports a solar eclipse occurred on that day. Instead of taking advantage of the situation to enhance his claim to prophethood, Muhammad declared that the celestial bodies are all signs in God's Hands. Their condition isnt affected by the life or death of any human. God had already decreed, for a wisdom and foresight known only to Him, that Muhammad's male child would never reach a mature age

 33:40"Muhammad is not the father of any of your rijal/men". 

This is yet another demonstration of the Quran's surgical use of words. 

As a side note, it is worthwhile contrasting Muhammad's view of eclipses as a purely natural phenomenon and the rabbinic, talmudic tradition that explicitly says "Eclipses happen because people sin". Both lunar and solar eclipses are understood as a form of divine punishment - a curse to be dreaded and feared, rather than a miraculous wonder of nature. Later rabbis would argue that though the eclipse in itself is predictable yet the weather conditions were not necessarily, so the visibility of the eclipse could still be viewed as dependant on non scientific factors.

Further reading:

- The Islam Issue "Muhammad violates Islamic law"

The Islam Issue "Ibn Abbas testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Ibn Abbas testifies to Quranic corruption"

In 17:23 the word qada has different shades of meanings depending on context, going from setting limits to measuring those limits to acting according to those limits. See 6:91,12:68,28:15,28,33:23 etc. The word fits 17:23 in the sense that Allah has set limits to the humans in regards to worship which they are obligated to fulfill, just like any citizen under the rule of law. Fulfilling that law does not entail through compulsion, but could equally be through freewill. This is clear in 33:36 where disobedience to Allah's qada/decree through His messenger is forbidden, although it is possible 

"and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying". 

In 17:4 Allah qada/decreed that the Israelites 

"will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence". 

However that decreed disobedience only came about through God's foreknowledge of their own will 

17:7"If you act rightly, it is for your own good, but if you do wrong, it is to your own loss". 

The possibility was there for them to act good and the decree to be otherwise. But God knew that in their freewill they would choose evil instead.

So Qada entails obligation, although not devoid of freewill, while the very similar Wassa is softer in tone. It entails trusting a matter, hence its use in Arabic for the will of the deceased or anything of importance one asks another to take care of. Both words can be used interchangeably to convey a particular nuance depending on the general tone of the context. The use of wassa in 4:131 creates a softer tone. Had qada been used, grammatically it would have to be followed by aala or ila as in 17:4, and the general feel of the verse would have been different, more forceful. Similarly the use of wassa for the revelation 42:13 is more fitting as it is speaking of it being entrusted to the prophets, the devoted slaves of God who do not need to be "obligated" with it.

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

- Islam Critiqued cannot ask with humility...(variants 2:214,18:79-80,24:27,17:23,4:24)

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot..(variant 2:198)

- Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments"  (mutah and 4:24)

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)