²¹ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

¹⁵ Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Quran Dilemma book also discusses these same issues and was written by FORMER Muslim scholars.  Their agenda is to find the TRUTH.  There is only one.  Once you realize the fact that the Koran had many different versions, and that many Muslims disagreed on the content, and that Muhammed was not around to clarify and in fact wrote none of it, then you cannot say that it is 100% accurate or even holy.  So then it really is not any better than the Bible, and the Bible should be given more credibility, especially the words and works of Jesus.  Maybe they are true?  Maybe Muslims should heed his words, or at least study them and decide for yourself what is true.  We all have the ability to discern truth.  If you never read it you will never know it.  You cannot be sure of the Koran any  more than the bible, so you need to decide for yourself. 

Mahdi Said

any unsupervised person can write whatever they want in any place. we rely only on authoritative accounts. whatever was written on the papers earlier could be anything .did those 'scholars' analyse the underlying texts? what exactly are the differences between the texts in yemen and today's Quran?

My Reply

Any unsupervised person? What does that mean? I wouldn’t say experts in semitic philology who specialise in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic palaeography would be ‘unsupervised’ what ever that means anyway?

I would say they understand the Koran better than you and most other Muslims on this planet.

You say Muslims rely on an authoritative account. What authoritative account would that be. No original copies of the Koran exist so how would you know due to Uthmans burning of all other accounts.

You say whatever was written on the papers earlier could be anything. Yes exactly that’s my point! The Quran could say any thing.

You ask did they analyse the underlying texts? Yes they did and this is what they found.

They analysed 16000 sheets or parchments of Koranic fragments and uncovered even more variants in the rasm that are not found in all eight volumes, Mu‘jam al-qirä’ät  al-qur’äniyyah dictionaries.

He found over ten thousand variants, of which about a thousand are variants of or deviations in the rasm. In just 83 sheets of Koranic fragments Puin discovered at least 5000 deviations in the rasm.

He found differences in the system of counting of verses and  even the sequence of suras is often different  with not only the Standard Egyptian edition of the Quaran but with the sequence of suras in the Korans of Ibn Mas‘üd and Ubayy.

These deviations cannot be dismissed as mere scribal (writer) errors since the so-called errors are repeated with the same word several times in several fragments studied.

An example in change of meaning is where Puin found that the long "a" sound could be rendered by the Arab letter yä’, and originally the name in the present Koran that is read as "‘Ibrähïm" must have been read "Abrähäm". In other words, at some stage that fact that the long "ä" was rendered with the yä’ was forgotten - hence the so-called oral tradition was not strong or even non-existent.

Another scholar Andrew Rippin analyzing the Sanaa Koran goes on to discuss Sura XXI.4 and 112. Should the two verses begin with the imperative "Say!", [in Arabic:qul] thus indicating that God is the speaker, or should the word be read as "He said" [qäla]? 

Puin says like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read.

 "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols.

Puin also questions that it was written in the purest Arabic. He has found many words of foreign origin in the text, including the word "Koran" itself. Muslim scholars explain the "Koran" to mean recitation, but Puin argues that it is actually derived from an Aramaic word, qariyun, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service. He says the Koran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is "a summary of the Bible to be read in service".

In conclusion the Koran has undergone an evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran you have today is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.

All of this sheds doubt on the Koran as the eternal, literal Word of God, unchanging and permanent. On tablets in heaven passed down to Gabriel and then Mohammad and to the Koran you have today? Really ?

That sounds funny coming from you Mahdi. You are of all people are quick to pass judgment on the Bible and wanting to believe what you want to believe.

Here are the facts again -

1. The Koran found in 1972 in Yemen (which is the oldest Koran in existence) differs significantly from your present standard one.

2. This Yemen Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions?

3. No Muslim in their right mind would criticize the Quran without risking a fatwa of blasphemy / apostasy and a possible death sentence.

Once again. Why don’t you address the facts provided, or can you not?

The motives of Dr Puin and Christoph Luxenberg are obvious. They are academic scholars. Dr Puin is a scholar of historical orthography, and a specialist in Arabic paleography.  And Christoph Luxenberg is an academic linguist specializing in Semitic languages. Their motives are scholarly. Not to undermine your religion. Muslim inability to respond intelligently to the facts undermines your religion.

Your response that their hidden agenda is, to question the authenticity of the Quran is typical Muslim paranoia, closed mindedness and evasion.

The facts speak for themselves. Please respond to the facts. -

How do you explain that the Koran found in 1972 in Yemen (which is the oldest Koran in existence) differs significantly from your present standard one?

How do you explain that this Yemen Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions?

If it is true that Allah had guaranteed in the Quran that no one will ever be able to "distort, pervert, revise, modify and correct" then you need to explain the facts revealed from the analysis of the Sanaa Yemen Quaran.

You say “you will not find any Muslim sources that says the Quran is not the word of God.”  So what is the agenda of these Muslim sources ?

It is to support Islam rather than to look at the facts in an intelligent academic way.

Besides what Muslim in their right mind would criticize the Quran without risking a fatwa of apostasy and a death sentence.

You say you can quote many non-Muslim sources that acknowledged that the Bible is not a word of God.  I welcome truth so please go ahead and quote the many non-Muslim sources that acknowledge the Bible is not the word of God.

I’ve heard many of them before, many posted here on this discussion forum.

Muslims on this forum are quick to criticize the Bible. But when their own Quran is criticized Muslims can’t handle it. They tend to become defensive, and closed minded to argument, with no real intelligent reply to the good points being made. I welcome your response to the points above about the historical evolution of the Quran.

I pray that God may guide you on paths of wisdom.

How do you know they have a hidden agenda when you know nothing about them?

If you want proof – here it is. In 1972 a Koran was found in Sanaa Yemen that is the oldest Koran in existence. This Koran differs significantly from the present standard one.

The Sanaa Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions.

These differences show the Koran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected. Textual alterations have taken place over the years by human hands.

It also shows the claim in the Koran that nobody can alter the words of God is not true.

Its funny you say that “scholars are only special to illiterate people who cannot read for themselves,” when most of the Muslim world do not even know Arabic to read the Koran for themselves.

Can a Muslim here please clarify. Are  the Koran and the Arabic language divine miracles or not?

Christoph Luxenberg in his book, “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran,” says the language of the early copies of the Qur'an was not exclusively Arabic, but were based in the Syro-Aramaic dialect.

Luxenberg's states that the Aramaic (not Arabic) language which was common through the Middle East during the early period of Islam had a strong influence on the creation and meaning of the Koran. Not Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg

Another Koran scholar by the name of Dr Gerd R  Puin states -

“… the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself.”

(Lester, Toby (January 1999). "What Is the Koran?". Atlantic Monthly.)