Hello Nassir, thanks for responding.
My friend, this could get interesting.
You said:
“Dear Kyle, many thanks for your reply, which reminds me of the proverbial “My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with facts.”
My friend, the same could be said of you.
You said:
“So let me start with some factual information about the Quran, which I know very well.
1. You said: “You do not have the original Arabic Quran. You don’t have any manuscript from the first hundred years after Mohammed.”
Patently wrong. A well-known manuscript is dated 13 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, at the latest”
This will bury you.
It is not a manuscript. It is two pages.
These two pages contain several variants when compared to your modern-day Quran.
In other words: it proves your Quran was not preserved perfectly.
These are not my words, but those who examined it directly:
A comparison between the copy of MS PaB and the Medina muṣḥaf leads to a number of differences being identified. These variants can be understood as a mirror of the linguistic competence of the copyist and his linguistic context, in that the manuscript bears some phonetic, orthographic, morphologic and syntactic variants, but also a few lexical variants, among which there are variants related to the voice and recipient of the message and some variants due to mechanical errors during the copying activity. Lastly, the manuscript exhibits a few peculiar features as regards the subdivision of the Qur’ānic text into verses. Furthermore, the analysis of the manuscript text compared with the literature of the Islamic tradition reveals a few qirā’āt that are substantiated through the manuscript itself. (See pp. 147–199 of Fedeli, Alba (2014). EARLY QUR’ĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS, THEIR TEXT, AND THE ALPHONSE MINGANA PAPERS HELD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL COLLECTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM (PDF) (Ph.D.). Birmingham University.)
Next, you said:
“2. Re: Authenticity of the Quran. You said: “You have copies, many of which have been altered. Verses have been removed. Variant readings exist.”
(i) Here is what some orientalist scholars, since the 19th century CE, have to say on the authenticity of the Quran:
And all of this proves nothing, my friend, when we can look at these ancient manuscripts and point out all the differences between the earliest manuscripts and what you have today.
It doesn’t matter how many people you cite who claim there are no differences.
We can see the differences with our own eyes.
Ask yourself this question: “Why did ‘Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur’an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma’sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that ‘Uthman’s copy was better than any of the others?”
It’s a simple question, isn’t it?
If they were all the same, why destroy the others?
If they were different, how do you know ‘Uthman’s copy was closer to Mohammed than the others?
The answer is: you don’t.
If you’re bold, you can read much more about the varients in the Quran here:
Textual Variants of the Qur’an (answering-islam.org)
You said:
“3. You said: “More than one English version of the Quran is in use today, as well.” Sure, but none of them is accepted as “The word of God”. Only the original Arabic Quran is accepted as “The word of God”
There is no original Arabic Quran.
You said:
“In the case of the English Bible, there are, for example: (i) The English Standard Version, (ii) New International Version, (iii) New American Standard Bible, (iv) Christian Standard Bible, (v) New Living Translation, (vi) King James Version, and (v) New King James Version. All of these, I believe, are accepted as Bible. But they do not have exactly the same wording, so which of them is the unadulterated “ word of God”? None of them, according to the meaning of “The word of God” as used in the Quran.”
They are all English translations.
We have abundant manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek originals.
If you want an “unadulterated” copy, we can point you to our best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
Yet even Muslims to not have an “unadulterated” copy of the Quran, as the links above prove.
You said:
“Please carefully note the following:
According to the Quran, Jesus has undoubtedly received revelation from God. What is narrated in today’s Bible(s) are reports by third parties (although they may have been witnesses), which reports: (i) have not been authenticated in the same meticulous way as the Quran, as I have explained in my previous post, and (ii) they are translations to boot, even if some parts are a first translation, as you claim. TRANSLATIONS OF THE WORD OF GOD ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE UNADULTERATED WORD OF GOD, WHICH IS THE ARABIC QURAN. YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF “THE WORD OF GOD” IN THE QURAN AND HAVE FALSELY BUILT A THESIS IN YOUR STORY BASED ON THIS MISUNDERSTANDING.”
My friend, you lambast misunderstandinsg, yet you yourself misunderstand.
The Hebrew and Greek originals are not translations. They are the original language the text was written in.
They are not written by third parties, but by those who were there personally.
Answer me: was Mohammed his own scribe? Or did others write down the Quran as he dictated?
Matthew and John, Jesus’ disciples, wrote down what Jesus spoke.
You said:
“4. You said: “Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran (answering-islam.org). This website is an anti-Islamic website and is not at all credible. When you research some topic, scientific rigor and intellectual honesty mandate that you try and consider all that has been said about the topic and then draw your own conclusions. Stoning to death as a punishment for adultery is not mentioned in the Quran, 100 lashes for each of the two parties is mentioned. Unfortunately, stoning is practiced in some Muslim countries according to a tradition whereby Prophet Muhammad prescribed it for a Jewish woman in accordance with Jewish law, not the Quran.”
The website makes a clear argument, which you ignored.
Why are you avoiding it?
What are you afraid of finding out, if you consider all the evidence they present?
You said:
“5. Kindly note that I make a careful distinction between what is ordained in the Quran and what is practiced in institutionalized Islam. The latter is man-made and subject to corruption and exploitation, including most of the Hadith. The discrepancy is not only in the matter of stoning but also in the wearing of a veil, in polygamy, and in other matters. I am not a defender of institutionalized Islam but a staunch defender of the Quran. When you say: “The Quran is not the pure spotless book you pretend it is, my friend”, rest assured that the Arabic Quran is the purest of the pure, as it is the unadulterated word of God. And I can go into lengthy, science-based evidence for this. But that is for another discussion.”
It’s clear you regard it to be pure.
Yet its morality is atrocious, and its grasp of history is infantile.
It does not speak the truth concerning Jesus.
You said:
“6. Back to the question of the Gospels, their dates of writing and authorship seem to be contentious. According to Wikipedia/Gospel:
“Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars hold that all four are anonymous [note 1] and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8] A few scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons, the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[34][33]” PLEASE REREAD THIS AND CHECK CITATIONS”
My friend, I’ve studied this field in depth for over a decade.
What this article fails to mention is that the entirety of our historical and archaeological evidence proves that the Gospels were always known as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with Matthew and John being direct eyewitnesses, Mark recording Peter’s eyewitness testimony, and Luke overtly seeking out eyewitnesses and writing down their testimony.
There isn’t a single historical source they can cite to challenge this.
You said:
“I will not elaborate on these matters, because I’m no expert on them, and the argument is bound to be inconclusive. But I find intriguing that at least 12 books (some mention 75) have been removed from the Bible in favor of the four now-canonical Gospels. Were the removed books not “The word of God” in the same manner as the four Gospels? How is that? On what basis were such decisions made? By infallible humans?”
No books were removed in favor of the four Gospels.
The other minor Gospels were written a century or two later, by fringe groups. They were never in the Bible, and therefore were never removed.
You said:
“7. You said: “Jesus is God.” The Quran, which you credibly quote, as I mentioned earlier, vehemently denies the divinity of Jesus and that He is the son of God. On the other hand, the Quran greatly exalts Jesus as a messenger of God, like Moses and Muhammad, and speaks of his miracles. The Virgin Mary is the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran and is purified and exalted over all women. Chapter 19 of the Quran bears her name. You must be aware that the divinity of Jesus was not universally accepted in early Christianity but was voted on in the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.”
You must be aware that the divinity of Jesus was agreed upon as soon as Jesus claimed to be God.
The first-century Christians all worshiped Jesus as God.
Pliny the Younger records that Christians worshiped Jesus as God in 107 A.D., over two hundred years before Nicaea.
You said:
“In conclusion, my advice to you, dear Kyle, given your frame of mind and your limited, biased, and superficial knowledge of the Quran, that you refrain from trying to vilify or discredit the Quran, as you have attempted in your story, because, inevitably, you will be discredited and not, in the least, the Quran. Thank you.”
My friend, most of your claims here were false.
