@@Logia1978 of course you're going to say that because it's so embarrassing for Islam: variants from Allah being recited that are wrong - just shows you how ignorant you are. Best thing you do is go to someone with knowledge and ask them who Ibn Mujahid and the role he played before you write something.
I appreciated seeing the seventh-century Quranic text; I had goosebumps; it really moved me! I could read the passage without hesitation, even with the faded huruuf(letters). As for the corrections and faded letters, I am very familiar with this kind of written style; that is how I had learned and still learnt in Africa and some-parts of Asia.
Amazingly, as an Arabic speaker and 1400 years later I still can read it 😂 exactly the same... Now, all of these observations really still change nothing in the meaning. Be it a scribal error or "conspiracy theory".. Meaning still the same.
Considering the premise has always been "perfect preservation down to every dialectical mark" as the main means for trusting the Qu'ran, this is a problem.
@@gracedfollowerIt s perfect preserved, the qur an is orally transmitted but check out farid responds bru baker, you ll come to know this guy is a fraud.
I'm an Arabic speaker and I can't read it and I don't think no one can read it actually because besides the fact that there're no dots, these letters in the manuiscripts aren't even Arabic they're borrowed from the Syriac language for example the letter noon ن looks very different it looks like R ر so I believe you're exaggerating in order to preach ur religion ,but what you're saying is completely false.
@@MrGotohell77It’s not about minor differences in writing styles. A maximum of 5 minutes is pretty much enough for a native Arabic speaker to adapt for the style. You’re saying it like “How do we know that it’s an R or an L??” but they’re easily and clearly distinguishable and consistent internally throughout the mentioned script.
@Sovereign OK showing some manuscripts and showing pages from academic books is called exposing the truth about your edited biography of Muhammad you have like how you have nicely cut ✂️ out that Muhammad wanted to and lead an army to capture Palestine. How Muhammad called Palestine the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey 🍯 - all cut ✂️ out.
@Sovereign OK too many biographical documents? You mean like the reliable Ibn Ishaq - your earliest biographer- - who Imam Malik called the Antichrist th-cam.com/video/QsYx5_x3Xlk/w-d-xo.html and Ahmad ibn Hanbal wouldn't take a tradition from him if he was the only one in the chain of narration and the ones he did put in his Musnad never paid much attention to or is it Al-Waqidi who hadith scholars say is a liar whereas Sebeos 660AD narrated about Muhammad from escaped prisoners-of-wars (note plural) who were eye-witnesses and Dionysius of Tel-Mahre 845AD narrated it from Theophilus of Edessa 785AD
@Sovereign OK and your blind following of that poet Muhammad is so sad to see too - I feel sorry for you. What do you think that the list of the variant readings, which includes addition and omission of words, in Surah Furqan in the dispute between Umar and the other companion doesn't give it away that Muhammad was a poet just like his opponents in the Quran had accused him from? One minute you say it's to help people with different dialects then the next minute you have words added or missing - all a mark of a poet.
@Sovereign OK the list of variant readings of Surah Furqan are found in this article yaqeeninstitute.org/ammar-khatib/the-origins-of-the-variant-readings-of-the-quran
I'd like to know that the ones who most need your insights are making an effort to listen. Since I don't see a thumbs-down, does that indicate an absence of Arabic speaking Muslims? _SMH_ This probably isn't information the ulama will share with the laity, so that leaves it to us infidels to share the links to your scholarly presentations. Thank you for all the heavy lifting you're doing!
The Quran is revealed on piecemeal basis over 23 years via Angel Gabriel and recited, memorised and put into practice by Prophet Muhammad pbuh and thousands of his companions (some of whom wrote them down piecemeal). Even if those writings disappeared, it could easily re-written because of the memorization by many. The memorization did not stop during the Prophet's time but it continues until now, year 2020. Whenever there is a new print of the Quran and there are mistakes, thousands would spot the mistake for correction.
I think it's good you set aside theological opinions and focused purely on academic reasons for studying this manuscripts. This will help set aside any bias.
@@condorianonegdiffsgoku No it's the movement of Muhammad shown here that has been cut ✂️ out th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html that has turned again your biography
That's the impression he gives, but his research is flawed. He's been refuted by Muslims on his research. An example of how weak his scholarship is: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
@@anthonytan7134 no he didn't he was still alive. I have written more on this under a comment on this channel made by Rass B where he says "you have responded and refuted..." Have a look!
Thank you Dr , I love the videos you show us the real manuscripts and some verses..because in addition of what you focus on the video I read the other words and compare them with modern quran, please make more of this type of videos🙏
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
If I am not mistaken I think I saw a publication made by Farida, Ijaz and a third fellow I think Mansur debunking Dr Dan on the preservation and scribal errors, unbelievable, it's a just to laugh at the evidence they put forward.
@Tauhida Khan yeah it’s a beautiful nonsense, refuting Dr Dan, claiming it is scribal errors, from the examples showing that it is similar in the Quran, then now deny that it’s no more letter for letter or dot for dot, but that’s the claim that has been for long which now surprisingly they don’t claim that again. To make it easy, did Allah or Jibril ask Abubakr or uthman to compile the Quran? Adnan Rashid has claimed he has 99% of the complete manuscript which no one has seen and he has not shown any one, miracle of Islam just like splitting of the moon no one saw. I didn’t read the complete article but 1/3 of it, got bored reading it. What did you think of it, question back to you?
When/where was this? Was it on the EFDawah channel? I'm not surprised they tried to tackle this. PP has been argued for so long and believed by so Ms that they've been fire fighting ever since the 'holes in the narrative' interview between Qadhi and Hijab.
Assalam alaykum all muslim brothers and sisters. Thank You daniel brubaker. Thank you you are making a great job. Keep it doing. May Allah to give u a good healthy for continuing it.
@@andyd2033 no. Actually he is proving the opposite. Compared to the Bible, where we have so many, added, removed forgery verses which are not found in early manuscripts (1-3b.c.) What we have in qoran? We find manuscript that doesn't have a word/verse. But also we find manuscripts in its generation with that word/verse
@@andyd2033 for example when we find 10 manuscripts from x-century and 1 of them doesn't have x-vers. Then we can correct that manuscript using others! And it can't be named forgery Sorry im not good at English
@@farooqkhamidogli4557 oldest ones have are all different and have been changed at a later date to ensure they all read the same, that’s what his book proves. Sorry for the bad news.
@@andyd2033 I don't know what are you talking about!?!? Maybe about ahruf and qiraat. But I watched his videos there is no additions as I have said before.
Imagine if Dan did the ultimate interview starting off with Shady (exposing variant readings) th-cam.com/video/LxKV3g7iTCE/w-d-xo.html followed by Dan's then followed by Robert Hoyland (exposing Muhammad's biography) th-cam.com/video/LygfZXHGk54/w-d-xo.html who will finish them off with this th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html, th-cam.com/video/S5B2DTZ5W2k/w-d-xo.html and this th-cam.com/video/WgbRLdUxw3w/w-d-xo.html. The whole Islamic world will have a heart attack.
Not really, The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too. corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73 E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word. The correction in Arabe 330g, as Brubaker suggests, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
Perfectly preserved by memorization 1400 years now running. No chance of bigots ever able to challenge and dispute the Almighty, s word as he has promised preservation.
@@mnoorbhai Yes, with whole chapters missing and numerous verses unaccounted for. Thanks Allah for preserving one of history’s dumbest books ever written.
If your observation is correct, probably somebody noticed the error, and took upon himself to check all copies he can get to, and corrected them if there was a mistake. Keep in mind that some people would be horrified by the thought of such a thing, and will make sure that it gets corrected irrespective of the cost. You should search who this person was.
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html That verse has nothing to do with Jesus. I hope you're not insinuating he's God because according to the Bible (his own alleged words) he's not.
Very funny! Actually, as an academic he will go there; he just avoids the topic in public, I guess. Partly this is the Catch-22 someone is in, when their fans' and benefactors' support depends upon preservation of a narrative requiring less than open discussion. A little sad, actually. Thank you. DB
@@variantquran4505 It's all falling apart for them with Shady's new devastating book that has just been released. You with this video and many more to come and the manuscripts available online on my channel for those who want to see the accounts of Muhammad leading an army in Palestine when he never was meant to have been there - meaning an edited biography.
@@variantquran4505 so Yasir Qadhi is in it for the money...wait wait...I mean support, yeah that's it, support? LoL say it aint so!!! Thank YOU ! Shared!!
@@dhc21atyahoo no yasir qahdi views is against Islam but he isn't doing for money Just imagine If what he think has proofs n talk in public Non Muslims will Pay him much more than he was as a Muslim he is doing out of religiousness Also Watch Dr shehzad saleem on it he is also a Academic on Quranic history and Made the longest detail Free course on this topic in TH-cam since 2015 He's view is that Traditional narrative have some problems BUT that don't, mean Quran is Not preserved We can be sure that Quran is preserved and here th-cam.com/play/PL7oYOZNO0kHwDzi9P4UmSremVOVKzku7s.html he made a very long free course
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Dr have you considered the possibility that maybe there was a qira'ah قراءة without ridwan رضون but it became mansukhah منسوخة by a qira'ah that has ridwan?
well obviously theses are errors before the standardisation of the Quran by Uthman and we know that there are some manuscripts with a lot of mistakes but there's no way he can find textual variants after the standardisation
The Islamic State was a large empire at that time, and even if it burned many Qur’ans, it is possible that in other places there were different readings that were not burned, but were modified to be in line with the official reading.@@rabielazazi787
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Because it’s a natural thing that scribes make mistakes in copying the Quran. The Muslims shot their own foot when claiming perfect preservation when trying to persuade others to Islam. Taqqiya
It was always there, this is why Muslim have a hard time to accept Hadith, Tafsir and Quran itself. To survive they had their scholars lie to the pedophile supporters. God bless you Jamal Khan. Let us always pray that many souls will be saved.
@@mynamealehandero Umars Allah.. Narrated `Umar (bin Al-Khattab): MyLord agreed with me in three things: -1. I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two rak`at of Tawaf of Ka`ba)". (2.125) -2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed. 🤪🤪(Umar was so much Obsessed by Muhammads Sex Troops ) -3. Once the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) made a united front against the Prophet (ﷺ) and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5). So Quran is Not from Heaven It's from Filthy Umars Decisions. And he made lots of mistakes in Hiding the Truth Such as Allah Prays Lord Yeshua Death ( Muttuwafika) Allah Caused him to die How long can it Hide ?? Quran 33 : 56 ( Yuusaluwna) yusalloon ala al-nabi'. word 'yusalloon', which is the verb from the word Salat, meaning 'to give Salat' and is the plural verb of the word 'yussalli'. Quran 33 : 43 ( Yuusalee) يُصَلِّي yuṣallī Quran 33:43 & 33:56 state that Allah did “Yusalli/Yusalluna” which means “Prays/Pray”. But the English Quran translated "Yusalli/Yusalluna" as " Allah send his Blessings or confers Blessings "which is definitely wrong.. It does not have the below👇👇👇 -----‐--------------------------------------------------------- بركة👉(blessing) مقدس👉(blessed person) بركاته 👉👉 (Blessings ) barak allah fik 👉 allah bless you 👉 👇 بارك الله فيك👉👉👇 ________________________________________ Quran 2 : 157 ( Salawaatun (pray) and wawahbattun 👉(mercy) رحمة👉Rahma-mercy --------------------------------------------------------------- Sala Allahu 'Alyhi wa Salam means: May Allah PRAYS upon him and salute! The word صَلَّى 👉 pray , صَلَّى👉 ( Al - Adab 👉👉in haddith صلى👉salaa (pray) Quran 33 ; 43 يصلي👉(yusaliy(prays👉👉👉👇 Quran 33 : 43 ( Yuusalee) يُصَلِّي yuṣallī Quran 33: 56 👇 (pray on) 👉👉 صلي على --------------------------------------------------------------- or Sala means He prayed (past tense but could be read as present tense or he prays) And here from al-maany dictionary www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D8%B5%D9%84%D9%89/ he prays [Koran Words] صَلَّى And here is from Lisan al-'Arab the earliest Arabic dictionary: صلا : الصلاة : الركوع والسجود Or Sala (past tense but read as Yusali or he prays due to grammatical aspect) or al-Sala or the praying means the bowing and prostration Nothing about the bogus Allah is blessing him Here is the link to Lisan al-Arab and the Arabic root S-L-W just use the translation tool Here is the link library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=4673&idto=4673&bk_no=122&ID=4681 this is from wikitionary: صَلَّى • (ṣallā) II, non-past يُصَلِّي (yuṣallī) 1. to pray, to worship 2. to perform the salat 3. to bless someone; construed with عَلَى (ʿalā) Second word is Allahu الله means Allah it does not mean God because if it really means God then the Islamic formula la Ilah (God) ila Allah should be la Allah ila Allah or there is no Allah except Allah Allah? is the proper name of the God of Islam and to add insult to injury it is a loan word from Syriac it is not even an Arabic word 3. 'Alyhi or عليه or Upon 4. wa Salam or وسلم means and (he) salutes This funny formula in Arabic is Sal'am صلعم ! The moral of the story is: Never trust Muslims translations more so if the translator is an Indian Muslim or Pakistani! What a disaster: Allah prays to a mere human being BTW: There is a funny hadith where we are told that Gabriel watched Allah praying. The islamic literary sources are a real disaster Salawat is a plural form of salat (Arabic: صَلَاة) and from the root of the letters "ṣād-lām-wāw" (ص ل و) which means "prayer" or "salutation In Islamic context "When Muhammad sends Salawat upon the believers, it indicates his prayer for their welfare, blessing and salvation." There was a hadith from Abu Amamah reports that Muhammad said: "Invoke more Salawat upon me on every Friday, the Salawat from my ummah is presented to me on every Friday. Whoever had invoked more Salawat upon me will be closest to me."[6] Muhammad was also reported saying: "The meanest person is he who does not invoke Salawat upon me when my name is mentioned in his presence Ibn Asakri has transmitted from al-Hasan bin Ali that Muhammad said: "Invoke more Salawat upon me, for your invocation is conducive to your sins being forgiven. And pray for me a high status and intercession, for surely my intercession will plead in your favour before Allah There was a narration from Ja'far al-Sadiq from Muhammad. He said: "All supplications to Allah will remain in a veil from the sky until a Salawat is sent to Mohammad PBH and his Household So literally Allah Prays So to whom he Prays If he prays for Muhammad? 🤷♂️🐫💨
@@mynamealehandero Deception no ; 2 Quran 5 : 117 to 118 tawaffaitani Means cause me to die, Quran 3 : 55 (Allah will - I shall cause you to die or I am terminating your life ) The majority of Muslims believe that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven and someone made into the likeness of Jesus was crucified in his place. Saved from an accursed death on the cross, Jesus has been waiting over 2000 years to descend back to Earth to defeat the anti-Christ and establish an Islamic dominion. The teachings of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (saw), however, stand in opposition to this belief. This concept entered into the understanding of mainstream Muslims only after the rapid spread of Islam amongst the Christians of Arabia and the Byzantine Empire that brought this erroneous belief with them. For early Muslims, Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy regarding the second coming of Jesus in the latter days was a metaphor. For example, Prophet Muhammad states Jesus will “descend among you… break crosses [and] kill swine” (Muslim Book 1, Hadith 287). If read literally, we would be left wondering what man would gain from Jesus roaming the Earth slaughtering pigs and breaking crosses? If understanding Jesus’ responsibilities requires a metaphorical reading, why should we expect Jesus of Nazareth to literally reappear? The Quran supports this assertion; regarding the death of Jesus, the Quran records a conversation on the Day of Judgment where Allah will ask Jesus, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He will answer, “Holy art thou. I could never say that to which I had no right… I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things” (5:117-118). In response, the majority of Muslims object to translating tawaffaitani as “caused me to die” - instead translating the word as “raised me.” Secondly, it is claimed that because this is a conversation that is to be held on the Day of Judgment and Jesus will eventually return to Earth, one cannot conclude that Jesus is already dead but that he will die after his return. To determine the meaning of a word in the Quran, one must first assess the usage of that word in other verses of the Quran, secondly assess the Prophet Muhammad’s usage of that word and his commentary on that verse, and lastly assess the companions of the Prophet Muhammad’s understanding of it. As far as the Quran is concerned, in every instance a word from the same three-letter root and verb form as tawaffaitani is used, it invariably indicates death or sleep. The Quran defines this usage when it states “Allah takes the souls at the time of death and of those not dead he takes at the time of sleep…” (39:43). Therefore, in 5:117-118, Jesus responds to Allah’s inquiry about whether he had introduced the concept of trinity to his people by claiming that he was either made to die or made to sleep, which prevented him from remaining a watcher over his people. Suggesting that Jesus is referring to himself falling asleep is bizarre and also inconsistent with Prophet Muhammad’s commentary on this verse. In Bukhari, in the chapter of Prophetic Commentary of the Quran (Kitab Tafsir-ul-Quran) Prophet Muhammad, regarding the Day of Judgment states, “…Some from my followers will be brought and the angels will drive them to the Hell fire. I will say, ‘O my Lord! They are my companions!’ Then a reply will come, ‘You do not know what they did after you.’ I will say as the pious servant (Jesus) said: ‘And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things’ (5:118)…” (Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 149). Here, Prophet Muhammad, when put in a similar situation as that of Jesus on the Day of Judgment, quotes Jesus from the Quran and claims that he too was only a witness over his companions as long as he remained among them and that once he was made to die, Allah alone was a guardian over them. Thus, when Prophet Muhammad applied 5:118 to himself, whatever translation of tawaffaitani one wishes to use must apply to both Prophet Muhammad and Jesus. Since it must mean death for Prophet Muhammad, it must also for Jesus. Surprisingly, the majority of Muslims around the world understand tawaffa to mean death - except when it refers to 5:118. At every funeral, Muslims recite the prayer of Prophet Muhammad in which we implore Allah “…And those that you cause to die from among us, cause them to die upon faith” using the words tawaffaitahu and tawaffahu respectively (Tirmidhi Vol. 2, Book 5, Hadith 1024). Moreover, directly preceding the hadith cited from Bukhari, Ibn Abbas (ra), an uncle of Prophet Muhammad and narrator of the hadith, defines the word mutawaffika as mumituka: The word mutawaffika comes from the same three-letter root and verb form as tawaffaitani, and mumituka literally means ’(((cause thee to die)).’ Using the definition of mutawaffika as ‘cause thee to die’ provided by Ibn Abbas, the only instance Allah uses the word mutawaffika in the Quran would state, “When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, indeed I will cause thee to die and will raise thee to Myself…’” (3:56). Imam Bukhari (rh), by placing this simple definition of Ibn Abbas before the hadith of Prophet Muhammad, confirms that he, Ibn Abbas, and Prophet Muhammad, all understood 5:118 and 3:56 to mean that Jesus has passed away. It also cannot be argued that tawaffaitani and mutawaffika will apply once Jesus descends back to Earth. Firstly, in 3:56, the sequence that Allah presents of Jesus begins first with mention of his death before any mention of him being raised. We must follow the sequence that Allah has put in place. Secondly, if we were to assume that Jesus was to come back, 5:117-118 would cease to make sense. If Jesus returns to see Christians worshipping him, how could he be shocked on the Day of Judgment at what Christians did after him or claim that he was only a “witness over them as long as he was among them”? After having come back to Earth and correcting Christian beliefs, he could not be surprised at the behavior of the Christians or claim he was only a witness over them until he was raised on the Day of Judgment. Instead, Jesus would reply to Allah that he had just come back from correcting them. The shock he actually experiences upon hearing the question is apparent in him pleading his case and proven from the similarity Prophet Muhammad draws with his own scenario on the Day of Judgment as recorded in the above quoted hadith of Bukhari. At this point, it is often demanded that “raise thee to Myself…” be explained from 3:56. With a similar approach taken to understanding the word tawaffaitani, one can also understand the word raafi’uka (raise thee). Among numerous instances in which the Quran uses this word, regarding prophet Idrees (as), Allah states, “Relate to them the story of Idrees. He was truthful and a prophet. And we raised him to a lofty station (19:57-58). The same word rafa’a is used in relation to Prophet Idrees but it is understood to be an ascension of spiritual rank, not a physical ascension. So why the scholars hide this ?
@@mynamealehandero The Arabic correct translation of the word “Mutawaffika” found in the Qur‟an in Surah Al-Imran 3:55 has been debated by scholars. The significance of the outcome of the debate is important to both sides. Those who do not want Isa to die contend that “Mutawaffika” refers to Isa‟s second trip to the earth. On this trip, Isa will die. Others argue that “Mutawaffika” in 3:55 cannot be translated as “to cause to die” simply because they do not believe that he died. This paper pulls together information from multiple Islamic scholars and sources who argue that Isa died. They contend that if Isa died and was raised alive to Allah, then it should not be seen as a threat to any prophets and their writings. The fact that Isa died was foretold by previous prophets and reveals to us Allah‟s divine plan (3:54) of substituting Isa in our place. Our punishment of eternity in hell was placed upon a substitute, Isa. Allah performed Korbani Himself and used Holy Isa as the sacrifice. Let‟s examine arguments in favor of “Mutawaffika” being translated as “to cause to die” or “to kill.” Surah Al-Imran 3:55 (Arabic pronunciation) 3:55 “Iz qa_lalla_hu ya_ „isa_ inni mutawaffi ka wa ra_ti‟uka ilayya wa mutahhiruka minal lazina kafaru_ wa ja_‟ilul lazinattaba‟u_ka fauqal lazina kafaru_ ila_ yaumil qia mah(ti), summa ilayya marji‟ukum fa ahkumu bainakum fima kuntum fihi takhtalifu_n(a).” For any practitioner of using the Al-Imran 3:54-55 as a bridge to sharing the Gospel with Muslims, it is vital to understand the true meaning of the word, “Mutawaffika”. Many Muslims will do their best to cover up and misdirect from the true meaning of this word. A prime example of this cover up is found in the first and second editions of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan‟s English translation of the Qur‟an. In the first edition (left), he translated the word, “Mutawaffika” correctly. In his second edition (right), he translated it incorrectly. When asked why he made this change, the Maulana replied, “I was pressured to make the change. Pickthall : z(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, Yusuf Ali Behold: ! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself Shakir : And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me Sher Ali : Remember the time when ALLAH said' `O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will raise thee to Myself, Khalifa : Thus, GOD said, "O Jesus, I am terminating your life, raising you to Me, Arberry When God said, 'Jesus, I will take thee to Me and will raise thee to Me Palmer : When God said, 'O Jesus! I will make Thee die and take Thee up again to me Rodwell : Remember when God said, "O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself Sale: When God said, o Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me, Progressive God said: “O Jesus, I will let you die, and raise you to Me Maulana Muhammad AliWhen Allah said: O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee Wahiduddin KhanGod said, „O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to me Shabbir Ahmed”O Jesus! I will cause you to die of natural causes and I will exalt you in honor Rashad KalifaThus, GOD said, “O Jesus, I am terminating your life, raising you to Me Muhammad Asad“Lo! God said: “O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me Muhammad Ahmed & SamiraWhen God said: “You Jesus I am, I am making you die and raising you to Me Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Recall what time Allah said: O 'Isa! verily I shall make thee die, and am lifting thee to myself Amatul Rahman Omar; (Recall the time) when Allâh said, `O Jesus! I will cause you to die a natural death, Free MindGod said: "O Jesus, I will let you die, and raise you to Me the verse 3:55, two conditions are stipulated about Jesus(pbuh): first, Allah will cause his Death, second, he will be raised. The second condition can not take place till the first condition is met. In other words, before Jesus(pbuh) can be raised, first, he must die. Let us see various translations of the same verse. Correct translation : "O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me…" Yusuf Ali : "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself…" Pickthall : "O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend now they are conditioned to think that way. Some have mistaken the correct use of verbs(Pickthall, Khalifa). Some have omitted key words and interpolated fabricated words (Pickthall, Sarwar, Malik) and passed it over as Allah’s word! To derive a remote synonym for a word is one thing (Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Al-Hilali & M. Khan. Malik) but to fabricate additional words and omit key words are gross act of negligence and corruption. The most correct meaning of the word "wafat" is death. Wherever in the Holy Quran the word "wafat" is used, all these translators derived the meaning as death, except in this verse 3:55, where they don’t see "wafat" as death!!!! What is the problem here? Why are they contradicting the meaning of 'wafat'? What stops them from translating the words of Allah in its true context? They are seeing imaginary words only to support heresy they learned during their childhood. Here are some of the verses in the Holy Quran where Allah used the word "wafat". The verses are 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40, 16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 39:42, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 etc. In each of the instances, all these scholars translated the word "wafat" as death, or a word very close to death but none of them used a word to mean take away in alive condition. Let us examine some of the verses and see how these translators derived the meaning of "wafat" in these instances. Verse 3:193 Yusuf Ali: "…and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous" Pickthall: "…and make us die the death of the righteous." Khalifa: "…..let us die as righteous believers" Sarwar: "…let us die with the righteous ones." Shakir: "….and make us die with the righteous." Hilali & Khan: "……and make us die in the state of righteousness…." Farooq Malik: "…And make us die with the righteous." Ahmed Ali: "…And grant us (the glory of) death with the just." Verse 4:15 Yusuf Ali: "…until death to claim them…." Pickthall: "…until death take them…." Khalifa: "…until they die,…" Sarwar: "…until they die…" Shakir: "….until death takes them away…" Hilali & Khan: "…until death comes to them…" Farooq Malik: "…until they die..." Ahmed Ali: "…until death ..." Verse 7:126 Yusuf Ali: "…and take our soul unto thee as Muslims!" Pickthall: "…and make us die as men who have surrendered." Khalifa: "…And let us die as submitters." Sarwar: "…let us die Muslims (submitted to God)." Shakir: "…and cause us to die in submission." Hilali & "…And cause us to die as Muslim Shame on you for hiding the Truth
Thank you for these kind words. I don't intervene in the comments unless it is something obscene, violent, or completely off topic. I believe that a free space for discussion is good in principle. Glad you are here, Hussain, and hope you will keep coming and finding it beneficial. Best, DB
Yep! The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too. corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73 E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word. The correction in Arabe 330g, as Brubaker himself suggests, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
@@alfiras8604 what fantastic 👏 preservation for 1400 years with all of those Hafiz Quran generation after generation and you end up with this th-cam.com/video/23BhM8e890I/w-d-xo.html 🤣 and you couldn't produce master copies properly as they have scribal errors th-cam.com/video/RwzIy7IANkM/w-d-xo.html 🤣
No need, he's easily debunked. This guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
I wonder if there is an alogerthem or formula based on the Golden Ratio that will account for the speed of information being put out on the Qur'an, early Arabic-GrecoRoman-Persian accounts of the 7th & 8th Centuries and Indian-Chinese-Ethiopian diplomatic accounts and the speed of Islamic collapsing. I think there is a doctoral thesis there.
If you mean lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest, no. That is probably mid-7th century. If you mean the Sanaa codex published by IRCICA, then yes, most likely.
David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham said:[2] The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed. Although the Quran text witnessed in the two Birmingham leaves almost entirely [12] conforms to the standard text,[13] their orthography differs, in respect of the writing (or omission) of the silent alif (ألف).[14] Early Arabic script tended to not write out the silent alif.[15][16] Subsequent ultraviolet testing of the leaves has confirmed no underwriting, and excludes the possibility of there being a palimpsest.[17][18] End of debate, that is the oldest Quran and its 100% the same as the one we have today, the difference is just linguistics
This is exactly what Qur'an 9:109 says, "Which then is best? -- he that Layeth his foundation On piety to God And His Good Pleasure? --or he That layeth his foundation On an undermined sand-cliff Ready to crumble to pieces? And it doth crumble to pieces With him, into the fire Of Hell. And God guideth not People that do wrong."
Another hole in the narrative. This time it is biographical. Muhammad leading an army to Palestine which has been cut ✂️ out th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
Hello Dr Dan. Don't you think this is like parablepsis or mixing with repetitive formula? Notice that still on the same surah 9 but 36 verses before, in the verse 72 is preceded by the "formula" : WA RIDWANU MINALLAHI akbar. The word ridwan is put before minallah. So the scribe may think the word ridwan is put before the word minallah in next 36 verses later, that is surah 9 verse 109 so that the wrong result of the scribe writing it becomes : taqwaa minallahi khayrun.. which should be corrected and has been done corrected with : taqwaa MINALLAHI WA RIDWANI khayrun am man 'assasa. The repetitive formula : MINALLAH [WA RIDWAN] or [WA RIDWAN] MINALLAH Form 1 : [WA RIDWAN] MINALLAH akbar (surah 9:72) Form 2 : taqwaa MINALLAH [WA RIDWAN] khayrun (surah 9:109) *In form 2 the scribe missing word [WA RIDWAN] so in the first place it becomes: taqwaa MINALLAH [..] khayrun.. and then he'd erase and correcting it by adding that missing word [WA RIDWAN] perfectly.
Of course it is very possible. It is possible that every scribe of his time rewrote from sources which also contained the same errors. And that can be corrected if : 1. There is an earlier source, this may be discussed on the Farid Responds channel in the near future..or 2. from the confirmation of memorizers from generation to generation that continues until now. Just imagine that Muslims all over the world take turns repeating these verses according to the time of day when they pray five times a day. And it continues today. One priest in front of him recites from memory in his mind and the makmum (people who follow the priest) listen to it behind the priest. When there is an error, the person behind immediately corrects it. I think Dr Dan is failed here, he didn't find the repetitive formula because only search the word khayr and Minallah, and he forget to consider word "Ridwan".
Dr. Brubaker, how sure are we that these are early Qurans; meaning written not long after the death of Muhammad? The reason I ask is there seem to be some diacritical marks in the text. Some of them could be explained as resulting from later editing (when a new word was interpolated) and that shows up in the ink of the changed text matching the ink of what appears to be diacritical markings (albeit very primitive ones). However, some of the text that is obviously the original manuscript also appears to have these marks and the ink matches the text.
The manuscript E20 (the third one in this video) is different from the others, and possibly somewhat later. I have seen different opinions as to its date of origin. Additionally, bear in mind that diacritics in some cases could have been added later. I am speaking hypothetically, not suggesting it to have been the case here. But, there seem clearly to have been multiple post-production interventions in E20, at any rate. Not sure if this answer is much help to you, but the other three manuscripts shown are probably late 7th or early 8th century ... in my opinion. The 4th (E20) could be, but could also be a bit later. Good question, Peter; thanks for asking. DB
@@variantquran4505 Thanks for the clarification V.Q. Mostly I was referring to the first two Qurans; but your answer is useful, helpful and absolutely worth me remembering (hope I can).
The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too. corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73 E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word. The correction in Arabe 330g, as you suggest, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
Is it possible they found an older, thought-to-be-more-genuine version and they all applied the correction accordingly? The word "rithwan" is implied anyway... It doesn't make a big difference in meaning
I am not sure I quite understand your question (e.g., who do you mean by "they"? etc.), but with respect to the word being implied, I am merely looking at the history of textual transmission. That question is a natural next one, namely, what was the cause or reason that led to what we observe in the manuscripts. Thanks for your comment.
Dr. Brubaker, I've seen the claim a number of times (at least 3), over the years, that every 5th verse/ayat of the koran is corrupted and is nonsensical gibberish. However, I've never seen a proper explanation of this and whether it is really true or just hyperbole. Can you comment on this? If it is true, how did this get into the koran and when and why hasn't it been corrected?
It is from Gerd R Puin, in the January 1999 Atlantic article "What is the Koran?" "GERD-R. Puin speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim and Western scholars, to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice *that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense*. Many Muslims-and Orientalists-will tell you otherwise, of course, but *the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible*. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. *If the Koran is not comprehensible-if it can't even be understood in Arabic-then it's not translatable*. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not-as even speakers of Arabic will tell you-there is a contradiction. *Something else must be going on.*" www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
@@jasonduvall5010 this at least proves the hardheadedness of the muslim umma to accept and acknowledge their scholars have lied to them throughout the ages...
@@Harana_Ni_Lolo I disagree. They know full well that Islam is false, they just love being puffed up and having influence over people due to their own ignorance.
Can be the scribble error is because the sentence still have a meaning and is grammatically correct? Could it be that the 3 of them copied from existed manuscript that have the error because it was written from memory?! Mental
For you information if someone recites this verse from memory they would make this omission forgetting the word Ridwan. I am telling you this from a personal experience. So the verse say who constructed their structure on Taqwa from Allah and Grace is better or .. So this is usually happen where the reciter from memory would forget grace and goes: Taqawa from Allah is better ... It doesn’t need a philosopher to form such an explanation. All you can claim that if these manuscripts were copying and not writing from memory maybe and only maybe they copied from a manuscript that have the error due writing from memory. Its sad that you are wasting your time on this. Its obviously not for you.
I’m fascinated by the consistency of the Quran. Even in textual corrections there is convergence, no contradictions. The writings supplement the memorization, the memorization supersedes it. The insertion of “ridwaan” in all 4 texts shows to me there is some history, and not merely scribal errors. We know that the companions of our blessed prophet had different recitations, trivially different, yet expounding to add so many dimensions to the meanings of of God’s Words. Even with these differences none of them denied that this is the word of God. Armchair critics of Islam here are missing the forest for the trees. I eagerly await for the day Daniel finally relents and becomes Muslim after concluding his research. 😜 Dr. B, inna-mal-a’malu-bin-niyat.😶
No, actually, these are simply scribal errors, most likely corrected at the time of writing itself. The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too. corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73 E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word. The correction in Arabe 330g, as you suggest, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
@The Astronomer I think what you're expecting from the fluxes in variations, you won't see. The differences in the various Qurans are subtle yet at the same time complimentary. Please watch th-cam.com/video/PxSbGeW5Kko/w-d-xo.html I don't expect you to agree but I'd love to hear what you think. Also these variations are canonized by early generations scholars who cite there work through "isnad" (chain of narrations tracing back to our prophet). Of course I'm referring to ahruf/qirat. Regarding contradicting stories in the Quran, this is not the case for the students of Quran. "Mufassiroons" or people who are adept in "tafsir" - the science of using the Quran to explain the Quran, don't see any contradictions. Instead they expound on it, and these differences are a form of enlightenment for us. These mufassiroons are acquainted with the entirety of the Quran. I say memorization supersedes, because a hafiz of the Quran (protector/guardian/preserver) is someone who has committed the entire Quran to memory, and these people are a dime-a-dozen, where i live.
@Abu Safiyah I expect the inclusion of ridwaan being 100% correct and conformal. The nature of the error seemed to indicate to me as being remnants of an early non-canonical reading being rectified. I could be wrong however and that it is infact merely coincidental scribal errors. I don't know as much as you.
@The Astronomer I watched the video, it is very interesting indeed. I wish I could ask Dr Naser myself, traditionally hadeeth sciences are very different from quranic sciences. Asim was criticized (so it seems) for being poor at narrating hadeeth because of memory issues, but not criticized for his Quranic recitation. I knew a 14 year old in our community who was a hafiz (had the entire Quran memorized) who frequently led prayers, but ask him what he learned in school and he would draw blank. (my point being week in once science doesn't make you week in another.) There is also the case of the "harf al muqattaat" or, the "mysterious letters" in the Quran. These occur 29 times within all 114 surahs, and they are impossible to read with only the rasm at hand. All Quranic recitations (hafs, warsh, qanoon, doori etc) recite them the exact same, which leads me to believe that the differences that do occur in the Quran are deliberate. Thanks for having an honest, unbiased discussion. I find this topic quite fascinating, but sifting through anti-islamic rhetoric is trying at times.
@The Astronomer fascinating video! subhanaAllah! (Glory be to Allah, perfect is Allah!). My key takeaway from this video are: Varient readings is the domain of gramarrians, not theologeons. Mufassiroon (exegetes) actually prefer varient readings because it expounds on the meaning of verses and adds more dimensions and greater explanations. . Majority of varient readings are NOT due to the absence diacritical marks. It is impossible to access the rasm without a reading and all readings have a chain relating back to our prophet. Hence, all varient readings are authentic and correct. (Some are "more correct" than others.) Renowned scholars shaatibi, daani, and jazari actually came up with a formula for multiple varient readings in the form of didactic poems. If a student memorized the Quran and the poem, the student could extrapolate varient readings. This to me is mind blowing - it shows that the varient readings weren't some erroneous offshoots, rather something structured, deliberate and even mathematical in nature ( I personally would consider this a miracle). Regarding the7/10/14 variations - again merely grammatical in nature and can be traced back to our prophet. The 3 groups of schoars have different degrees of strictness or just use different criteria, hence the differences in opinions. Again, it's merely a matter of being "more correct" than right or wrong.
I'm not sure yet, or whether it signifies anything, but the correspondence is worth noting. That's why I discussed here. It does seem that there is a theological nuance between building one's foundation upon Allah himself, versus upon Allah and his good pleasure. I may do some more probing and discuss further later on. DB
Ok guys! This is cool. Every commentator who supports this video has happily and definitely concluded that "Islam is false". And that's based on a couple unproved corrections. What does this say about Christianity? If the mere fleeting likelihood of a correction in a Quranic manuscript makes Islam a false religion, why do we sill talk about Christianity at all let alone defend it or believe in it? Second: someone noticed the absence of dislikes on this video and used that as a proof that either no Arabs or Muslims have watched it. I tell this person the absence of dislikes stems from the absence of concern that this video has been able to trigger among Muslims. It's so weak that I found pleasure watching it instead of being disturbed by it.
Assalamu alaykum brothers and sisters, and greeting to the rest. Thank you Dr. Brubaker for your work. I have 3 separate comments to make: first, my opinion on your channel, second, the perception of the commentators on your youtube videos, and lastly, some reasoned interrogation of your work in this video, which I hope you respond to in a future video. After watching a few videos, quite frankly, I am underwhelmed by it. All of these variants seem to be inconsequential in that they don't fundamentally change the meaning of the Scripture. Nor is it surprising that such trivial variants exist given that scribal copying is a human endeavor and as with all things humans do, there will be some imperfections. I find it difficult to understand the significance of your work. A lot of commentators that are viewing your video are under the impression that your work demonstrates that the preservation of the Quran is compromised and using it as a means of questioning the integrity of our Holy Book. But most Muslims, who have a foundational understanding of the Islamic Tradition, would most probably see your work in a different light. For us, it would be delusional to think that the work of humans wouldn't have errors in it and that the preservation of the Quran exists in the absolute sense. For us, when we claim the Quran has been preserved and these are the words of Allah SWT, what we are really claiming is that the integrity of the Quran has been preserved. None of the videos posted on the Quran variant channel in any way challenge the integrity, rather you embolden us further, since your work, embedded within Western academia (with its questionable metaphysics and systemic biases), have yet to demonstrate after 100s of years of work, why we ought not to believe in the Quran. Dr Brubaker, in what way do you want us to perceive your work,? and in what way do you think your work benefits society? Also, in your videos, you seem to show the data and analysis of it, but offer the viewer no guidance in how we should intepret your work. What are legitimate conclusions to be drawn from it? What conclusions are a bit far-fetched and require further investigation? and what conclusions can be ruled out? I think your lack of guidance is precisely why most people in the comments section have such deluded perceptions. Lastly, I am an ignoramus in your field of study so there might be obvious answers to my critique, nevertheless, I shall make my point. I find it quite bizarre that when talking of scribal errors you only mention what I would call random human error (sorry, I am not familiar with the academic jargon in your field, I am referring to when you mention dittography and haplography). To me, this kind of error is highly unlikely if 4 different scribes made the exact same error. To me, 4 different scribes making the same error points to something systematic. My line of questioning to understand why these errors were made would be different: were copies of the Quran made from the scribes' own memory or were they writing it down as someone who recited to them? or were most scribes copying other people's copies? how many scribes or people that could read (and therefore critique the writings) existed in that time frame? Is it not entirely plausible that one person made an error whilst reciting, or that a single scribe didn't hear the word ridhwan from the reciter and therefore didn't write it, and that many other scribes (who themselves aren't hafizh) potentially used this scribe to make their copies. I speculate that the scribes were few in number, I speculate that most of them were from Persia and in the early days weren't hafiz of Quran (which they later became masters of). I speculate that not many people in that time couldn't read including many huffaz, I speculate that this meant little scrutiny of the earlier copies made, I speculate these errors took a while to be noticed, and by that point, several copies of the first manuscript with the error were made. What I offer is an entirely plausible narrative, which I imagine someone in your position must have investigated? So did you? Thank you anyway Usman
WAS. These are good points for the possible explanation of omissions plus the lack of history behind the scribes of the 3-4 copies discussed here. It could well be a single scribe being dictated that made errors and copies made from it and then corrected by a checker at some point. What the orientalist scholarship needs to understand and learn if they are honest is the compilation process of the Qur'an. This was memorized by the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him and it was dictated to scribes by him, 50 plus if I am correct. Abrogation is a well known subject that Qur'an already addresses where certain verses were replaced by others or removed altogether to give it the permanent shape by the Prophet on orders from God. Different recitations are acceptable, 7 variants where there are ahadith or incidents from the life of the Prophet that mentioned and sanctioned the differences in recitation. All verses of the Qur'an were recited during daily 5 prayers. It was during the reign of khalifa Abu Bakr that the memorized Qur'an was compared against written verses with individuals where it was complied in to a mushaf or copy. Later in it was recompiled using this original mushaf that went from Abu Bakr to Umar(2nd khalifa) and then to his daughter Hafsa and from there requested by 3rd khalifa Uthman who was pleaded by companions to compile a standard version since as Islam was expanding, there were different dialects and new Muslims were pronouncing out incorrectly. This version is called the mushaf Uthman used currently with vowels to make it easy to read especially for non Arabs. All other copies were burnt including known private copies etc and some may have escaped that process. There are reports of copies kept by the companions that had notes on them for their personal use and were not fully complete either with 114 suras/ chapters but that does not mean it was incomplete since their private copies were like that or they're students could not find the missing version of their copies. One cannot compare the modern printed copy with that concept. Your point is well taken that it does not distort or change the message even with scribal errors in those copies that are updated.
Thank you, Usman, for this thoughtful comment. I may indeed make it the basis of an answer in a video (no promises, but it is a good candidate). Meanwhile, a few reflections. First: Whether the corrections are consequential or inconsequential is a case-by-case matter that also depends upon what criteria one considers to be of consequence. I have no particular interest in making things anything other than they are; that is to say, I am merely studying, describing, and beginning to analyze. If alternate words, missing words, etc, that do not fundamentally change the meaning of the scripture makes that category of variant or correction inconsequential for some people, then they may rule out all those corrections or variants and not give them a second thought. For others, at least some of those variants or corrections may be food for thought. And yes, human error is one factor in scribal production of manuscripts as I have said so many times. Deciding how other people deal with my research is not really my place or concern, though I am happy to interact with people on this material. Second, it is not my place to say whether the faith of others should be strengthened or weakened by my work. All I am doing is looking at manuscripts and describing and discussing what is there. You ask me how I want people to perceive my work, and my answer is that I hope that people will see it for what it is: an investigation into one feature of early Qurʾan manuscripts by a man who finds these things interesting. Your comment about lack of analysis or conclusions is something I thing about often. The fact is, I have always been cautious about drawing conclusions too hastily. I know good scholars who have spent many years dealing with very minute points in a handful of Qurʾan manuscripts, yet here I am looking at thousands. It is a different and very big task, and it takes a great deal of concentration and thought ... but it is hard to do when also thinking about the very big picture. Indeed, when any of us do too hastily come to a conclusion, it is dangerous and can bring warranted criticism. So, I hope you and others will forgive if I remain cautious in many cases. Of course, this leaves us with the concern behind your question: that if I don't guide to conclusions, then others are taking and coming to conclusions of their own, yet without the basis of the broader scholarly knowledge that I and others in my field possess. This is a valid concern, and I really do hear you. However, I am not sure I have an solution. The alternative would be for me to self-censor and not tell people about my work. But, clearly, a lot of people are interested in it and do not want to wait for the long and laborious process of analysis (which truly will take many years) to be carried out before I ever engage in discussion. I think the best answer is probably for me to continue the work but to do my best to give what guidance I can. I do hope to get better at such a task as time progresses, and I thank you for the reminder of its importance. That leaves us at your final series of thoughts. Regarding the possibility that the reciter (if it was oral dictation to scribes) made a mistake is one of many possibilities. Certainly these are the sort of things we need to imagine. I think we also need to question assumptions about how many people had the Qurʾan memorized in the earliest days, and also to question how uniform that memorization was. I have little doubt that there was a relatively high degree of uniformity. But the issues in the manuscripts (beyond mere scribal error) raise some questions in these areas. These are open matters and everyone can think about them and discuss. I will note that these four manuscripts were not probably made in the same scriptorium, so it does strain the hypothesis you make, but it does not mean that there is no other reasonable explanation for these things. Thanks again for watching and commenting. Best wishes, DB.
I agree . Probably one of the sincerest comments in this whole thread. Research is very important, I appreciate the work you do Dr brubaker and also the humbleness behind your comments. You seem sincere in your research, and as was mentioned above, it is not really your place to worry about how some people might perceive your research. The ignorant will always be ignorant, whether you draw a conclusion or not. The basis of your work is extremely beneficial for people like myself, who do not have the resources to examine and fact check early manuscripts. So your unbiased research is very helpful. Continue the great work
Such a good question. I was suggested to watch Dr Brubaker talk and analysis Qur'an by some Islamophobe and it is really an eye opening. I, myself really love Qur'an and one of those Muslim who memorized it but have never really thought about Murajaah. This discovery really makes me want to murajaah harder and be someone who can provide answer to someone who also analysed Qur'an but has different perspective like Dr Brubaker.
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof: th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Highlighted reply Dr Nabeel 19 hours ago Allah in ch 49 v 13 of Quran says Allah created mankind from a couple and divided us into different regions and colours so that we can recognise each other and Love not hate,the best amongst you is the one who possess righteousness. Irenias Anotà @Dr Nabeel How many CREATOR in the Book of Qur'an??? 49:13 " O mankind! We created You from a single (pair) Of a male and a female, And made you into Nations and tribes..." who is this 'WE' the CREATORS??? Irenias Anotà @Dr Nabeel the "We" if it is Allah, who then is his Co-Creator???" if Allah is one, then he would rather say, "I created you" and not "We"...
(110) And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful. (111) Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (112) And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture. Even thus speak those who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.
Seems to me that the later addition of "good pleasure" into the text 7:15 fuses together two biblical texts. Luke 12: 32 and Matthew 7: 24-26 I would guess that the scribes were reacting to the Judeo-Christian influences of their day.
I see no reason why people are so excited. 🤷🏾♀️I mean this is nothing at all. My faith in ALLAH is not shaken still. Instead I will teach these variations to my students so that they know they mean nothing The Quran is still preserved. Message intact, word LA ILAHA ILALLAH. NO god but ALLAH alone.
So basically the apostate prophet is a real prophet because “ridwan” is mentioned in the Quran although muslim try to erase his name. “ALAAKOSNAKBAR”!!
(139) Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what ye do. (140) Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do.
(134)And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters. (135) Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (136) And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
Hi Dr Brubaker.. is there anyway i can get kindle edition of your book? I’m not sure i can get your paperbook ship to my country (Indonesia) and pass through the customs 😅 thanks so much for your scholarship works 🙏🏼
Hi, I have been trying to get my book into a Kindle version. At the time it was published, the problem was that the ebook format was messing up the Arabic. Obviously, the details of the Arabic and the formatting is very important for this book. I tried again a couple of months ago, with the same problems. If anyone has experience with this and knows how to address the problem, I would be very happy to hear it, because it is a shame that it is not able so far to be published for Kindle. Thanks for the comment, noted, and I am trying! Best, DB
MAY THE LORD JESUS THE CHRIST BLESS EACH AND EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFES ,AND ALL YOUR FAMILYS.LET US LOVE AND PRAY FOR ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH.WHY? BECAUSE EACH SOUL IS PRICELESS TO JESUS.MARK:8 :36-38.
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
different scribes OR maybe the same scribe but in a later time,... after 10 -10 years the hand writing change, so it's not surelly different scribe unless we can figure out that the ink is more then 60 years apart but since dating is not precise lets say 100 years to be sure.
Sooo...Dr. Brubaker showed 4 manuscripts all being corrected to add one word....one...word...and then shows another which had that same word already in it originally. It seems to me this is an example of impeccable preservation. EDIT: Dear Daniel. I appreciate your passion and dedication to this subject. Moreover I truly respect the work ethic and hard work one must put in to become an expert in any field. One kind request for you: would you be able to make a video clearly explaining what, if any, conclusions you are making? I ask because it is clear from the comments that many many lay people watching your videos are taking these videos to believe that you have concluded that the preservation of the Quran is undoubtedly corrupted. It is clear from your writings however that you admit that you have not made any conclusions. Given the consistent nature of comments on your videos I believe it behooves you, a man of integrity, to clearly convey what it is your are saying and what it is your are NOT saying to remove the unfounded conclusions many people watching your videos are jumping to - conclusions you yourself have not made.
Original Arabic Quran a recitation which was memorized. You are talking about translations. No chance of mistake in the Almighty, s revelation. No two human manuscripts can be 100%similar. Main context and message revelation remains same.
@@inquisitivemind007 You yourself confirmed that he was not present.. So your assertion does not hold water During that time when Islam took birth there were numerous feuding factions. So how can Mohamed Pbuh be held responsible who actually united the tribes and clearly stated that there will be no first aggression Only if they attack first tgan you have the right to defend fight oppression and injustice. Show mercy and forgiveness if they stop and do not break treaties and alliances.. Read Reinstatement of Islam by Razvi on the upbringing childhood and character of this Apostle before bringing up the history of an era where Islam just started as if there were no turbulent times with Jesus pbuh with the Roman, s and the pharises during his era. Almighty has said.. I have today perfected this religion as a mercy to mankind and have given a guide (revelation).. that religion is Islam and the final testament Quran or guide incorporating all the scriptures and gospels revealed to all of Almighty, s messengers are there. This religion as promised by the Almighty will enter every household and is happenning to the total dismay of bigots and apologists who will do and find anything to ostracise Islam and tge Quran.. So rest your case bro. As i said no two manuscripts are similar due to human intervention and interpretations of the revealed messages of the Lord Almighty who is One Only and not three in one. He begets not and is neither begotten!! Period.
@Sovereign OK Absolutely right, bigots and islam haters know that it is the truth but will not drop their false dogmas... Diseased hearts beyond reproach, will listen to poison and spew garbage without seeking the truth. Human nature, slow and difficult to mold on such issues. TC
If one who claims to be perfect, displays an imperfect trait (deception, plotting etc..) then we know two things: 1They are a liar 2They are imperfect Allah has told us in the Qur'an that he is the best deceiver - we have his own admission that he is imperfect and a liar. *Harun Yahya includes Al-Makir in his listing of Allah's 99 names *Given the context of the verses provided in the above article, it is clear that they discuss Allah deceiving his (perceived) enemies only. However, what the verses also contain is a definitive statement from Allah - Allah is the best deceiver. It does not state "Allah is better at deceiving than his enemies" Therefore, in these verses, we have the (supposedly) omniscient (all-knowing) being Allah, telling us outright that HE is the best deceiver. Being all-knowing, he would be aware of anyone higher at deception than he is. If someone who is all-knowing tells you he is the best deceiver, and you accept this how can you say that you trust him not to deceive you as well? After all, since he is the self-admitted 'best' at deception, if he chose to deceive you, it would be highly unlikely that you would be able to detect such a deception if you are using solely his words as a guide to your life. Who's to say he is being truthful about anything else in the Qur'an? Even if he says he is being truthful to you, you already know that you cannot trust him because he has already admitted to being the 'best deceiver' - it could be another deception. ***Allah Deceives Muslims; "When Allah showed them to you in your dream as few; and if He had shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-hearted and you would have disputed about the matter, but Allah saved (you); surely He is the Knower of what is in the breasts. And when He showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes and He made you to appear little in their eyes.. "(Qur'an 8:43-44) In the above verses, we see Allah admits to deceiving Muhammad himself, in a dream, by portraying the opposing forces as less than there actually were, in order to trick him into false confidence because he did not want the Muslims to become intimidated (and then back off from fighting). Here is Kathir's tafsir regarding this: [إِذْ يُرِيكَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِى مَنَامِكَ قَلِيلاً وَلَوْ أَرَاكَهُمْ كَثِيراً لَّفَشِلْتُمْ وَلَتَنَـزَعْتُمْ فِى الاٌّمْرِ وَلَـكِنَّ اللَّهَ سَلَّمَ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ - وَإِذْ يُرِيكُمُوهُمْ إِذِ الْتَقَيْتُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِكُمْ قَلِيلاً وَيُقَلِّلُكُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِهِمْ لِيَقْضِىَ اللَّهُ أَمْراً كَانَ مَفْعُولاً وَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأُمُورُ ] Mujahid,Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir , refer to; وَيُقَلِّلُكُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِهِمْ] (and He made you appear as few in their eyes,) Allah said, [وَإِذْ يُرِيكُمُوهُمْ إِذِ الْتَقَيْتُمْ] (And (remember) when you met. He showed them to you...), He encouraged each of the two groups against the other, according to `Ikrimah, as recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim. Some Details of the Battle of Badr (8:43) Tafsir 'ibn Kathir Kathir claims it was 'compassion' on the part of Allah to show a 'few' to Muhammad when there were many more than that, but this does not negate the fact that Allah deceived the Muslims in this matter - it was deception plain and simple. If we say to you that you get 3 years in jail in return for your sworn testimony, but we know (and conceal) the fact that you will actually get 6 years, this is not compassion, it is deception. In the same way we can say that Allah has deliberately deceived the Muslims in these verses in order to get them to do what he wants (ie. fight). This example alone negates the claim that "Allah only deceives his enemies" as we can see that Allah deceived Muhammad - uswa hasana - so it is not unlikely that Allah will (and has) deceived other Muslims before and after this event. ***Allah Created Christianity Through Deception According to Islam, Jesus is not God, and he was not crucified, yet an entire religion sprung from Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. This is the central focus of Christianity. Allah however, makes it clear in the Qur'an that Jesus was not crucified (died) and he is not God's son, meaning that Christian's are in error to follow these beliefs. But why do Christians think he was crucified? Because Allah admits that he made it appear so: "[And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.]-- Qur'an 4:157-158 So we see that Allah admits to making it appear (to the people) that Jesus was crucified on the cross (and died), and that Allah then raised Jesus to himself (ascended him to heaven). Therefore Allah admits to deceiving the people. For the next 600 years, Allah sat back and watched all these people converting to, and following Christianity; a religion that was started by his deception, but he did not bother to lift a finger to correct anything until 600 years later, when he sent Muhammad with the Quran - to sort out the mess that he himself (Allah) had created. ****Let's look at it from another point of view; Allah sent Jesus to 'fix' the errors that had crept into Judaism, but then undoes any corrections that were made from the intervention (and Jesus' message) by making it appear (in the end) that Jesus was crucified and then raised from the dead. This negates the entire purpose of sending Jesus. This leaves the people with not only one alternative to Allah's 'true' religion, but two; Judaism or Christianity which entails (among other things) following the message of Jesus, which Allah himself had corrupted by making it appear that he had risen from the dead. So for 600 years, Allah's pure religion was not to be found on this Earth and now (thanks to Allah's deception) had two competing faiths to deceive the people and tempt them away from the 'straight path'. This makes no sense. Conclusion In conclusion we can see that this objection (of context) is irrelevant because the statement in the verses is definitive (not dependent on context) and from the Qur'an itself we see that Allah has no problem deceiving: •"Enemies of Islam" •Muslims •Innocent people - who lived in the 600 years that it took Allah to send the Qur'an
@@skellingtonmeteoryballoon Almighty does not deceive humankingd .. he is the creator of all . he gave you intellect to discern good from bad .. You pay for your bad deeds and bliss is offerred if you pass the test .. So dont give me this crap about the Creator deceiving his creations .. ..otherwise he would have made us like pure 4 legged animals with llow or no intellect and we would wake up eat drink shit and go to sleep .. no sins , no reprisals , Get your head out of the sand , bro .
@Mohamed Mo abdool you're a joke. Back up your claim and show us the verse and give us the time stamp. Show us that you learnt the quraishi dialect from jibreeel himself.
It's always a good day when you post a new video
It's also always a good day when his new video is the first thing one watches in the morning. Lol.
@@inquisitivemind007
Answered on your channel...what a joke...
@@Logia1978 perhaps you should try answering this embarrassing joke for Islam th-cam.com/video/23BhM8e890I/w-d-xo.html
@@inquisitivemind007
THe Quran is not based on the opinion of one person....
Try again.
@@Logia1978 of course you're going to say that because it's so embarrassing for Islam: variants from Allah being recited that are wrong - just shows you how ignorant you are. Best thing you do is go to someone with knowledge and ask them who Ibn Mujahid and the role he played before you write something.
I appreciated seeing the seventh-century Quranic text; I had goosebumps; it really moved me! I could read the passage without hesitation, even with the faded huruuf(letters). As for the corrections and faded letters, I am very familiar with this kind of written style; that is how I had learned and still learnt in Africa and some-parts of Asia.
Amazingly, as an Arabic speaker and 1400 years later I still can read it 😂 exactly the same... Now, all of these observations really still change nothing in the meaning. Be it a scribal error or "conspiracy theory".. Meaning still the same.
Considering the premise has always been "perfect preservation down to every dialectical mark" as the main means for trusting the Qu'ran, this is a problem.
I don’t think it’s possible because the dots in Arab language gives meaning to the words, if it doesn’t have dots then you can’t make that claim.
@@gracedfollowerIt s perfect preserved, the qur an is orally transmitted but check out farid responds bru baker, you ll come to know this guy is a fraud.
I'm an Arabic speaker and I can't read it and I don't think no one can read it actually because besides the fact that there're no dots, these letters in the manuiscripts aren't even Arabic they're borrowed from the Syriac language for example the letter noon ن looks very different it looks like R ر so I believe you're exaggerating in order to preach ur religion ,but what you're saying is completely false.
@@MrGotohell77It’s not about minor differences in writing styles. A maximum of 5 minutes is pretty much enough for a native Arabic speaker to adapt for the style. You’re saying it like “How do we know that it’s an R or an L??” but they’re easily and clearly distinguishable and consistent internally throughout the mentioned script.
Great video. I hope your channel keeps growing. We need more academics like you in this field. God bless
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
@Sovereign OK showing some manuscripts and showing pages from academic books is called exposing the truth about your edited biography of Muhammad you have like how you have nicely cut ✂️ out that Muhammad wanted to and lead an army to capture Palestine. How Muhammad called Palestine the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey 🍯 - all cut ✂️ out.
@Sovereign OK too many biographical documents? You mean like the reliable Ibn Ishaq - your earliest biographer-
- who Imam Malik called the Antichrist th-cam.com/video/QsYx5_x3Xlk/w-d-xo.html and Ahmad ibn Hanbal wouldn't take a tradition from him if he was the only one in the chain of narration and the ones he did put in his Musnad never paid much attention to or is it Al-Waqidi who hadith scholars say is a liar whereas Sebeos 660AD narrated about Muhammad from escaped prisoners-of-wars (note plural) who were eye-witnesses and Dionysius of Tel-Mahre 845AD narrated it from Theophilus of Edessa 785AD
@Sovereign OK and your blind following of that poet Muhammad is so sad to see too - I feel sorry for you. What do you think that the list of the variant readings, which includes addition and omission of words, in Surah Furqan in the dispute between Umar and the other companion doesn't give it away that Muhammad was a poet just like his opponents in the Quran had accused him from? One minute you say it's to help people with different dialects then the next minute you have words added or missing - all a mark of a poet.
@Sovereign OK the list of variant readings of Surah Furqan are found in this article yaqeeninstitute.org/ammar-khatib/the-origins-of-the-variant-readings-of-the-quran
I'd like to know that the ones who most need your insights are making an effort to listen. Since I don't see a thumbs-down, does that indicate an absence of Arabic speaking Muslims? _SMH_ This probably isn't information the ulama will share with the laity, so that leaves it to us infidels to share the links to your scholarly presentations. Thank you for all the heavy lifting you're doing!
They are prohibited to watch such channels
And censorship
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
it is about texts written in Arabic. what you say makes no sense.
Thumb down will meaning they are out of their religion... It is their holey book facts☝🤭😝
Can you believe that anyone can believe that the Qur'an is it's original state when it's obvious it's been altered and updated so many times.
The Quran is revealed on piecemeal basis over 23 years via Angel Gabriel and recited, memorised and put into practice by Prophet Muhammad pbuh and thousands of his companions (some of whom wrote them down piecemeal). Even if those writings disappeared, it could easily re-written because of the memorization by many. The memorization did not stop during the Prophet's time but it continues until now, year 2020. Whenever there is a new print of the Quran and there are mistakes, thousands would spot the mistake for correction.
@dan mann Only Allah guides and may Allah guide us all, Amin.
@dan mann May I know what is 'hamdu'?
Yes. We so evidence. They sincerely claim to believe it😂
I think it's good you set aside theological opinions and focused purely on academic reasons for studying this manuscripts. This will help set aside any bias.
@@inquisitivemind007 lol an evidence for the existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him) turned into evidence against Islam
@@condorianonegdiffsgoku No it's the movement of Muhammad shown here that has been cut ✂️ out th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html that has turned again your biography
That's the impression he gives, but his research is flawed. He's been refuted by Muslims on his research. An example of how weak his scholarship is:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
I like the way you animate the corrections, so easy to follow your explanation and narration. Great works doc !
@@inquisitivemind007 interesting finding, but I thought that Muhammad died in 632 ad ? I will checkout your channel bro.
@@anthonytan7134 no he didn't he was still alive. I have written more on this under a comment on this channel made by Rass B where he says "you have responded and refuted..." Have a look!
@@inquisitivemind007 you got better argument and supporting references ! So whom do we trust ????
@@anthonytan7134 the one with the evidence. There is more on my channel aswell as manuscripts
@@inquisitivemind007 exactly !!!!! I will checkout your channel, you got interesting stuffs there bro.Good works !!
Thank you for your work. This is very helpful.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
OK uncle
Dr Brubaker any comments on the fact that Saudia Arabia’s MBS plans to purge 90% hadiths and its potential impact ???
Thank you Dr , I love the videos you show us the real manuscripts and some verses..because in addition of what you focus on the video I read the other words and compare them with modern quran, please make more of this type of videos🙏
Thank you for this input. It is helpful.
Good work against bad preservation
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
If I am not mistaken I think I saw a publication made by Farida, Ijaz and a third fellow I think Mansur debunking Dr Dan on the preservation and scribal errors, unbelievable, it's a just to laugh at the evidence they put forward.
@Tauhida Khan yeah it’s a beautiful nonsense, refuting Dr Dan, claiming it is scribal errors, from the examples showing that it is similar in the Quran, then now deny that it’s no more letter for letter or dot for dot, but that’s the claim that has been for long which now surprisingly they don’t claim that again. To make it easy, did Allah or Jibril ask Abubakr or uthman to compile the Quran? Adnan Rashid has claimed he has 99% of the complete manuscript which no one has seen and he has not shown any one, miracle of Islam just like splitting of the moon no one saw. I didn’t read the complete article but 1/3 of it, got bored reading it.
What did you think of it, question back to you?
When/where was this? Was it on the EFDawah channel? I'm not surprised they tried to tackle this. PP has been argued for so long and believed by so Ms that they've been fire fighting ever since the 'holes in the narrative' interview between Qadhi and Hijab.
Assalam alaykum all muslim brothers and sisters.
Thank You daniel brubaker. Thank you you are making a great job. Keep it doing. May Allah to give u a good healthy for continuing it.
You do realize he is destroying the claim that the Quran hasn’t changed, right??
@@andyd2033 no. Actually he is proving the opposite. Compared to the Bible, where we have so many, added, removed forgery verses which are not found in early manuscripts (1-3b.c.)
What we have in qoran? We find manuscript that doesn't have a word/verse. But also we find manuscripts in its generation with that word/verse
@@andyd2033 for example when we find 10 manuscripts from x-century and 1 of them doesn't have x-vers. Then we can correct that manuscript using others! And it can't be named forgery
Sorry im not good at English
@@farooqkhamidogli4557 oldest ones have are all different and have been changed at a later date to ensure they all read the same, that’s what his book proves. Sorry for the bad news.
@@andyd2033 I don't know what are you talking about!?!? Maybe about ahruf and qiraat. But I watched his videos there is no additions as I have said before.
when will the muslim scholars do this?
They have, and call themselves EX-MUSLIMS.
"scholar". Hahaha
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
I don't know. Christians study variant biblical manuscripts, and they seem fine. Muslims should do the same. It couldn't hurt them.
@@thetrintarianmessianicyahw589 they do. And they have plenty of material on the variants.
Thank you Dr. Dan Brubaker, great work!
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Great video, very elaborate! Thank you for the effort Dr.
@@inquisitivemind007 I think most of us got it the first time!
Thank you good sir
Imagine if Dan did the ultimate interview starting off with Shady (exposing variant readings) th-cam.com/video/LxKV3g7iTCE/w-d-xo.html followed by Dan's then followed by Robert Hoyland (exposing Muhammad's biography) th-cam.com/video/LygfZXHGk54/w-d-xo.html who will finish them off with this th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html, th-cam.com/video/S5B2DTZ5W2k/w-d-xo.html and this th-cam.com/video/WgbRLdUxw3w/w-d-xo.html. The whole Islamic world will have a heart attack.
@@inquisitivemind007 They are already having a myocardial infarction! 🤔
Proof we can never know what the original said
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
@Boba frett a bit of research will clarify that thats not true. His mom wasn't pregnant for 4 years. It was a normal pregnancy period.
At last, the the so-called miracle of “perfect preservation of the Quran from the time of Mohammed” has been exposed and debunked.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Not really,
The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too.
corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73
E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word.
The correction in Arabe 330g, as Brubaker suggests, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
Perfectly preserved by memorization 1400 years now running. No chance of bigots ever able to challenge and dispute the Almighty, s word as he has promised preservation.
@@mnoorbhai Yes, with whole chapters missing and numerous verses unaccounted for. Thanks Allah for preserving one of history’s dumbest books ever written.
@@golflima5392
You are ignorant and talking only from hate....
the othmanic pattern is a fact known with scholars.
If your observation is correct, probably somebody noticed the error, and took upon himself to check all copies he can get to, and corrected them if there was a mistake. Keep in mind that some people would be horrified by the thought of such a thing, and will make sure that it gets corrected irrespective of the cost. You should search who this person was.
Your work is well needed, keep going, and thank you for all your efforts!
Bob the liar
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Luke12.2
Thank you Jesus💒🕎🕇❤
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
That verse has nothing to do with Jesus. I hope you're not insinuating he's God because according to the Bible (his own alleged words) he's not.
who wrote Luke ?
@@rabielazazi787
Aristoteles
@@Κριστίνα-ψ4μ ihahaha good joke Aristotle😂😂
Daniel Brubaker has picnics where Yasir Qadhi does not dare go...Q4:82
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Very funny! Actually, as an academic he will go there; he just avoids the topic in public, I guess. Partly this is the Catch-22 someone is in, when their fans' and benefactors' support depends upon preservation of a narrative requiring less than open discussion. A little sad, actually. Thank you. DB
@@variantquran4505 It's all falling apart for them with Shady's new devastating book that has just been released. You with this video and many more to come and the manuscripts available online on my channel for those who want to see the accounts of Muhammad leading an army in Palestine when he never was meant to have been there - meaning an edited biography.
@@variantquran4505 so Yasir Qadhi is in it for the money...wait wait...I mean support, yeah that's it, support? LoL say it aint so!!! Thank YOU ! Shared!!
@@dhc21atyahoo no yasir qahdi views is against Islam but he isn't doing for money Just imagine If what he think has proofs n talk in public Non Muslims will Pay him much more than he was as a Muslim he is doing out of religiousness
Also Watch Dr shehzad saleem on it he is also a Academic on Quranic history and Made the longest detail Free course on this topic in TH-cam since 2015
He's view is that Traditional narrative have some problems BUT that don't, mean Quran is Not preserved We can be sure that Quran is preserved and here
th-cam.com/play/PL7oYOZNO0kHwDzi9P4UmSremVOVKzku7s.html
he made a very long free course
Authentic scholarship. Thank you.
Authentic nonsense
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Dr have you considered the possibility that maybe there was a qira'ah قراءة without ridwan رضون but it became mansukhah منسوخة by a qira'ah that has ridwan?
well obviously theses are errors before the standardisation of the Quran by Uthman and we know that there are some manuscripts with a lot of mistakes but there's no way he can find textual variants after the standardisation
The Islamic State was a large empire at that time, and even if it burned many Qur’ans, it is possible that in other places there were different readings that were not burned, but were modified to be in line with the official reading.@@rabielazazi787
Dr Denial Brubaker do you have manuscripts from the 6th century??
the manuscript's correction has been perfectly preserved.
Have a look at the hole in the narrative in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
the question is why was any correction necessary in the first place
Because it’s a natural thing that scribes make mistakes in copying the Quran. The Muslims shot their own foot when claiming perfect preservation when trying to persuade others to Islam. Taqqiya
I just bought the illustrated version of Dr. Brubaker’s book , looking forward to read it !
The truth is slowly seeping out, islam is false plain and simple.
Thank you sir for your hard work, and thank you for sharing !
It was always there, this is why Muslim have a hard time to accept Hadith, Tafsir and Quran itself.
To survive they had their scholars lie to the pedophile supporters.
God bless you Jamal Khan. Let us always pray that many souls will be saved.
th-cam.com/video/ZD1-epRprFc/w-d-xo.html yeah right. He's doing his "phd" in 8years. But these guys in the link destroyed him in just minutes. Lol
@@mynamealehandero
Umars Allah..
Narrated `Umar (bin Al-Khattab):
MyLord agreed with me in three things: -1. I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two rak`at of Tawaf of Ka`ba)". (2.125) -2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.
🤪🤪(Umar was so much Obsessed by Muhammads Sex Troops )
-3. Once the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) made a united front against the Prophet (ﷺ) and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).
So Quran is Not from Heaven
It's from Filthy Umars Decisions.
And he made lots of mistakes in Hiding the Truth
Such as Allah Prays
Lord Yeshua Death ( Muttuwafika)
Allah Caused him to die
How long can it Hide ??
Quran 33 : 56 ( Yuusaluwna)
yusalloon ala al-nabi'.
word 'yusalloon', which is the verb from the word Salat, meaning 'to give Salat' and is the plural verb of the word 'yussalli'.
Quran 33 : 43 ( Yuusalee) يُصَلِّي yuṣallī
Quran 33:43 & 33:56 state that Allah did “Yusalli/Yusalluna” which means “Prays/Pray”. But the English Quran translated "Yusalli/Yusalluna" as " Allah send his Blessings or confers Blessings "which is definitely wrong..
It does not have the below👇👇👇
-----‐---------------------------------------------------------
بركة👉(blessing)
مقدس👉(blessed person)
بركاته 👉👉 (Blessings )
barak allah fik 👉 allah bless you 👉
👇
بارك الله فيك👉👉👇
________________________________________
Quran 2 : 157 ( Salawaatun (pray) and wawahbattun 👉(mercy)
رحمة👉Rahma-mercy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sala Allahu 'Alyhi wa Salam means: May Allah PRAYS upon him and salute!
The word صَلَّى 👉 pray
, صَلَّى👉 ( Al - Adab 👉👉in haddith
صلى👉salaa (pray)
Quran 33 ; 43
يصلي👉(yusaliy(prays👉👉👉👇
Quran 33 : 43 ( Yuusalee) يُصَلِّي yuṣallī
Quran 33: 56
👇
(pray on) 👉👉 صلي على
---------------------------------------------------------------
or Sala means He prayed (past tense but could be read as present tense or he prays)
And here from al-maany dictionary
www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D8%B5%D9%84%D9%89/
he prays [Koran Words] صَلَّى
And here is from Lisan al-'Arab the earliest Arabic dictionary:
صلا : الصلاة : الركوع والسجود
Or Sala (past tense but read as Yusali or he prays due to grammatical aspect) or al-Sala or the praying means the bowing and prostration
Nothing about the bogus Allah is blessing him
Here is the link to Lisan al-Arab and the Arabic root S-L-W just use the translation tool
Here is the link
library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=4673&idto=4673&bk_no=122&ID=4681
this is from wikitionary:
صَلَّى • (ṣallā) II, non-past يُصَلِّي (yuṣallī)
1. to pray, to worship
2. to perform the salat
3. to bless someone; construed with عَلَى (ʿalā)
Second word is Allahu الله means Allah it does not mean God because if it really means God then the Islamic formula la Ilah (God) ila Allah should be la Allah ila Allah or there is no Allah except Allah
Allah? is the proper name of the God of Islam and to add insult to injury it is a loan word from Syriac it is not even an Arabic word
3. 'Alyhi or عليه or Upon
4. wa Salam or وسلم means and (he) salutes
This funny formula in Arabic is Sal'am صلعم !
The moral of the story is: Never trust Muslims translations more so if the translator is an Indian Muslim or Pakistani!
What a disaster: Allah prays to a mere human being
BTW: There is a funny hadith where we are told that Gabriel watched Allah praying.
The islamic literary sources are a real disaster
Salawat is a plural form of salat (Arabic: صَلَاة) and from the root of the letters "ṣād-lām-wāw" (ص ل و) which means "prayer" or "salutation
In Islamic context
"When Muhammad sends Salawat upon the believers, it indicates his prayer for their welfare, blessing and salvation."
There was a hadith from Abu Amamah reports that Muhammad said: "Invoke more Salawat upon me on every Friday, the Salawat from my ummah is presented to me on every Friday. Whoever had invoked more Salawat upon me will be closest to me."[6]
Muhammad was also reported saying: "The meanest person is he who does not invoke Salawat upon me when my name is mentioned in his presence
Ibn Asakri has transmitted from al-Hasan bin Ali that Muhammad said: "Invoke more Salawat upon me, for your invocation is conducive to your sins being forgiven. And pray for me a high status and intercession, for surely my intercession will plead in your favour before Allah
There was a narration from Ja'far al-Sadiq from Muhammad. He said: "All supplications to Allah will remain in a veil from the sky until a Salawat is sent to Mohammad PBH and his Household
So literally Allah Prays
So to whom he Prays
If he prays for Muhammad?
🤷♂️🐫💨
@@mynamealehandero
Deception no ; 2
Quran 5 : 117 to 118
tawaffaitani
Means
cause me to die,
Quran 3 : 55 (Allah will -
I shall cause you to die or I am terminating your life )
The majority of Muslims believe that
Jesus was raised bodily to heaven and someone made into the likeness of Jesus was crucified in his place. Saved from an accursed death on the cross, Jesus has been waiting over 2000 years to descend back to Earth to defeat the anti-Christ and establish an Islamic dominion.
The teachings of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (saw), however, stand in opposition to this belief. This concept entered into the understanding of mainstream Muslims only after the rapid spread of Islam amongst the Christians of Arabia and the Byzantine Empire that brought this erroneous belief with them. For early Muslims, Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy regarding the second coming of Jesus in the latter days was a metaphor. For example, Prophet Muhammad states Jesus will “descend among you… break crosses [and] kill swine” (Muslim Book 1, Hadith 287). If read literally, we would be left wondering what man would gain from Jesus roaming the Earth slaughtering pigs and breaking crosses? If understanding Jesus’ responsibilities requires a metaphorical reading, why should we expect Jesus of Nazareth to literally reappear?
The Quran supports this assertion; regarding the death of Jesus, the Quran records a conversation on the Day of Judgment where Allah will ask Jesus, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He will answer, “Holy art thou. I could never say that to which I had no right… I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things” (5:117-118).
In response, the majority of Muslims object to translating tawaffaitani as “caused me to die” - instead translating the word as “raised me.” Secondly, it is claimed that because this is a conversation that is to be held on the Day of Judgment and Jesus will eventually return to Earth, one cannot conclude that Jesus is already dead but that he will die after his return.
To determine the meaning of a word in the Quran, one must first assess the usage of that word in other verses of the Quran, secondly assess the Prophet Muhammad’s usage of that word and his commentary on that verse, and lastly assess the companions of the Prophet Muhammad’s understanding of it. As far as the Quran is concerned, in every instance a word from the same three-letter root and verb form as tawaffaitani is used, it invariably indicates death or sleep. The Quran defines this usage when it states “Allah takes the souls at the time of death and of those not dead he takes at the time of sleep…” (39:43).
Therefore, in 5:117-118, Jesus responds to Allah’s inquiry about whether he had introduced the concept of trinity to his people by claiming that he was either made to die or made to sleep, which prevented him from remaining a watcher over his people. Suggesting that Jesus is referring to himself falling asleep is bizarre and also inconsistent with Prophet Muhammad’s commentary on this verse. In Bukhari, in the chapter of Prophetic Commentary of the Quran (Kitab Tafsir-ul-Quran) Prophet Muhammad, regarding the Day of Judgment states, “…Some from my followers will be brought and the angels will drive them to the Hell fire. I will say, ‘O my Lord! They are my companions!’ Then a reply will come, ‘You do not know what they did after you.’ I will say as the pious servant (Jesus) said: ‘And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things’ (5:118)…” (Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 149).
Here, Prophet Muhammad, when put in a similar situation as that of Jesus on the Day of Judgment, quotes Jesus from the Quran and claims that he too was only a witness over his companions as long as he remained among them and that once he was made to die, Allah alone was a guardian over them. Thus, when Prophet Muhammad applied 5:118 to himself, whatever translation of tawaffaitani one wishes to use must apply to both Prophet Muhammad and Jesus. Since it must mean death for Prophet Muhammad, it must also for Jesus.
Surprisingly, the majority of Muslims around the world understand tawaffa to mean death - except when it refers to 5:118. At every funeral, Muslims recite the prayer of Prophet Muhammad in which we implore Allah “…And those that you cause to die from among us, cause them to die upon faith” using the words tawaffaitahu and tawaffahu respectively (Tirmidhi Vol. 2, Book 5, Hadith 1024).
Moreover, directly preceding the hadith cited from Bukhari, Ibn Abbas (ra), an uncle of Prophet Muhammad and narrator of the hadith, defines the word mutawaffika as mumituka:
The word mutawaffika comes from the same three-letter root and verb form as tawaffaitani, and mumituka literally means ’(((cause thee to die)).’ Using the definition of mutawaffika as ‘cause thee to die’ provided by Ibn Abbas, the only instance Allah uses the word mutawaffika in the Quran would state, “When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, indeed I will cause thee to die and will raise thee to Myself…’” (3:56).
Imam Bukhari (rh), by placing this simple definition of Ibn Abbas before the hadith of Prophet Muhammad, confirms that he, Ibn Abbas, and Prophet Muhammad, all understood 5:118 and 3:56 to mean that Jesus has passed away.
It also cannot be argued that tawaffaitani and mutawaffika will apply once Jesus descends back to Earth. Firstly, in 3:56, the sequence that Allah presents of Jesus begins first with mention of his death before any mention of him being raised. We must follow the sequence that Allah has put in place.
Secondly, if we were to assume that Jesus was to come back, 5:117-118 would cease to make sense.
If Jesus returns to see Christians worshipping him, how could he be shocked on the Day of Judgment at what Christians did after him or claim that he was only a “witness over them as long as he was among them”? After having come back to Earth and correcting Christian beliefs, he could not be surprised at the behavior of the Christians or claim he was only a witness over them until he was raised on the Day of Judgment. Instead, Jesus would reply to Allah that he had just come back from correcting them.
The shock he actually experiences upon hearing the question is apparent in him pleading his case and proven from the similarity Prophet Muhammad draws with his own scenario on the Day of Judgment as recorded in the above quoted hadith of Bukhari.
At this point, it is often demanded that “raise thee to Myself…” be explained from 3:56. With a similar approach taken to understanding the word tawaffaitani, one can also understand the word raafi’uka (raise thee). Among numerous instances in which the Quran uses this word, regarding prophet Idrees (as), Allah states, “Relate to them the story of Idrees. He was truthful and a prophet. And we raised him to a lofty station (19:57-58). The same word rafa’a is used in relation to Prophet Idrees but it is understood to be an ascension of spiritual rank, not a physical ascension.
So why the scholars hide this ?
@@mynamealehandero
The Arabic correct translation of the word “Mutawaffika” found in the Qur‟an in Surah
Al-Imran 3:55 has been debated by scholars. The significance of the outcome of the
debate is important to both sides. Those who do not want Isa to die contend that
“Mutawaffika” refers to Isa‟s second trip to the earth. On this trip, Isa will die. Others
argue that “Mutawaffika” in 3:55 cannot be translated as “to cause to die” simply because
they do not believe that he died.
This paper pulls together information from multiple Islamic scholars and sources who
argue that Isa died. They contend that if Isa died and was raised alive to Allah, then it
should not be seen as a threat to any prophets and their writings. The fact that Isa died
was foretold by previous prophets and reveals to us Allah‟s divine plan (3:54) of
substituting Isa in our place. Our punishment of eternity in hell was placed upon a
substitute, Isa. Allah performed Korbani Himself and used Holy Isa as the sacrifice.
Let‟s examine arguments in favor of “Mutawaffika” being translated as “to cause to die”
or “to kill.”
Surah Al-Imran 3:55 (Arabic pronunciation)
3:55 “Iz qa_lalla_hu ya_ „isa_ inni mutawaffi ka wa ra_ti‟uka ilayya wa mutahhiruka
minal lazina kafaru_ wa ja_‟ilul lazinattaba‟u_ka fauqal lazina kafaru_ ila_ yaumil qia
mah(ti), summa ilayya marji‟ukum fa ahkumu bainakum fima kuntum fihi
takhtalifu_n(a).”
For any practitioner of using the Al-Imran 3:54-55 as a bridge to sharing the Gospel with
Muslims, it is vital to understand the true meaning of the word, “Mutawaffika”. Many
Muslims will do their best to cover up and misdirect from the true meaning of this word.
A prime example of this cover up is found in the first and second editions of Maulana
Wahiduddin Khan‟s English translation of the Qur‟an. In the first edition (left), he
translated the word, “Mutawaffika” correctly. In his second edition (right), he translated
it incorrectly. When asked why he made this change, the Maulana replied, “I was
pressured to make the change.
Pickthall : z(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and
causing thee to ascend unto Me,
Yusuf Ali Behold: ! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself
Shakir : And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay
(on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me
Sher Ali : Remember the time when ALLAH said' `O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a
natural death and will raise thee to Myself,
Khalifa : Thus, GOD said, "O Jesus, I am terminating your life, raising you to Me,
Arberry When God said, 'Jesus, I will take thee to Me and will raise thee to Me
Palmer : When God said, 'O Jesus! I will make Thee die and take Thee up again to
me
Rodwell : Remember when God said, "O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and
will take thee up to myself
Sale: When God said, o Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up
unto me,
Progressive God said: “O Jesus, I will let you die, and raise you to Me
Maulana Muhammad AliWhen Allah said: O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt
thee
Wahiduddin KhanGod said, „O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up
to me
Shabbir Ahmed”O Jesus! I will cause you to die of natural causes and I will exalt
you in honor
Rashad KalifaThus, GOD said, “O Jesus, I am terminating your life, raising you to
Me
Muhammad Asad“Lo! God said: “O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and
shall exalt thee unto Me
Muhammad Ahmed & SamiraWhen God said: “You Jesus I am, I am making you
die and raising you to Me
Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Recall what time Allah said: O 'Isa! verily I shall make thee
die, and am lifting thee to myself
Amatul Rahman Omar; (Recall the time) when Allâh said, `O Jesus! I will cause you
to die a natural death,
Free MindGod said: "O Jesus, I will let you die, and raise you to Me
the verse 3:55, two conditions are stipulated about Jesus(pbuh):
first, Allah will cause his Death,
second, he will be raised.
The second condition can not take place till the first condition is met. In other words, before
Jesus(pbuh) can be raised, first, he must die. Let us see various translations of the same
verse.
Correct translation : "O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me…"
Yusuf Ali : "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself…"
Pickthall : "O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend
now they are conditioned to think that way. Some have mistaken the correct use of
verbs(Pickthall, Khalifa). Some have omitted key words and interpolated fabricated words
(Pickthall, Sarwar, Malik) and passed it over as Allah’s word! To derive a remote synonym for
a word is one thing (Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Al-Hilali & M. Khan. Malik) but to fabricate additional
words and omit key words are gross act of negligence and corruption.
The most correct meaning of the word "wafat" is death. Wherever in the Holy Quran the
word "wafat" is used, all these translators derived the meaning as death, except in
this verse 3:55, where they don’t see "wafat" as death!!!! What is the problem here? Why are
they contradicting the meaning of 'wafat'? What stops them from translating the words of
Allah in its true context? They are seeing imaginary words only to support heresy they
learned during their childhood.
Here are some of the verses in the Holy Quran where Allah used the word "wafat". The verses
are 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40,
16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 39:42, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 etc. In each of the instances, all these
scholars translated the word "wafat" as death, or a word very close to death but none
of them used a word to mean take away in alive condition. Let us examine some of the verses
and see how these translators derived the meaning of "wafat" in these instances.
Verse 3:193
Yusuf Ali: "…and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the
righteous"
Pickthall: "…and make us die the death of the righteous."
Khalifa: "…..let us die as righteous believers"
Sarwar: "…let us die with the righteous ones."
Shakir: "….and make us die with the righteous."
Hilali &
Khan: "……and make us die in the state of righteousness…."
Farooq
Malik: "…And make us die with the righteous."
Ahmed Ali: "…And grant us (the glory of) death with the just."
Verse 4:15
Yusuf Ali: "…until death to claim them…."
Pickthall: "…until death take them…."
Khalifa: "…until they die,…"
Sarwar: "…until they die…"
Shakir: "….until death takes them away…"
Hilali &
Khan: "…until death comes to them…"
Farooq
Malik: "…until they die..."
Ahmed Ali: "…until death ..."
Verse 7:126
Yusuf Ali: "…and take our soul unto thee as Muslims!"
Pickthall: "…and make us die as men who have surrendered."
Khalifa: "…And let us die as submitters."
Sarwar: "…let us die Muslims (submitted to God)."
Shakir: "…and cause us to die in submission."
Hilali & "…And cause us to die as Muslim
Shame on you for hiding the Truth
Very interesting. Most Muslims maybe %99.9 don't know that. They believe that the Qur'an has never changed. But that's wrong.
I like your videos, but the amount of hate in the comments section is too much 😅
Thank you for these kind words. I don't intervene in the comments unless it is something obscene, violent, or completely off topic. I believe that a free space for discussion is good in principle. Glad you are here, Hussain, and hope you will keep coming and finding it beneficial. Best, DB
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Are there any known manuscripts dated earlier than, or contemporary to, these examples that don't have the correction in this same spot?
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Yep!
The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too.
corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73
E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word.
The correction in Arabe 330g, as Brubaker himself suggests, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
How desperate must one be to comment his cringy video under each and every comment here? And his question has nothing to do with it lmao
@@alfiras8604 what fantastic 👏 preservation for 1400 years with all of those Hafiz Quran generation after generation and you end up with this th-cam.com/video/23BhM8e890I/w-d-xo.html 🤣 and you couldn't produce master copies properly as they have scribal errors th-cam.com/video/RwzIy7IANkM/w-d-xo.html 🤣
Great video!
Stay safe, Dr.Brubaker. Unfortunately, there are a lot of wackjobs who would want to hurt you for your work.
Have a look at the hole in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/S5B2DTZ5W2k/w-d-xo.html
No need, he's easily debunked. This guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
very good .... very clear
Have a look at the shocking hole in their biographical narrative on Muhammad th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for exposing quran's imperfection in its preservation.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ZD1-epRprFc/w-d-xo.html yeah? Lol how shallow
@@mynamealehandero that was released before this video. Now they have to do another one: poor Farid, Ijaz and Mansoor. Have to redo it 🤣
@@inquisitivemind007 have you clicked the link? Or are you afraid its gonna ruined your imagination? Lol
@@mynamealehandero I have clicked it and watched the whole thing all the way to the examples Mansoor showed and to the end.
Like variant parts in an armature: hints of a now-obscured narrative. The next big question: how can such a narrative be recovored?
So much for the lofty claims of the "miraculous" perfectly preserved Quran ...
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Why do you call them corrections instead of insertions or changes? Isn't calling them a correction backwards looking from the text we have today?
Sir Dan, I find your posts very interesting. However, we find spending more time before we see you revelations...tnx.
Another example of the perfect preservation of the Quran without any holes :)
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
Scholastic criticism: 1, Islam: 0
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Terima kasih Bapak Dr. Brubaker untuk pengajarannya yang luar biasa
Outstanding work Dr. Brubaker!!
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
In 11min shows 4 corrections spots ..
I wonder if there is an alogerthem or formula based on the Golden Ratio that will account for the speed of information being put out on the Qur'an, early Arabic-GrecoRoman-Persian accounts of the 7th & 8th Centuries and Indian-Chinese-Ethiopian diplomatic accounts and the speed of Islamic collapsing. I think there is a doctoral thesis there.
The rate at which holes in the narrative multiply goes: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 ...
Dr. Brubaker, are you saying that three of these Qurans predate the Sana (705)
If you mean lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest, no. That is probably mid-7th century. If you mean the Sanaa codex published by IRCICA, then yes, most likely.
@@variantquran4505
Thank you for the reply, I was always under the impression that the Sana was the oldest Quran?
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
What you have found is the scrible of written Quran. It has not been verifired by expert. That why the correction came about.
David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham said:[2]
The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.
Although the Quran text witnessed in the two Birmingham leaves almost entirely [12] conforms to the standard text,[13] their orthography differs, in respect of the writing (or omission) of the silent alif (ألف).[14] Early Arabic script tended to not write out the silent alif.[15][16] Subsequent ultraviolet testing of the leaves has confirmed no underwriting, and excludes the possibility of there being a palimpsest.[17][18]
End of debate, that is the oldest Quran and its 100% the same as the one we have today, the difference is just linguistics
This is exactly what Qur'an 9:109 says, "Which then is best? -- he that Layeth his foundation On piety to God And His Good Pleasure? --or he That layeth his foundation On an undermined sand-cliff Ready to crumble to pieces? And it doth crumble to pieces With him, into the fire Of Hell. And God guideth not People that do wrong."
Another hole in the narrative. This time it is biographical. Muhammad leading an army to Palestine which has been cut ✂️ out th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
Hello Dr Dan. Don't you think this is like parablepsis or mixing with repetitive formula? Notice that still on the same surah 9 but 36 verses before, in the verse 72 is preceded by the "formula" : WA RIDWANU MINALLAHI akbar. The word ridwan is put before minallah. So the scribe may think the word ridwan is put before the word minallah in next 36 verses later, that is surah 9 verse 109 so that the wrong result of the scribe writing it becomes : taqwaa minallahi khayrun..
which should be corrected and has been done corrected with : taqwaa MINALLAHI WA RIDWANI khayrun am man 'assasa.
The repetitive formula :
MINALLAH [WA RIDWAN] or
[WA RIDWAN] MINALLAH
Form 1 : [WA RIDWAN] MINALLAH akbar (surah 9:72)
Form 2 : taqwaa MINALLAH [WA RIDWAN] khayrun (surah 9:109)
*In form 2 the scribe missing word [WA RIDWAN] so in the first place it becomes: taqwaa MINALLAH [..] khayrun..
and then he'd erase and correcting it by adding that missing word [WA RIDWAN] perfectly.
4 scribes do the same thing at the same place? not likely --> impossible
Of course it is very possible. It is possible that every scribe of his time rewrote from sources which also contained the same errors. And that can be corrected if :
1. There is an earlier source, this may be discussed on the Farid Responds channel in the near future..or
2. from the confirmation of memorizers from generation to generation that continues until now. Just imagine that Muslims all over the world take turns repeating these verses according to the time of day when they pray five times a day. And it continues today. One priest in front of him recites from memory in his mind and the makmum (people who follow the priest) listen to it behind the priest. When there is an error, the person behind immediately corrects it.
I think Dr Dan is failed here, he didn't find the repetitive formula because only search the word khayr and Minallah, and he forget to consider word "Ridwan".
@@masanabangun4560 You are free to believe that, but statistically speaking, its impossible.
@@masanabangun4560 There is no earlier than this. And even if there was, it would show different qurans existing and in conflict.
@@masanabangun4560 We do not have the minds of memorizers to say that, we only have manuscripts to deal with.
Dr. Brubaker, how sure are we that these are early Qurans; meaning written not long after the death of Muhammad?
The reason I ask is there seem to be some diacritical marks in the text. Some of them could be explained as resulting from later editing (when a new word was interpolated) and that shows up in the ink of the changed text matching the ink of what appears to be diacritical markings (albeit very primitive ones). However, some of the text that is obviously the original manuscript also appears to have these marks and the ink matches the text.
The manuscript E20 (the third one in this video) is different from the others, and possibly somewhat later. I have seen different opinions as to its date of origin. Additionally, bear in mind that diacritics in some cases could have been added later. I am speaking hypothetically, not suggesting it to have been the case here. But, there seem clearly to have been multiple post-production interventions in E20, at any rate. Not sure if this answer is much help to you, but the other three manuscripts shown are probably late 7th or early 8th century ... in my opinion. The 4th (E20) could be, but could also be a bit later. Good question, Peter; thanks for asking. DB
@@variantquran4505 Thanks for the clarification V.Q. Mostly I was referring to the first two Qurans; but your answer is useful, helpful and absolutely worth me remembering (hope I can).
The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too.
corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73
E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word.
The correction in Arabe 330g, as you suggest, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
What about the Qirat - is that perfectly preserved? Oh dear looks like it isn't th-cam.com/video/23BhM8e890I/w-d-xo.html
I am curious what a graphologist would say about the scribe...this guy was psyco, that guy was a pervert, this guy was being dishonest...etc.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Is it possible they found an older, thought-to-be-more-genuine version and they all applied the correction accordingly? The word "rithwan" is implied anyway... It doesn't make a big difference in meaning
I am not sure I quite understand your question (e.g., who do you mean by "they"? etc.), but with respect to the word being implied, I am merely looking at the history of textual transmission. That question is a natural next one, namely, what was the cause or reason that led to what we observe in the manuscripts. Thanks for your comment.
so much for perfect preservation!!
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
So many letters look like worms. No wonder there are holes in the narative
Dr. Brubaker, I've seen the claim a number of times (at least 3), over the years, that every 5th verse/ayat of the koran is corrupted and is nonsensical gibberish.
However, I've never seen a proper explanation of this and whether it is really true or just hyperbole.
Can you comment on this? If it is true, how did this get into the koran and when and why hasn't it been corrected?
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
It is from Gerd R Puin, in the January 1999 Atlantic article "What is the Koran?"
"GERD-R. Puin speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim and Western scholars, to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice *that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense*. Many Muslims-and Orientalists-will tell you otherwise, of course, but *the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible*. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. *If the Koran is not comprehensible-if it can't even be understood in Arabic-then it's not translatable*. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not-as even speakers of Arabic will tell you-there is a contradiction. *Something else must be going on.*"
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
@@jasonduvall5010 this at least proves the hardheadedness of the muslim umma to accept and acknowledge their scholars have lied to them throughout the ages...
Every Muslim Scholars are Blind ... and therefore they can not see their ERRORS...
@@Harana_Ni_Lolo I disagree. They know full well that Islam is false, they just love being puffed up and having influence over people due to their own ignorance.
Can be the scribble error is because the sentence still have a meaning and is grammatically correct? Could it be that the 3 of them copied from existed manuscript that have the error because it was written from memory?! Mental
For you information if someone recites this verse from memory they would make this omission forgetting the word Ridwan. I am telling you this from a personal experience. So the verse say who constructed their structure on Taqwa from Allah and Grace is better or ..
So this is usually happen where the reciter from memory would forget grace and goes:
Taqawa from Allah is better ...
It doesn’t need a philosopher to form
such an explanation.
All you can claim that if these manuscripts were copying and not writing from memory maybe and only maybe they copied from a manuscript that have the error due writing from memory.
Its sad that you are wasting your time on this. Its obviously not for you.
I’m fascinated by the consistency of the Quran. Even in textual corrections there is convergence, no contradictions. The writings supplement the memorization, the memorization supersedes it.
The insertion of “ridwaan” in all 4 texts shows to me there is some history, and not merely scribal errors. We know that the companions of our blessed prophet had different recitations, trivially different, yet expounding to add so many dimensions to the meanings of of God’s Words. Even with these differences none of them denied that this is the word of God.
Armchair critics of Islam here are missing the forest for the trees. I eagerly await for the day Daniel finally relents and becomes Muslim after concluding his research. 😜
Dr. B, inna-mal-a’malu-bin-niyat.😶
No, actually, these are simply scribal errors, most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
The word "رضون" is present perfectly fine in Ms Qaf 47, carbon dated to 606 - 652 CE and possibly other earlier manuscripts too.
corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/9/vers/109?handschrift=73
E20 is not a 7th century Quranic Manuscript, it is paleographically datable to the last quarter of the 8th century CE. Even then, it does look like traces of the word "رضون" can be seen underneath. By the time this manuscript was written, there would have been plenty of earlier or similarly dated manuscripts with the standard word.
The correction in Arabe 330g, as you suggest, was most likely corrected at the time of writing itself.
@The Astronomer I think what you're expecting from the fluxes in variations, you won't see. The differences in the various Qurans are subtle yet at the same time complimentary. Please watch th-cam.com/video/PxSbGeW5Kko/w-d-xo.html
I don't expect you to agree but I'd love to hear what you think. Also these variations are canonized by early generations scholars who cite there work through "isnad" (chain of narrations tracing back to our prophet). Of course I'm referring to ahruf/qirat.
Regarding contradicting stories in the Quran, this is not the case for the students of Quran. "Mufassiroons" or people who are adept in "tafsir" - the science of using the Quran to explain the Quran, don't see any contradictions. Instead they expound on it, and these differences are a form of enlightenment for us. These mufassiroons are acquainted with the entirety of the Quran.
I say memorization supersedes, because a hafiz of the Quran (protector/guardian/preserver) is someone who has committed the entire Quran to memory, and these people are a dime-a-dozen, where i live.
@Abu Safiyah I expect the inclusion of ridwaan being 100% correct and conformal. The nature of the error seemed to indicate to me as being remnants of an early non-canonical reading being rectified. I could be wrong however and that it is infact merely coincidental scribal errors. I don't know as much as you.
@The Astronomer I watched the video, it is very interesting indeed. I wish I could ask Dr Naser myself, traditionally hadeeth sciences are very different from quranic sciences. Asim was criticized (so it seems) for being poor at narrating hadeeth because of memory issues, but not criticized for his Quranic recitation. I knew a 14 year old in our community who was a hafiz (had the entire Quran memorized) who frequently led prayers, but ask him what he learned in school and he would draw blank. (my point being week in once science doesn't make you week in another.)
There is also the case of the "harf al muqattaat" or, the "mysterious letters" in the Quran. These occur 29 times within all 114 surahs, and they are impossible to read with only the rasm at hand. All Quranic recitations (hafs, warsh, qanoon, doori etc) recite them the exact same, which leads me to believe that the differences that do occur in the Quran are deliberate.
Thanks for having an honest, unbiased discussion. I find this topic quite fascinating, but sifting through anti-islamic rhetoric is trying at times.
@The Astronomer fascinating video! subhanaAllah! (Glory be to Allah, perfect is Allah!). My key takeaway from this video are:
Varient readings is the domain of gramarrians, not theologeons. Mufassiroon (exegetes) actually prefer varient readings because it expounds on the meaning of verses and adds more dimensions and greater explanations.
.
Majority of varient readings are NOT due to the absence diacritical marks. It is impossible to access the rasm without a reading and all readings have a chain relating back to our prophet. Hence, all varient readings are authentic and correct. (Some are "more correct" than others.)
Renowned scholars shaatibi, daani, and jazari actually came up with a formula for multiple varient readings in the form of didactic poems. If a student memorized the Quran and the poem, the student could extrapolate varient readings. This to me is mind blowing - it shows that the varient readings weren't some erroneous offshoots, rather something structured, deliberate and even mathematical in nature ( I personally would consider this a miracle).
Regarding the7/10/14 variations - again merely grammatical in nature and can be traced back to our prophet. The 3 groups of schoars have different degrees of strictness or just use different criteria, hence the differences in opinions. Again, it's merely a matter of being "more correct" than right or wrong.
So what *does* this repeated correction signify?
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
I'm not sure yet, or whether it signifies anything, but the correspondence is worth noting. That's why I discussed here. It does seem that there is a theological nuance between building one's foundation upon Allah himself, versus upon Allah and his good pleasure. I may do some more probing and discuss further later on. DB
Very good job 👍
These holes in the standard narratives are getting wider and wider everyday.
Have a look at the hole in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/S5B2DTZ5W2k/w-d-xo.html
Maybe the best of deceiver did write the same correction everywhere... it might be a miracle 🤣
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Can you deduce where those manuscripts were written? Of they have the same style does that imply also the same region? Or only the same time period?
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
@@inquisitivemind007 I've seen it. Sneakers Corner and Jay Smith made remarks about it.
Ok guys! This is cool. Every commentator who supports this video has happily and definitely concluded that "Islam is false". And that's based on a couple unproved corrections. What does this say about Christianity? If the mere fleeting likelihood of a correction in a Quranic manuscript makes Islam a false religion, why do we sill talk about Christianity at all let alone defend it or believe in it?
Second: someone noticed the absence of dislikes on this video and used that as a proof that either no Arabs or Muslims have watched it. I tell this person the absence of dislikes stems from the absence of concern that this video has been able to trigger among Muslims. It's so weak that I found pleasure watching it instead of being disturbed by it.
If the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, then the problem of beauty keeps me from being an atheist
Assalamu alaykum brothers and sisters, and greeting to the rest. Thank you Dr. Brubaker for your work. I have 3 separate comments to make: first, my opinion on your channel, second, the perception of the commentators on your youtube videos, and lastly, some reasoned interrogation of your work in this video, which I hope you respond to in a future video.
After watching a few videos, quite frankly, I am underwhelmed by it. All of these variants seem to be inconsequential in that they don't fundamentally change the meaning of the Scripture. Nor is it surprising that such trivial variants exist given that scribal copying is a human endeavor and as with all things humans do, there will be some imperfections. I find it difficult to understand the significance of your work.
A lot of commentators that are viewing your video are under the impression that your work demonstrates that the preservation of the Quran is compromised and using it as a means of questioning the integrity of our Holy Book. But most Muslims, who have a foundational understanding of the Islamic Tradition, would most probably see your work in a different light. For us, it would be delusional to think that the work of humans wouldn't have errors in it and that the preservation of the Quran exists in the absolute sense. For us, when we claim the Quran has been preserved and these are the words of Allah SWT, what we are really claiming is that the integrity of the Quran has been preserved. None of the videos posted on the Quran variant channel in any way challenge the integrity, rather you embolden us further, since your work, embedded within Western academia (with its questionable metaphysics and systemic biases), have yet to demonstrate after 100s of years of work, why we ought not to believe in the Quran. Dr Brubaker, in what way do you want us to perceive your work,? and in what way do you think your work benefits society? Also, in your videos, you seem to show the data and analysis of it, but offer the viewer no guidance in how we should intepret your work. What are legitimate conclusions to be drawn from it? What conclusions are a bit far-fetched and require further investigation? and what conclusions can be ruled out? I think your lack of guidance is precisely why most people in the comments section have such deluded perceptions.
Lastly, I am an ignoramus in your field of study so there might be obvious answers to my critique, nevertheless, I shall make my point. I find it quite bizarre that when talking of scribal errors you only mention what I would call random human error (sorry, I am not familiar with the academic jargon in your field, I am referring to when you mention dittography and haplography). To me, this kind of error is highly unlikely if 4 different scribes made the exact same error. To me, 4 different scribes making the same error points to something systematic. My line of questioning to understand why these errors were made would be different: were copies of the Quran made from the scribes' own memory or were they writing it down as someone who recited to them? or were most scribes copying other people's copies? how many scribes or people that could read (and therefore critique the writings) existed in that time frame? Is it not entirely plausible that one person made an error whilst reciting, or that a single scribe didn't hear the word ridhwan from the reciter and therefore didn't write it, and that many other scribes (who themselves aren't hafizh) potentially used this scribe to make their copies. I speculate that the scribes were few in number, I speculate that most of them were from Persia and in the early days weren't hafiz of Quran (which they later became masters of). I speculate that not many people in that time couldn't read including many huffaz, I speculate that this meant little scrutiny of the earlier copies made, I speculate these errors took a while to be noticed, and by that point, several copies of the first manuscript with the error were made. What I offer is an entirely plausible narrative, which I imagine someone in your position must have investigated? So did you?
Thank you anyway
Usman
WAS. These are good points for the possible explanation of omissions plus the lack of history behind the scribes of the 3-4 copies discussed here. It could well be a single scribe being dictated that made errors and copies made from it and then corrected by a checker at some point.
What the orientalist scholarship needs to understand and learn if they are honest is the compilation process of the Qur'an. This was memorized by the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him and it was dictated to scribes by him, 50 plus if I am correct.
Abrogation is a well known subject that Qur'an already addresses where certain verses were replaced by others or removed altogether to give it the permanent shape by the Prophet on orders from God.
Different recitations are acceptable, 7 variants where there are ahadith or incidents from the life of the Prophet that mentioned and sanctioned the differences in recitation.
All verses of the Qur'an were recited during daily 5 prayers.
It was during the reign of khalifa Abu Bakr that the memorized Qur'an was compared against written verses with individuals where it was complied in to a mushaf or copy.
Later in it was recompiled using this original mushaf that went from Abu Bakr to Umar(2nd khalifa) and then to his daughter Hafsa and from there requested by 3rd khalifa Uthman who was pleaded by companions to compile a standard version since as Islam was expanding, there were different dialects and new Muslims were pronouncing out incorrectly.
This version is called the mushaf Uthman used currently with vowels to make it easy to read especially for non Arabs.
All other copies were burnt including known private copies etc and some may have escaped that process.
There are reports of copies kept by the companions that had notes on them for their personal use and were not fully complete either with 114 suras/ chapters but that does not mean it was incomplete since their private copies were like that or they're students could not find the missing version of their copies.
One cannot compare the modern printed copy with that concept.
Your point is well taken that it does not distort or change the message even with scribal errors in those copies that are updated.
Thank you, Usman, for this thoughtful comment. I may indeed make it the basis of an answer in a video (no promises, but it is a good candidate). Meanwhile, a few reflections.
First: Whether the corrections are consequential or inconsequential is a case-by-case matter that also depends upon what criteria one considers to be of consequence. I have no particular interest in making things anything other than they are; that is to say, I am merely studying, describing, and beginning to analyze. If alternate words, missing words, etc, that do not fundamentally change the meaning of the scripture makes that category of variant or correction inconsequential for some people, then they may rule out all those corrections or variants and not give them a second thought. For others, at least some of those variants or corrections may be food for thought. And yes, human error is one factor in scribal production of manuscripts as I have said so many times. Deciding how other people deal with my research is not really my place or concern, though I am happy to interact with people on this material.
Second, it is not my place to say whether the faith of others should be strengthened or weakened by my work. All I am doing is looking at manuscripts and describing and discussing what is there. You ask me how I want people to perceive my work, and my answer is that I hope that people will see it for what it is: an investigation into one feature of early Qurʾan manuscripts by a man who finds these things interesting. Your comment about lack of analysis or conclusions is something I thing about often. The fact is, I have always been cautious about drawing conclusions too hastily. I know good scholars who have spent many years dealing with very minute points in a handful of Qurʾan manuscripts, yet here I am looking at thousands. It is a different and very big task, and it takes a great deal of concentration and thought ... but it is hard to do when also thinking about the very big picture. Indeed, when any of us do too hastily come to a conclusion, it is dangerous and can bring warranted criticism. So, I hope you and others will forgive if I remain cautious in many cases.
Of course, this leaves us with the concern behind your question: that if I don't guide to conclusions, then others are taking and coming to conclusions of their own, yet without the basis of the broader scholarly knowledge that I and others in my field possess. This is a valid concern, and I really do hear you. However, I am not sure I have an solution. The alternative would be for me to self-censor and not tell people about my work. But, clearly, a lot of people are interested in it and do not want to wait for the long and laborious process of analysis (which truly will take many years) to be carried out before I ever engage in discussion. I think the best answer is probably for me to continue the work but to do my best to give what guidance I can. I do hope to get better at such a task as time progresses, and I thank you for the reminder of its importance.
That leaves us at your final series of thoughts. Regarding the possibility that the reciter (if it was oral dictation to scribes) made a mistake is one of many possibilities. Certainly these are the sort of things we need to imagine. I think we also need to question assumptions about how many people had the Qurʾan memorized in the earliest days, and also to question how uniform that memorization was. I have little doubt that there was a relatively high degree of uniformity. But the issues in the manuscripts (beyond mere scribal error) raise some questions in these areas. These are open matters and everyone can think about them and discuss. I will note that these four manuscripts were not probably made in the same scriptorium, so it does strain the hypothesis you make, but it does not mean that there is no other reasonable explanation for these things.
Thanks again for watching and commenting. Best wishes, DB.
This and brubakers response are the best comments without hate or bias and solely to discuss the this subject of study.
I agree . Probably one of the sincerest comments in this whole thread. Research is very important, I appreciate the work you do Dr brubaker and also the humbleness behind your comments. You seem sincere in your research, and as was mentioned above, it is not really your place to worry about how some people might perceive your research. The ignorant will always be ignorant, whether you draw a conclusion or not. The basis of your work is extremely beneficial for people like myself, who do not have the resources to examine and fact check early manuscripts. So your unbiased research is very helpful. Continue the great work
Such a good question. I was suggested to watch Dr Brubaker talk and analysis Qur'an by some Islamophobe and it is really an eye opening. I, myself really love Qur'an and one of those Muslim who memorized it but have never really thought about Murajaah. This discovery really makes me want to murajaah harder and be someone who can provide answer to someone who also analysed Qur'an but has different perspective like Dr Brubaker.
Such scholarship to debunk the doings of a crafty 7th century pervert, your work is amazing!
Have a look at the shocking hole in their biographical narrative on Muhammad th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
Except this guy has been debunked time and time again. He's either not an academic or he's dishonest. Here's proof:
th-cam.com/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/w-d-xo.html
god bless you for your work!
Highlighted reply
Dr Nabeel
19 hours ago
Allah in ch 49 v 13 of Quran says Allah created mankind from a couple and divided us into different regions and colours so that we can recognise each other and Love not hate,the best amongst you is the one who possess righteousness.
Irenias Anotà
@Dr Nabeel How many CREATOR in the Book of Qur'an??? 49:13 " O mankind! We created You from a single (pair) Of a male and a female, And made you into Nations and tribes..." who is this 'WE' the CREATORS???
Irenias Anotà
@Dr Nabeel the "We" if it is Allah, who then is his Co-Creator???" if Allah is one, then he would rather say, "I created you" and not "We"...
Is this a Grammatical Error in Qur'an???
(110) And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful. (111) Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (112) And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture. Even thus speak those who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.
Seems to me that the later addition of "good pleasure" into the text 7:15 fuses together two biblical texts. Luke 12: 32 and Matthew 7: 24-26
I would guess that the scribes were reacting to the Judeo-Christian influences of their day.
There's an error in the title. The word 'be' should not be there
Fixed. Thank you for catching that. DB
What it neans is the scribes made mistakes . How can you change something that is memorized ?
Are you check the Qur'an 823-949 like Dr Turhan Dursun from Univercity Turkey?
That is a loaded gun. That meets the argument Muslim apologist put forward to discredit the significance of this work.
Have a look at the shocking hole in their biographical narrative on Muhammad th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
I see no reason why people are so excited. 🤷🏾♀️I mean this is nothing at all.
My faith in ALLAH is not shaken still. Instead I will teach these variations to my students so that they know they mean nothing
The Quran is still preserved. Message intact, word
LA ILAHA ILALLAH. NO god but ALLAH alone.
ALLAAHU AKBAR
@@DARWIISHAD La ilaha ilallah. No god but ALLAH 🙌🏾...
That is enough for me.
@@islamforall437 yes
@@islamforall437 🤦♂️🤦♂️it’s a shame
Many thanks. What enlightening work!
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Very damning for the Muslim faith
I am awaiting for variant quran, if any
@@inquisitivemind007 biography is human affair. Hero can be made into villain .
So basically the apostate prophet is a real prophet because “ridwan” is mentioned in the Quran although muslim try to erase his name. “ALAAKOSNAKBAR”!!
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
(139) Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what ye do. (140) Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do.
God bless...
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
(134)And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters. (135) Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (136) And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
Hi Dr Brubaker.. is there anyway i can get kindle edition of your book? I’m not sure i can get your paperbook ship to my country (Indonesia) and pass through the customs 😅 thanks so much for your scholarship works 🙏🏼
Hi, I have been trying to get my book into a Kindle version. At the time it was published, the problem was that the ebook format was messing up the Arabic. Obviously, the details of the Arabic and the formatting is very important for this book. I tried again a couple of months ago, with the same problems. If anyone has experience with this and knows how to address the problem, I would be very happy to hear it, because it is a shame that it is not able so far to be published for Kindle. Thanks for the comment, noted, and I am trying! Best, DB
Another thing is this is how hafiz learn the different aruf . There is nothing here to see actually .
God bless you.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
MAY THE LORD JESUS THE CHRIST BLESS EACH AND EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFES ,AND ALL YOUR FAMILYS.LET US LOVE AND PRAY FOR ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH.WHY? BECAUSE EACH SOUL IS PRICELESS TO JESUS.MARK:8 :36-38.
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
different scribes OR maybe the same scribe but in a later time,... after 10 -10 years the hand writing change, so it's not surelly different scribe unless we can figure out that the ink is more then 60 years apart but since dating is not precise lets say 100 years to be sure.
Thank you Dr.Brubaker for this wonderful video
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
Sooo...Dr. Brubaker showed 4 manuscripts all being corrected to add one word....one...word...and then shows another which had that same word already in it originally. It seems to me this is an example of impeccable preservation.
EDIT: Dear Daniel. I appreciate your passion and dedication to this subject. Moreover I truly respect the work ethic and hard work one must put in to become an expert in any field.
One kind request for you: would you be able to make a video clearly explaining what, if any, conclusions you are making? I ask because it is clear from the comments that many many lay people watching your videos are taking these videos to believe that you have concluded that the preservation of the Quran is undoubtedly corrupted. It is clear from your writings however that you admit that you have not made any conclusions. Given the consistent nature of comments on your videos I believe it behooves you, a man of integrity, to clearly convey what it is your are saying and what it is your are NOT saying to remove the unfounded conclusions many people watching your videos are jumping to - conclusions you yourself have not made.
Original Arabic Quran a recitation which was memorized. You are talking about translations. No chance of mistake in the Almighty, s revelation. No two human manuscripts can be 100%similar. Main context and message revelation remains same.
Have a look at the shocking hole in their biographical narrative on Muhammad th-cam.com/video/FUpIMg3R_js/w-d-xo.html
@@inquisitivemind007 You yourself confirmed that he was not present.. So your assertion does not hold water During that time when Islam took birth there were numerous feuding factions. So how can Mohamed Pbuh be held responsible who actually united the tribes and clearly stated that there will be no first aggression Only if they attack first tgan you have the right to defend fight oppression and injustice. Show mercy and forgiveness if they stop and do not break treaties and alliances.. Read Reinstatement of Islam by Razvi on the upbringing childhood and character of this Apostle before bringing up the history of an era where Islam just started as if there were no turbulent times with Jesus pbuh with the Roman, s and the pharises during his era. Almighty has said.. I have today perfected this religion as a mercy to mankind and have given a guide (revelation).. that religion is Islam and the final testament Quran or guide incorporating all the scriptures and gospels revealed to all of Almighty, s messengers are there. This religion as promised by the Almighty will enter every household and is happenning to the total dismay of bigots and apologists who will do and find anything to ostracise Islam and tge Quran.. So rest your case bro. As i said no two manuscripts are similar due to human intervention and interpretations of the revealed messages of the Lord Almighty who is One Only and not three in one. He begets not and is neither begotten!! Period.
@Sovereign OK Absolutely right, bigots and islam haters know that it is the truth but will not drop their false dogmas... Diseased hearts beyond reproach, will listen to poison and spew garbage without seeking the truth. Human nature, slow and difficult to mold on such issues. TC
If one who claims to be perfect, displays an imperfect trait (deception, plotting etc..) then we know two things:
1They are a liar
2They are imperfect
Allah has told us in the Qur'an that he is the best deceiver - we have his own admission that he is imperfect and a liar.
*Harun Yahya includes Al-Makir in his listing of Allah's 99 names
*Given the context of the verses provided in the above article, it is clear that they discuss Allah deceiving his (perceived) enemies only. However, what the verses also contain is a definitive statement from Allah - Allah is the best deceiver. It does not state "Allah is better at deceiving than his enemies" Therefore, in these verses, we have the (supposedly) omniscient (all-knowing) being Allah, telling us outright that HE is the best deceiver. Being all-knowing, he would be aware of anyone higher at deception than he is.
If someone who is all-knowing tells you he is the best deceiver, and you accept this how can you say that you trust him not to deceive you as well?
After all, since he is the self-admitted 'best' at deception, if he chose to deceive you, it would be highly unlikely that you would be able to detect such a deception if you are using solely his words as a guide to your life.
Who's to say he is being truthful about anything else in the Qur'an?
Even if he says he is being truthful to you, you already know that you cannot trust him because he has already admitted to being the 'best deceiver' - it could be another deception.
***Allah Deceives Muslims;
"When Allah showed them to you in your dream as few; and if He had shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-hearted and you would have disputed about the matter, but Allah saved (you); surely He is the Knower of what is in the breasts. And when He showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes and He made you to appear little in their eyes.. "(Qur'an 8:43-44)
In the above verses, we see Allah admits to deceiving Muhammad himself, in a dream, by portraying the opposing forces as less than there actually were, in order to trick him into false confidence because he did not want the Muslims to become intimidated (and then back off from fighting). Here is Kathir's tafsir regarding this:
[إِذْ يُرِيكَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِى مَنَامِكَ قَلِيلاً وَلَوْ أَرَاكَهُمْ كَثِيراً لَّفَشِلْتُمْ وَلَتَنَـزَعْتُمْ فِى الاٌّمْرِ وَلَـكِنَّ اللَّهَ سَلَّمَ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ - وَإِذْ يُرِيكُمُوهُمْ إِذِ الْتَقَيْتُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِكُمْ قَلِيلاً وَيُقَلِّلُكُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِهِمْ لِيَقْضِىَ اللَّهُ أَمْراً كَانَ مَفْعُولاً وَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأُمُورُ ]
Mujahid,Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir , refer to; وَيُقَلِّلُكُمْ فِى أَعْيُنِهِمْ]
(and He made you appear as few in their eyes,) Allah said,
[وَإِذْ يُرِيكُمُوهُمْ إِذِ الْتَقَيْتُمْ]
(And (remember) when you met. He showed them to you...), He encouraged each of the two groups against the other, according to `Ikrimah, as recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim.
Some Details of the Battle of Badr (8:43)
Tafsir 'ibn Kathir
Kathir claims it was 'compassion' on the part of Allah to show a 'few' to Muhammad when there were many more than that,
but this does not negate the fact that Allah deceived the Muslims in this matter - it was deception plain and simple.
If we say to you that you get 3 years in jail in return for your sworn testimony, but we know (and conceal) the fact that you will actually get 6 years, this is not compassion, it is deception.
In the same way we can say that Allah has deliberately deceived the Muslims in these verses in order to get them to do what he wants (ie. fight). This example alone negates the claim that "Allah only deceives his enemies" as we can see that Allah deceived Muhammad - uswa hasana - so it is not unlikely that Allah will (and has) deceived other Muslims before and after this event.
***Allah Created Christianity Through Deception
According to Islam, Jesus is not God, and he was not crucified, yet an entire religion sprung from Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. This is the central focus of Christianity.
Allah however, makes it clear in the Qur'an that Jesus was not crucified (died) and he is not God's son, meaning that Christian's are in error to follow these beliefs. But why do Christians think he was crucified? Because Allah admits that he made it appear so:
"[And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.]-- Qur'an 4:157-158
So we see that Allah admits to making it appear (to the people) that Jesus was crucified on the cross (and died), and that Allah then raised Jesus to himself (ascended him to heaven). Therefore Allah admits to deceiving the people. For the next 600 years, Allah sat back and watched all these people converting to, and following Christianity; a religion that was started by his deception, but he did not bother to lift a finger to correct anything until 600 years later, when he sent Muhammad with the Quran - to sort out the mess that he himself (Allah) had created.
****Let's look at it from another point of view;
Allah sent Jesus to 'fix' the errors that had crept into Judaism, but then undoes any corrections that were made from the intervention (and Jesus' message) by making it appear (in the end) that Jesus was crucified and then raised from the dead. This negates the entire purpose of sending Jesus. This leaves the people with not only one alternative to Allah's 'true' religion, but two; Judaism or Christianity which entails (among other things) following the message of Jesus, which Allah himself had corrupted by making it appear that he had risen from the dead. So for 600 years, Allah's pure religion was not to be found on this Earth and now (thanks to Allah's deception) had two competing faiths to deceive the people and tempt them away from the 'straight path'. This makes no sense.
Conclusion
In conclusion we can see that this objection (of context) is irrelevant because the statement in the verses is definitive (not dependent on context) and from the Qur'an itself we see that Allah has no problem deceiving:
•"Enemies of Islam"
•Muslims
•Innocent people -
who lived in the 600 years that it took Allah to send the Qur'an
@@skellingtonmeteoryballoon Almighty does not deceive humankingd .. he is the creator of all . he gave you intellect to discern good from bad .. You pay for your bad deeds and bliss is offerred if you pass the test .. So dont give me this crap about the Creator deceiving his creations .. ..otherwise he would have made us like pure 4 legged animals with llow or no intellect and we would wake up eat drink shit and go to sleep .. no sins , no reprisals ,
Get your head out of the sand , bro .
Pot calling kettle black 🤦🏽🤦♀️🤦🏻♂️
_Why sixteen verses was removed from the bible by christian denomination in fact a lot has changed not on the spot but thousands of years later_
Please translate to indonesian teks...
Done. Let me know how the quality is. Thanks! DB
Here is another hole in the narrative. This time it's in Muhammad's biography th-cam.com/video/3WVCGPssbQw/w-d-xo.html
@Mohamed Mo abdool you're a joke. Back up your claim and show us the verse and give us the time stamp. Show us that you learnt the quraishi dialect from jibreeel himself.
Thank you for your diligent scholarship.