I would love to see Br Shabir with Jordan as well as another with of Br Daniel Haqiqatjou with Jordan. I think Br Shabir would give great insights on the Biblical and Quranic studies, while Br Daniel would give great insights on societal values and traditional values of Islamic principles!
Dr, Shabir Ally and Dr, Shafiya episodes represent the best of enlightening muslims and non-muslims in the knowledge, practice and spirit of Islam. What a great blessing for us as a community to have such a presence in the media to educate and clarify our belief system.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
An interesting book for those interested - "The History of the Quranic Text, From Revelation to Compilation, a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testamemts". Written by Muhammad Mustafa al Azami.
That's all Islam is: a belief system. Jesus Christ is the true Lord. Islam is a mixture of Paganism and things plagiarized from the Bible and changed around to benefit Muhammad the false Prophet.
Dr Ally, when Uthman's codex was sent to Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Damascus and Basra did any of these codex end up with variations. If so, how is that possible if Uthman's codex was the same to all of these five towns and all artefacts and other Qurans were originally burnt? .Then we are ably informed that the Uthmanic codices encompass all of the seven ahruf. How can this be when the original codex was said to have simply been written in the Qurayshi dialect. So if the Uthman codex was written with one harf in mind, so therefore, does the Sana'a Manuscript reflect that harf down in Yemen.? This is particularly the case when the alleged original templates went to the Hejaz, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
In general, the Quran is preserved in the hearts and memories of its followers through time. As mentioned in the video about the Sana Quran, the differences between the lower layer (original) and upper layer were a matter of Ayat (Phrases) and Surat (Chapter) order or missing Ayat, this can be explained due to the Quran was revealed in over 23 years and not in order. Later and before the Prophet's death (about 3 months), the prophet re-organized the Surat (Chapters) and Ayat (phrases) of the Quran and instructed the writers to do accordingly. So, this is simply explains why the old (lower layer) write up was erased and corrected with the full Quran in its final version ( The Othman Quran). It is really a miracle that the Quran for over 1400s and going, still stands against all challengers and doubters and proves/demonstrates to humanity it is the words of Allah.
"the differences between the lower layer (original) and upper layer was a matter of Ayat (Phrases) and Surat (Chapter) order or missing Ayat," this is saying that this isn't the only difference, maybe look at it again? or look up the translation of the arabic if you don't know the language
ddddd Quran was corrupted. Every arabic Quran should be the same but today we only have different recitations in Arabic with different words. Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh Quran 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more. 1 is not the same as 3 or more.... Islam is a fake corrupted religion and Muslims have to lie to defend Islam. Muslims have no shame
@@kamila3173 The Qur'an that OVER 90% of the Muslims all over the world are using today, and bought or even received as gifts when they did the Hajj or Umrah in Saudi Arabia Mecca, ......are FULL of mind blown numerical and even scientific miracles too ! This alone is enough proof that Allah has definitely protected the Qur'an
@@kamila3173 It matches 95% of the current Quran. These are scribal errors and were probably copies used to learn the Quran in its process, that's it. In order to prove your point, you have to provide the idea that this was once seen as authentic under the Islamic rulership, or else this is nothing but one manuscript with errors in it, and the Quran's preservation was in hands of Uthman and the rest of the closely related companions of the Prophet, which means that whatever they were doing so, was in control of the original reading of the Quran.
It is dot for dot preservation. Notice how this Quran found in Sanaa was never publicized or memorized by anyone else but was hidden for more than a thousand years. The only one that is preserved and still being memorized to this day is the one that multiple scribes wrote together who had memorized it. Now it just proves how the Quran was barely changed since the prophets death.
@@destrother_ What it's a palmsist . It's been changed and it's 66 sura no where near 114 . They are scamming you guys but calling us the liars . How sad for Muslims
@@innocentodinkemere4597 The one that is widely spread today and memorized by more than 200 million Muslims. Not the one that has been rotting in an attic that no one knew about. I could write a Quran today and change many things about it but if nobody memorizes it and even knows about its existence have i really changed the words of the Quran or did I just write some words?
@@destrother_ Well popularity and widely used does not mean God. Afterall there are more Christians than Muslims today, so Christianity is the correct way by your argument
Exactly! Sahabas would have been the first to object to any discrepancies if at all it would have appeared in Usmanic Quran. Moreso when Bibi Ayesha (RA), Bibi Fatima (RA), Hzt Ali (RA) and entire Ahl ul Bayt along with more than 3000 Sahabas and numerous scholarly Taben were still alive during that period.
Exactly if any mistake or something went wrong missing verses or words we would have been told about it as the people at that time would have written anything of such things, not only that not the whole of Iraq Syria persia Egypt were Muslims the moment Islam came to them Muslims were the minorities and a lot of scholars Christians zoroastrians and others would have been writing anything against the religion if it has such mistakes in the Quran to discredit it.
@@acesam2314 Jazak Allah Khairan I stand corrected on Bibi Fatima RA. However, Quran was first compiled into a comprehensive book by Abu Bakar RA who was the 1st Caliph and close companion and father in law of Prophet Muhammad pbuh . As the Islamic Empire began to grow, and differing recitations were heard, the rasm - or consonantal skeleton of the Quran - was compiled for uniformity in recitation under the direction of the third Caliph Uthman RA (644-656 AD). So the consistency was the focus in compilation all through out.
I was unaware of the Sanna Manuscript, Dr. Ally gave an excellent explanation of why we shouldn't fear its discovery, this finding should not shake our faith but should strengthen it, because it is possible that this text was written by one of the companions of the Prophet, saw, Yes, the skeleton is out of the closet, the Sanaa manuscript doesn't conflict with the Quran we have today, it was/is a fascinating discovery . I'm looking forward to ordering and reading Asma Hilali's book.
the truth is Uthman made his copy and burnt all other copies. the question U should ask yourself is why did he burn them? if the other copies was the same as the one you have today, why did Uthman burn them?
Alli is admitting there were other versions of the Quran floating around, the question is how do you know that you have the ones sent by Allah, seeing as they were different and don't forget ali's explanation for 2 different layers on the sana is a guess.
@@emmanuelayodele7901 Quran was memorize by heart. One person can't change the Quran. Quran is only book that you can memorize. Allah promises to preserved. And Allah did that. Many were able to memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. TBH, the text is not big deal. Quran was preserved through Memorization and was passed from generation to generation since the Prophet time.
@@groundtrader173 but Allah didn't preserve it as he promised. Because if you listen to Ali conclusion he said it that there were other reading like that of ibn Masoud, and that there was a copy that has an underlying text that was clean of which is quite different from what you have today and which precedes the uthmanic manuscript that you don't even have today. And again if you are very familiar with your tradition Al Bukhari said so many Quran verses were lost and not found for example stoning verse the breast sucking verse were and other verses were lost and not in the Quran today. I can give you the hadith reference if you want.
We dont have the Uthmanic copies themselves. But all Quranic manuscripts (other than Sanaa) have exactly the same text and scholars agree they must be copied from one unified text. Which we call in islamic tradition the Uthmani skeletal text
The Hafs reading is the more common and used in most areas of the Islamic world. Warsh is used mainly in West and North-West Africa as well as by the Zaydiya in Yemen. Here are some of the differences: Quran 2:125 Hafs: watakhizu (you shall take) Warsh: watakhazu (they have taken) Quran 2:140 Hafs: taquluna (You say) Warsh: yaquluna (They say) Quran 2:184 Hafs: miskeenin (poor person Warsh: masakeena (poor people) Quran 3:146 Hafs: qatala (fought) Warsh: qutila (was killed) Quran 40:26 Hafs: aw an (or that) Warsh: wa an (and that) Quran 43:19 Hafs: ibaad (slaves) Warsh: inda (with) These are just a few examples since there are thousands of differences between the two texts and many of these variants contradict each other so they can't be different Qir'aat but these words sound similar to each other and look identical in the early text without dots so they are assumptions made by the scribes who were left to guess what the words meant.
no wonder why those manuscript was not kept safely, those palimpsest were used for learning, not to write the actual Quran. nowadays we used the same method to keep note but using paper.
@kaekaeoshi69 so it's not the same as the Koran today. Different arrangement and minor changes are still changes. And wasn't the idea for Koran to be totally proof against changed and minor alterations, as a way to show that it's somehow better than the Bible? What a joke.
@@artifexdei3671 when Qur'an revealed by Jibril to Prophet Muhammad, it was never arrange from the beginning (Al Fatihah) to the last (An-Nas) but based on situation and necessity. That's why Sana'a and uthman manuscript have different arrangement You should understanding why uthman manuscript become standard version of the Quran, they collected all manuscript version and hafiz (the one who memorize the Quran) to get the most accurate version So, why Bible didn't get they original version? Like written in Hebrew version? Even the oldest of Bible was written in Greek hundred years after ascension of Jesus
What is clear is that the original Qurans were different from the current Quran and completely destroys the claim that it is preserved from when Gabriel gave it to Mohammed. If the Sanaa version contains so many differences then what about the rest of it? Muslims should stop the rubbish that the Quran is preserved and that is the Uthman version of which itself has been changed by later Caliphates is what is current today. Any other claim is just that.
Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS: 1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an. 2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans. 3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them). 4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation! 5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression. 6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission! Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did. In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did. With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation. (from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
First of all Ally does not represent Islam. We have experts of the 'Sciences of the Qur'an'. Secondly, you seem to be ignorant about a lot of things with regard to this question. Most notably, the fact that the preservation of the Qur'an is assured FIRST AND FORMOST BY METICULATE ORAL TRANSMISSION one generation after another by thousands of people, each of whom having memorised the entire Qur'an by heart, starting from the prophet (pbuh) and many of his companions down to 7 year old kids today. Another thing you're ignorant about is that the Qur'anic variations, both oral and written, are ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR AND REPRESENT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE REVEALED TEXT ITSELF. In other words, the variations themselves PRESERVE the Qur'an as it was revealed. Lastly, some variations in script are later editorial additions (diacritics, vowels, pauses, verse endings, surah titles, partition symbols, etc...) intended to help the reader with the correct pronunciation and the correct application of the rules of recitation and to organize the text for better readability). Comparing the Qur'an to the bible is absolutely ridiculous. Critical scholars of the bible have long established that there can be no comparison. The bible is a complete mess. Addition: What Uthman ordered to be burned was simply everything anyone had written down for themselves. Some people wrote down what they had memorized for various purposes. These of course were personal scraps, not some version or copy or anything with any degree of authoritative value. He simply ordered everything to be burned because he had the original and complete Qur'an. The rest could contain errors as they were simply personal notes recorded by laymen here and there, many of whom were probably not even of Arab descent but Arabicised persians and others as Islam was spreading further and further. This was also the main reason for compiling and disseminating the original in the first place, as some companions were coming across non-Arab Muslims who would make mistakes in their recitations.
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 I feel your pain in trying hard to defend undefendable things. That they memorized the Quran, so if they memorized it rightly, then why were there differences in the recitation that Uthman even had to suppress them and impose one version of the quran
What about missing Surah and verses, as its reported that Surah of Camel is missing from Othmanic copy and also the verses on stoning. Can you please share your views on that ?
I do not agree for one minute that this sana manuscript was originally a text for teaching students... Simply because to write on such an expensive piece of material just once, suggests it was meant to be kept not rubbed off and rewritten on again, I would have expected to have found multiple writings, all of them erased, all on different layers because it was a school textbook, but instead you find 2, one at the bottom and the final 1 at the top and therefore this is not a textbook, it's a record Based on what they had at the time, which undermines the idea that the Quran is preserved.
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 What are you talking about, no one can change the Quran... there are 36 different versions of the Quran today, to date in the world, All of them have differences and the Sana manuscript shows the differences between the older version you have today, but because uthman is supposed to have destroyed all the early versions, you have no idea what the earliest one looked like.... How can you watch this man admit the Quran has been altered And still say the opposite, are we watching the same thing?... Look at what he is saying and think about it.
@@leecooper3852 Quran has been preserve. My advice to you guys: Ba aware of YT Sheikh. They will say things just to make Westerners happy. But, in their heart isn't what they mean. Is like Sheikh will say positive things about Homosexuality just to fit the narrative. But the reality isn't as you think. Some of YT Sheikh, are using Liberal approach just to make others happy. IMO
@@leecooper3852 Dr. Shabir didn't say it was altered, he said that there were other versions. It Doesn't mean tht the Quran we have today (Uthmanic) wasn't there at the same time you know.
@@aiva729 the question is, what was there before uthman redacted the Quran to suit his own ideas and why do we not find uthman in secular history....he was a national leader.
Just wondering if you can mention the names of people who you claimed were companion of your prophet during his lifetime who were privileged to hear and eventually write the Quran? Thanks.
Wait!!! If they had already memorized the Quran, why did they need to go around to collect different fragments of transcripts of the Quran? Why not simply transcribe what they’d memorized? It seems that they weren’t confident about what they’d memorized. Either the memorization of the Quran was incomplete or differential.
It wasn't about confidence, it wad about standerdization. Even today, millions memorize Quran from cover to cover. The thing is, Abu Bakar wanted to standerdize the Quran so he odered all the scattered extracts, tht had been written by other followers, to be gathered and to compile them in one single, standard book in an organized manner
It almost seems as tho u are looking for things to worry about when there is probably something more relevant to you to worry about right now. Do you have an insecurity about the complexity of human memory? An insecurity that, we will always be unknowing compared to that which created us? Do you feel like your memory is enough? I hope you benefit yourself!
@@ziaulhasan6406 You’re really not addressing the issue here. The process of standardization would not have required the collection of scattered parts of the Quran if all the transcripts were the same and that the same Quran was memorized by the people of that time. It’s quite reasonable to conclude that the collection of different fragments of the Quran was an attempt to reconcile variants in the written and memorized texts, and arrive at some kind of consensus on what should make it into the Quran and be kept out of it. The implication here is that men were left to fix the Quran, the supposed direct speech of Allah. These are facts that even the hadiths attest to. The Quran used by most Muslims today was canonized in the 1920’s.
@@delpthepath127 bro, you didnt get my point. Scattered fragments would create more room for errors and adulteration in thr future that's why the authority/government Abu Bakr ordered all the fragments to be collected because those disorganised fragments would cause confusion in the future. And more importantly, u are assuming tht god would preserve the Quran by any miraclous way. But god really doesn't work tht way. God doesn't just shine the sky to make the time a day rather he had created the sun to make it a day. Abu Bark, Uthman, the scribes and the millions of muslims remebering Quran are all part of god's scheme to preserve Quran. I hope u get the point.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
May Allah SWT bless Dr. Shabir for addressing such matters in a logical way. There are several Islamophobics on TH-cam and other social media platforms that mispresent these historical findings and try their best to shaken the foundations of Islam or at least plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of ordinary people, Muslilm and non Muslim. Whomever Allah guides, they will find guidance.
@@Lone-Lee I don't know if you got the point or you missed it, my friend. But this would have made sense to you in the same manner as "the sun is hot" or "the sky is blue" or "the night is dark.
@@rafisiddiq6168, my point was that your comment sound stup!d. If you said "@llah guides" it'd have been better. Also, according to your statement, @llah is ultimately responsible for the faye of d!sbelievers too.
Dr Shabir is not logical tough.Making claims on false and man made stories.There sould be some ground level evidence to proof instead of just using the old fake stories as references. Read Surah Al Imran Ayat 3 and 4 where it is clearly mentioned that the Quran has been for all the mankind ..If he is logical why he is limiting the mankind to exist only 1400 years ago? Does not the mankind exist before 1400 years ago also..Do you think Allah is so irresponsible to reveal his Kalam in such an irresponsible manner and leave everything on people to assemble compile distribute etc etc after prophets deaths.When there is no guarantee that the words said to a person to another remain its exact sense many times, the people may misunderstand, then how Allah has left every thing on the past false stories characters to assemble preserve his words and distribute for all the mankind that cannot even see and know personally those false characters like zaid othamman etc etc.
Excellent! Thank Dr. Shabir Ally for this clarification. Indeed Allah has revealed this (Quran) and He surely pritect it. Only on thing that worries the Christian propagandists will use this as tool for creating fitnah. But i guess this is what they are trained and paid for.
Now Islamic scholar start to question the authencity/reluability of Sanaa manuscript and some said it was written by lay person to justify the differences between lower and upper layer of palimpsest. Carbon dating is also problematic as it do not give one date but range of time from 578 to 669 CE, furthermore it only predict the age of animal skin which may be many2 years before the texts were written. In other word Sanaa Manuscript cannot be used for pro or con arguement regarding preservation of quran. The questions remain unanswered whether the preservation did occur as: 1. Original mushaf kept by Hafsa was missing 2. Original Othmanic mushaf was missing 3. Othman burn the rest of quranic texts that he used as references to compile, therefore muslim after him wont be able to know what was the quran before him. 4. While compiling the quran, one of the most important companion of prophet who is also expert in quran ime Ibn Masood was not invited into the compilation team, that is strange. Yes, quran was preserved partly by memorization but who can confirm that Huffaz pre Othmanic era memorized the same quran with post Othmanic era. Knowing that the main reason why Othman wanted to compile quran is because a significant different in the recitation discovered between grps of muslim from different locality. The concept of ahruf and qiraat are still not well understood even by Islamic scholar. And now more and more muslim aware that Quran is not preserved word by word, dot by dot as what was previously believed.
While your argument is fine-Jesus(pbuh) said that blessed are those who believe and do not see.Look at the Quran from a linguistic standpoint and scientific standpoint where you will find your validation of 1400 year old document. Peace,Amen/Amin
The most important thing is not the authenticity of "word by word" but the entire context as a whole. To me, the Quran is still the "Message from Allah" as conveyed to the prophet.
@Alan huge Difficult to tell and to confirm unless the entire quran is available. Another issue is the Burmingham manuscript is product after Othman and not pre Othmanic mushaf.
the Quran is an oral tradition, as the Quran should be recited in specific way called tajweed which is impossible to write ( go listen to any Quran video and you will understand why) , so the only way was oral tradition which led to the Quran being passed from generation to generation by hundred of thousands of reciters tracing back to prophet Muhammad himself, any written manuscript is worthless since we don't know who wrote it, why and how. it could be a he a she or a them, it could be a scholar a student or anything, anyhow hundred of thousands or even millions of Muslims memorize the Quran since the time of prophet Muhammad with it's exact way of recitation, a mysterious we don't even know who wrote it document is totally invalid. that's how historians deal with history and that's why a huge portion of our history is false
a mysterious document that can't be traced to anyone does not pose any validity at all, and it's the nature of the Quran to be passed orallMuslimentirety@@suhelmallick
The situation with Ibn Masud was not the only problematic one. The matter with Ubayy, who was also praised by Muhammad as one of the most trusted Quran reciters, is also worth noting. Muslim tradition suggests that Ubayy served as Muhammad’s secretary and one of the earliest collectors of the Quran. In fact, he was called “the master of the reciters of the Quran.” Among his virtues was his ability to memorize lengthy passages. He was able to recite the entire Quran in only eight nights. A man of his stature must have possessed firsthand knowledge of the revelations proclaimed by Muhammad. He must have been able to distinguish the authentic text from forged Quranic passages. It would make sense that, if one were to seek to collect the Quran, Ubayy’s insights would have been considered. Unfortunately, Uthman did not consult Ubayy’s copy of the Quran. The two copies were different not only in the order of the Quranic chapters but also in their content. Umar-who became the second caliph and was the first to suggest the collection of the Quran-is reported to have admitted, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation of the Quran yet we leave some of what he recites." The inevitable conclusion is problematic for Muslim thinkers. On the one hand, if they claim that today’s Quran is the exact copy of the original heavenly tablet, how can they reconcile the reports of the mishandling of the different Qurans during the rule of the early caliphs? One way is to dismiss all of these reports as inauthentic, but then the entire tradition would be in jeopardy, as the corpus of the trusted hadith collections would collapse. On the other hand, if Muslims admit that Uthman distorted, forged, censored, or manipulated the Quranic text, then they must conclude that the traditional claim that the Quran is completely preserved as the exact copy of a heavenly original is incorrect. (Ayman Ibrahim - A Concise Guide to the Quran)
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
"...the entire tradition would be in jeopardy, as the corpus of the trusted hadith collections would collapse" Well i believe the viewers of this show already know that a lot of hadiths are problematic and inauthentic, much more than some traditional scholars thought.
@@groundtrader173 Oh, it is easy to understand... the Koran is the result of suppression, caused by Uthman himself. DR Ally confirms this in his video.
@@groundtrader173 that's is just an unverifiable claim If "They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet" is true, why should Zaid search for verses from many kinds of sources? Why Zaid said "By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an" Even the best of reciters (Ubay & Ibn Masud) had different version that Uthman's/Zaid's. And why Uthman don't consult them, even reject their version. Was Uthman better than them?
@@horseradishpower9947 Hahaha. You're trying hard. If you really wants to study Islam go place like Mauritania, Egypt. Stop this nonsense "The Video said"
The original of mushaf Ustman is not found until today, it mean that Quran codification process was not done or completed until Ustman and consequently the Quran codification process (including revision) was in progress until Abdul Malik Bin Marwan. Finally Quran was codified by Egypt Goverment on 1924. Based on scientific evidence, all holy books have been developed by many contributor. Holy books were not from God, but developed in the middle of cultural, social, political dynamics.
The Sana'a palimpsest is almost word for word identical to the Uthmani standard. It is an overstatement/misleading when he simply says the differences in the palimpsest are not significant enough to challenge what we believe and practice - it is more accurate to state that the differences are neglible.
There is no Uthmani standard. There is well over 30 different Qurans today and there are 70 differences between the Palimpsest and the Sanaa version. Hardly true to say "that the differences are neglible" when so many Muslims teachers state that the Quran is preserved word for word, letter for letter, and dot for dot.
@@John14.6 All the '30 versions' that exist today conform with the Uthmani text - they differ in their dialectical markings (dots and lines), this largely deals with pronunciation but occasionally results in a word being read differently. Those 70 differences are largely instances of one letter being ommiited in a word (the dropping of the definite particle 'al') and words being replaced by words that have a similar sound and meaning - taking into account the fact we don't know who wrote the palimpsest, it makes sense for us to view it as mistakes. In anycase, the finding of the palimpsest actually affirms the mainstream Islamic narrative that mistakes starting arising in the fringes of the Muslim world (such as in places like Sanaa') which is why Uthman r ordered a clear standardisation.
@@Hudhaifaable That is not the truth though is it. The 30 versions broadly agree with the Uthmani text but there are also a lot of differences in words (not diacritical markings because they didn't exist at the time of the Quran first been written). This would not be so much a problem if the statement "Quran is preserved word for word, letter for letter, and dot for dot" had not been made. This an impossible statement to make, not just because it is impossible to copy by hand exact copies over even a short length of time, but what is they to stop someone maliciously making mistakes to justify something that they want to do. Just one variant and the claim fails.
@@John14.6 I'm not sure how well read you are on the topic, but the idea that the Quran is preserved word for word can be understood in light of the hadith on the Quran being revealed in multiple ahruf. Ahruf are often taken to mean the different dialects of the Arabs. But there is over 40 differences on opinion regarding what the ahruf are (ranging from recitation styles, dialects, style of emphasis etc). So Muslims understand this subtle variation as a result of the ahruf it was revealed in. In any case, even if we concede (for argument sake) that these variations are indeed a result of poor preservation, there is still no argument that the Quran is, for all intents and purposes, word for word preserved. The variations both among the variants that exist today and archaeological Qurans only point to very occasional words being exchanged for synonyms that sound similar. From memory, the Sana palimpsest also has an instance of a verse being swapped for the one right next to it and of two verses being combined into one. But Muslims cannot accept the palimpsest, as its author is unknown and our sources tell us it was from a time (immediately after the Prophet's s death) when there were many new converts and non Arabs coming into the Ummaah and mistakes were arising in their recitations. Sanaa was really on the fringes of the Muslim world at the time. I hope this makes sense.
@@John14.6 You must be a Jay Smith fan! When will you people learn, the Qur'aan is perfectly perserved. Variations in readings are allowed in some cases by the Arabic language. Variations in spellings do not change the meaning of a word. If you were to list all the differences between the Hafs and Warsh readings, they make NO difference to Islamic theology or Islamic law. As for 'manuscipts', they are NOT the official Uthmani codex. The recension done by the Prophet's[saw] scribe Zaid Ibn Thabit is purely an academic excercise. Zaid was a hafizzun but used at least two independent witnesses for each verse of the Qur'aan under the orders of Caliph Uthman. Complete Mushafs can be dated to within 100 years of the origins of Islam. Partial mushafs can be dated to within 20-30 years after the Prophet[saw] passed away. I say partial, because we have only discovered some of them. There are many still locked away in libraries and private collections. If you look at islamic awareness, they list 'manuscripts' from the first century of Islam, where almost 92% of the Qur'aanic text can be found. What does the Bible offer us,? a Greek translation supposedly of what Jesus[pbuh] may have said in the original Aramaic.
Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh riwayah 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more
The dating of the san'na manuscript is not as presented "A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy." The dating puts the parchment first existed in about a ~90 year period , we cannot say when ink was put to the parchment , only that the animal died during that period. The few decades claim after the death of Mohammed is the Islamic narrative , not something that can be supported explicitly by this dating.
the dating really doesn’t matter. even if this quran was from 100 years ago. something important to realize is that humans are humans, so human error and variation is inevitable. these incorrect branches are cut off and burned, but the correct branch keeps on going down
@@zade4545 hey, There is no "correct branch" . There have historically been several attempts to make "THE" orthodox Quran , and this always happened because variants were rife, any authority making choices in these times did not have authority or even capability of knowing what from what they had was the correct branch. Uthman et al chose from what was available and burned what he did not choose , no way to be sure he chose "correct", even then his distributed copies of this work supposedly had variations . The ten Quira'at were chosen from the many that were available, not by knowing the correct branch , but for other human reasons. Even ~100 years ago the Cairo standardization formed the Hafs Quran you have today, other different Qurans in Egypt were thrown in the Nile, but you will not find an identical Quran to this 1920's Hafs from centuries ago . When we talk of the Uthmanic text it is not a book we have, it is the imagined common root document from which all of the subsequent variants , some we do have, are presumed to have originated. The oldest and almost complete extant Quran text is >150 years after mohammed, it has variations with modern texts, everything before that is fragments , with variations. If these variations matter is up to you, but "correct", or "preserved" really should be qualified by to what degree this can established . The often used "perfect" textual preservation is an impossible claim to show it true.
Well explained. Only the Quran will stand all tests of Time. Let all those object to it come together and bring their prove against It. What has come yo light is not a news for the scholars of Islam. The presence of all such manuscripts is validated by the islamic traditions and is also explained. ❤
Brother do u believe that Quran is only holy book that is preserved? And I agree it’s a miracle if u could prove Quran was preserved but to do that u would need the original copy of the thing u say u preserved to make sure it is preserved
@@Ss3gokus You don't have a complete copy and unlike Christians who were prosecuted in the first 2 centuries you had a golden age. What excuse do you have for not having a complete Uthmanic quran? You had cities filled with scribes.
So at the end of the day Dr. Shabir is simply saying THE QURAN IS NOT PRESERVED. Any other things he says is simply to please the Islamic world. THERE IS NO WHERE A PRESERVED QURAN.
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 if that is the case why did they have to go and look for.the Qur'an on stones and bones? They could have gotten all of them together and written down? But they feared other verses are missing
@@hopefaithlove7585 Not really. People will always look for something in order to justify their objective. In 2022, people are looking to justify homosexuality and gender. What a way to say something is missing in order to make argument for gender and other BS narrative. I'm telling you, these people are looking to justify global agendas nothing more. They know, they can't change Quran like they did with Gospel and Torah. No doubt, they're trying hard.
@@groundtrader173 no, but the Qur'an has been changed and verses have been missing for a while this what the hadith teach as well. Even The video said that Quran, is the words of Muhammad’s. Teaching
11:47 How come scholars always new this but never shared with the public :) How can muslims claim that Quran has never changed while we have many different accpeted versions. If there is one Quran how are you accepting conflicting manuscripts. It means one of them was always wrong or changed meaning that you are accepting a changed text. And lastly muslims always claim that many muslims memorized the whole Quran before it was written which should mean that there should have been people double checking the text from memory.. somehow. None of these make sense I am sorry.
Right of the bat shabir is incorrect, The Quran itself testifies that it had been written down by honourable scribes, therefore the Quran was written down during the time of Prophet Muhammad, furthermore the Quran says that God will compile the Quran therefore it is safe to assume that God ordered his messenger to compile the Quran. Peace
yes, The Quran itself testifies that it had been written down by honourable scribes. But the Quran does not inform us, WHEN and WHERE it was written down and WHO the honourable scribes were.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
Thanks Brother for confirming my conviction of becoming a Faithful Wanderer. All Wanderers are not Spiritually Lost ones. In fact we're effective Spiritual agents of Change challenging the norms of Society from a religious standpoint. I thought Islam was the truth but your espousal of ancient text gives myself unconvincing belief in my own trueness that there's one God I serve with a complete Heart. I don't get sidetracked by tactics of divisiveness towards the trueness that is Faith. Faith as you might well know being a Scholar as I am in Sacred writings is the assured expectations of the things hoped for the evident demonstration or manifestations of realties although not so beheld. In other words I walk according to the ordinances of Faithful Integrity with my eyes focused on realties so presently around me as a cloud of faithful witnessed follower's according to the trueness of Godly enriched principals centered on non hypocritical, unconditional and unconventional Truths exemplified in LOVE.
Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS: 1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an. 2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans. 3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them). 4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation! 5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression. 6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission! Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did. In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did. With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation. (from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
@@lyglo_apologetics yet you've never watched the video: the parchment dates back to *decades after The Prophet* which means it's not Pre Uthmanic milo lilo. Second, difference in different word order is different to you. What an ..iot.
The prophet had companions who were educated , why did he not tell them to write it down doing his time? Is there any original manuscript from the 7century ?
I need all the Muslim Scholars come together and explain all of these about preservation of the Quran. yes I am a Muslim. I have learnt a lot. Quran is more preserved then any other religious text book in this planet Earth.
@@Mgbizkuti mean the sikh religion only been around for 600 years and during that time there was a more accessible and efficient way to document things. Quran is over 1400 years old and as mentioned in the video, it was originally transcribed on diverse materials
@@Abuaaliyah1 I was just letting the person above know that the only holy book that can prove perfect preservation in the universe is the Sikh holy book. We believe God did this so when someone sees this they cannot say to God in afterlife that we didn’t know this was your holy book Because how will someone answer then God can ask “so you thought my Holy book was the one that’s not perfectly preserved? U thought a corrupted book is mine?”
I stay away from majlis that discusses preservation of Qur'an, especially if they included words like "orientalist", "conspiracy" etc., but not this one... 😇
I loved the objectivity displayed here. However i disagreed with the final answer. No you cannot with confidence say it was preserved directly from god unless god himself preserved it. Human memory isn't perfect no part of any human is perfect not to mention it wasn't compiled until years after the prophet passed. There was variations of the text as well. However it may be well preserved. He also mentioned earlier in the interview that it wasn't scholarly to think that it was.
God promised to preserve it in a verse. And the evidence is ample. There are no contradictions in the Quran, nor any missing pieces of law or important information. Further, if things were different or varied, we wouldn't have had had so many numerical miracles in the Quran. Things like a single letter repeated an exact, significant number of times, across 6000+ verses.
Truemono, how can it be preserved whereas according to your own islamic sources Uthman burnt some of your qurans, some eatin by goats ( adult breastfeeding) and you have abrogated verses..How do you know the chapter and verses you have left will not be abrogated?
@@defendthefaith2415 many muslims reject abrogation. The Quran we have today is missing no verses. The Quran has been preserved through human efforts. God doesnt throw a lightening bolt every time someone makes a scribal error. Uthman burnt the copies with mistakes so that there will be no confusion between the manuscripts and so we have an official document. This was accepted by consensus of companions
@@Hamza000h But Allah protects the Koran from corruption. There is a specific Sura and Verse in the Koran stating this. So no Koran can be wrong, because Allah stops it from happening. So what was Uthman burning?
@@horseradishpower9947 lol i just explained it your pigeon brain. Allah doesnt stop every scribal error, do you think God intervenes every time a scribe forgets to put a full stop at the end of a sentence. Allah stop ‘THE Quran’ from being changed and corrupted. He doesnt intervene at scribal errors lol. What kind of trinity reasoning is this
Why would you have the exact, preserved, word of God written down then scrubbed out and the ‘exact’, ‘preserved’, ‘word of God’, written over the top???..mmmm..
So if I'm getting you right Uthman had to manipulate the original text and tune it in a way that he'll get the miracle of number 19 to make the whole text look devine right??.....otherwise with the original older manuscript the number 19 frenzy never existed correct??? Ohok got it. Thanks Shabir
10:34..Skeikh Shabir Ally: "...That (Sanaa Manuscript) becomes a "different" witness"... ...or more accurate...that(Sanaa Manuscript) becomes a witness to the oldest Quran being different... 📜≠ 📖☪✨ So what's the difference ...between variations in the Injeel of the Christians and the earliest pre-Uthmanic Quran of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them)? ...both Books have variant texts, that existed before either texts were finally standardized, under consolidated religious/political power....so, with due respect...where exactly is "the Miracle"? With regards to Holy Writ:... Uthman(Allah be pleased with him) is the Islamic Authorized Version of "King James". ..but unlike Uthman (Allah be pleased).. King James of England's political power just didn't extend to the places were older, "different witness", "unauthorized" biblical Texts existed...(Egypt, Syria, etc.) ...and apparently, Uthman's (Allah be pleased) power, also didn't quite quite extend to Yemen... 💡Hey !..maybe the Sanaa Qur'an was actually hidden up there by pious Muslims, to protect it from Uthman's "Bonfire of the Quran-ites" ?☪📜📜📜📜☛🔥...
The Uthmanic Quran was written in rasm [no dots and vowels] Arabic. Why is the current Qurans [ Hafs, Warsh, Al' Durie..._30+] written with dots and vowels.Uthman burnt six agruf[dialects agreed to, by Allah ,as Mohamed explained that there were variant reciting. Who gave Uthman the authority to burn the six variant aghruf??? Where is the six copies which Utheman sent to the Levant. We have the Sanaa and other copies but nothing from Uthman. if revelations stopped when Mohamed died, why did Uthman take it upon himself to burn the words of Allah. Also which copy is in heaven...Hafs, Warsh, Al'Durie etc. Its very confusing and sounds like a scam.
Uthman was the newly rich king of a new empire and he wanted a religion and heritage that could rival the Roma. Byzantine and the Persians. Hence he made it from scratch
Top one is Qiraat Hafs and the bottom is Qiraat Duri. In Hafs Recitation, Arjulakum (being mansub) is linked to washing, while in Duri Quran recitation, Arjulikum (being Majrur) is linked to wiping. Thus, we get two fiqh rulings from the two different Quran riwayat i.e.: 1. Feet are to be washed in wudu. 2. Feet are to be wiped. Chapter Five: 6 The Wiping or Washing of the Feet in the ‘Wudhu’ The scholars of Islam have differed on the type of purification of the feet required for the parts of the ‘wudhu.
Assalamualaikum sir. Actually I have a question regarding attributes related to Almighty Allah. My question is that how can Allah be ( Merciful , kind and intelligent) at the same time if major portion of his best creation(human) will be in hell for infinite period of time. Reference Surah 7 ayayt 179
Brother-there is a mystical element in the surah ar rahman.Muhammed(pbuh) himself stated that God's mercy exceeds his wrath.Needless to say-that should speak for itself on our oft forgiving and merciful creator of all of creation aka Allah :)
@@mfnewt Bro as you mentioned Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stated Allah 's mercy exceeds his wrath but that is for momin (those who believe in Allah) only. Not for Kafir or Mushrik..... And let me tell you corrently in 7 billion population maximum there is 2 billion Muslim and rest 7 billion are non-Muslims . Allah clearly mention in the Qur'an that there is no forgiveness to non-Muslims in the life of hereafter. So 5 billion among 7 billion will directly go to hell irrespective of their deeds which is almost 70 percent of current population. Now Explain me Allah already knew that most of the human will not believe in him still he create human to suffer in the life of hereafter. Now here any rational person will questions the intelligence of Allah .
Mohammed shamsh Tamimi brother brother the secret is Surah ar rahman and what muhammed(pbuh) said-nowhere in that Hadith it is stated only believers. Mercy has no value for a pious person but it has double value for a sinner. Jesus(pbuh) talks about the parable of a religious scholar and a tax collector. The religious scholars thanks god for not making him a thief,murderer or a tax collector. But the tax collector does not even look up to the sky and says to God have mercy for I am a sinner. God blessed the tax collector and not the religious scholar. What you need to take from this is be humble and pray regularly forgiveness of yourself and others and God will forgive you . For in the Quran god is known as ar rahman-the merciful and gafurur rahim(the oft forgiving). Peace be upon you bro.Amen/Amin
Mohammed shamsh Tamimi the hell concept is by itself a means to correct the mischief of humans-needless to say it is more of a purgatory where the sinful soul will be cleansed of sins and reintegrated with the people of paradise. Gods created humans and jinns with free will and scolds them in the verse you shared for misusing the free will to do mischief. Nobody is automatically made for hell rather how they use their free will(in the same verse).and there is something called God’s divine decree which is a pretty complicated topic which ends with the answer that there never was a hell only heaven. Needless to say if you are concerned for others pray for their salvation.😐
@@mfnewt We know we have in this world.....but there was no free will when Allah decided to create human . I mean Allah didn't give option in terms of sending them to earth. If Allah has given free will at the time of creating human then that free will will be worthy. And one more Allah knew everything before creating universe I mean he knew that most of the human will go to hell and remain there forever. Any kind person will choose not to create such a human who will suffer for infinite period of time if that person have that much power. For example in Quran itself Angel asked Allah why he is creating human which will make mischievous things on earth. In reply of Allah says he knew what others don't. But he didn't mention that what he knew.
The Bible and the Quran are both books written by ignorant and fallible authors containing errors and exhibiting several versions of the respective book.
If the Bible (old and new testament) could be preserved intact, the question doesn't arrise of nonavailability of writing stuff, as such it had to be preserved by heart...
No one has ever claimed that the Bible is perfectly preserved. As we know most of Genesis was the stories that Moses told but in reality those where not written down until much later or lost to history.
@@napolien1310 it’s a similar problem that the Quran faces. As most of the disciples of Muhammad memorize parts of the Quran. Many of them died in battle and those parts of the Quran died with them.
@@bngr_bngr yes parts but we know of the few who already memorised it as a whole not only parts. That's why I said what I said the ones who knows of these missing verses would have came out and said the Quran is false, because most of the companions have travelled out of Medina and settled in Yemen Iraq Egypt Syria far away from the center of authority and would have teached their students about this.
If something is wrong then memorizing it and preserving it doesn’t make it correct. I could never understand why Preservation of the Quran seems to be the greatest evidence for Islam 🤷
The Quran isn't wrong. It being correct is a miracle and it's preservation (where other books were unable to be preseved) is another seperate miracle. That's two of the many miracles of the Quran
@@diddydum You said the other books were “unable to be preserved”. Why is that? Isn’t Allah all knowing? So What was he doing when his Word was corrupted?
There are some forces behind scenes, who are trying to say something is changed in order to change the narrative. The whole objective of these dark forces is to change things in order to fit their narrative.
@@diddydum clearly Allah did not preserve the Quran as promised. What we have today is what one man decided is Allahs words. The Quran is made up of the recollections of man not Allah. If the Quran was Allahs words there wouldn’t be more than one version of the Quran.
@@TheTruth-hc7ww Allah sent other messengers and prophets to the people and the people kept on killing prophets and messenger ex prophet yahya(as). Think about he to was a prophet but people even dared for cruxification. And then he sealed the prophets and messengers with prophet muhammed(saw) And now deal with it... Its human beings that made great mess not prophets. People hated ibrahim(as), musa(as), jedus(as) and Muhammad(saw) so its not a big deal actually... people hate no matter what...
Textual variations ? I was taught that the Quran has been preserved, word by word , letter by letter, harakat by harakat, that the current Quran was received by prophet Muhammad from Jibril, so no miraculous preservation, lately Ali Dawa confirmed what Hamza Tzortzis said previously , " no scientific arguments in the Quran, what is next ? that Prophet Muhammed is not mentioned in the Christian and Jewish BIble ? I feel so disappointed that Iman are teaching what they supposed to (:
It shows the quran was not preserved...the upper layer contains uthmanic text and the lower suppressed layer is preuthmanic. Showing that the variation between text of preuthmanic time and uthmanic time has 15000 variations.... Also, why did Uthman appointed 3 other none scholars with Ziad bin Thabit whom are known to be sons in law to uthman....why not ibn musa, Ubay Ibn ka'b and ibn mas'ud but his three son inlaws ? They were not scholars....all these sahabas hhad 116,110 and 114 chapters respectively different from 114 chapters of uthmanic quran today. If the quran is recited differently in Damascus from the one in Baghdad and Basra when they still have different chapters...
"Yeah, preservation didn't happen, and we knew about it; but preservation happened, and the fact it didn't happen is actually evidence it happened!" What is this bizarro-land argument?
The Qur'an is preserved but not as the muslim laymen thinks. The Qur'an is revealed to the prophet pbuh in 7 ahruuf (reciting modes/variants). The Qur'an has never been a completely fixed text. To give you a perspective, these reciting modes/variant are 1,5% of the Qur'an. So the critiques are crying about 1,5% of the Qur'an which also is been revealed to the prophet pbuh. This explains the variations which are mentioned in dozen of authentic Hadith. The variants in the Sanaa manuscripts are found in the Hadith so it confirm what we've already know. Also, the undertext of the Sanaa manuscript is not part of the tradition of the transmission of the Qur'an and seems to be a isolated educational example of a student which contains some commentaries next to the Quranic text as feedback. Asmae Hilali did a extensive research about this.
Are you sure Quran is written down under supervision of the Companions?? What qualification did Uthman & Zayd have? ---------------------------- During Muhammad’s lifetime, he reportedly emphasized in a hadith, “Learn the recitation of the Quran from four persons: Ibn Masud, Salim, Ubayy, and Muadh.” Both possessed Qurans that differed from the one authorized by Uthman, and their copies were not consulted during the compiling of Uthman’s Quran. Ibn Masud believed that Zayd, who was entrusted twice to collect the Quran, was unsuitable for the sacred responsibility. In the end, Ibn Masud distrusted Uthman’s Quran and sent this message to Muslims: “O you Muslim people, avoid copying the Quran and the recitation of Zayd.” In addition, once Uthman declared that every other Quran should be burned, Ibn Masud sent word to every Muslim in the Muslim lands: “Keep the Qurans that are with you, and conceal them.” Uthman was furious. He summoned Ibn Masud and allowed his servants to beat him violently, to the extent that Ibn Masud suffered several broken ribs. Uthman forbade him from making any public speeches or traveling outside the city. Ibn Masud died a year or so later. Without a doubt, Ibn Masud’s Quran differed from what Uthman composed. Because Ibn Masud never approved of Uthman’s Quran. (Ayman Ibrahim - A Concise Guide to the Quran)
@@ahnaflfc369 How do you know uthman recited anything, you only have information on him 200 years after he was supposed to have existed, you have nothing on him at the time that he was alive, the reason being, is that he was made up to suit an idea.
As a non-Muslim, I have always been told that the Quran used today is the absolute words of Allah. But if there are slight differences in the Sana'a pallimcest, which contains the absolute words of Allah, or do both come close, but neither absolute?
I read the sanaa differences my self it is only commentary on the verses them selves for example , the original one says (tell the them ) in the sanna one it says (tell them ) and it adds the reference to who it is saying them (the jews)
@@MoonzzieThen Muslims should stop criticizing the Bible about getting corrupted. The Bible doesn't have any doctrinal differences... Very minor spelling errors.. Scribe issues just like this manuscript..And many different Christian denominations follow unique practices just like the differences between Sunni, shias etc.But nobody who's a Christian has a basic doctrinal difference! Idk why it's ok for the quran and not acceptable for the Bible. Genuine question 🙋
this manuscript was never used as a quran. nor is a quran rather it was most likely used for memorization and practice the quran is perfect, complete and has no mistakes or spelling errors or scribe errors. this is the difference between the quran and the bible @@auxshy
I am Catholic but I have already some knowledge about the topic. The oldest Qurans are Birmingham, Sana, Tübingen if I am right. In my opinion, it's not a flaw in your Religion, when you admit that there are varieties. Our Bible is not so much altered. We have mushafs since 400. The changes are more the selection of the books which changed and still change at other Christian religions.
The Bible doesn’t consider itself to be the literal, unchanged commandment from god. Quite the claim from Muslims when there are nearly 100,000 variants between the collected qurans in the world today. And also zero complete Quran’s from the 7th century.
Important clarification with the choice of words: The Quran we have to do IS word to word, unadulterated, unmanipulated, unchanged throughout the history of this ummah. The various modes of recitation that exist, including what we have today, can be traced back to the messenger PBUH through chains of transmissions. Just because other modes of recitation exist, does not undermine the preservation of Quran as we have it today. There is an important distinction to be made, and we have to be careful with our words. Anti-Islam polemics will be waiting for opportunities when you err in your speech. There are other modes of recitation that the layman may not be aware of, that however does NOT mean that the Quran as we have it now, is not word to word preserved. The mainstream idea that the Quran has been perfectly preserved is hence completely valid. So it shouldn't be dismissed as a "mainstream" misrepresentation etc.
You missed Dr. Ally's point, which is that word for word preservation is a myth, and there are real textual variants. The 10 qiraat are 10 different Arabic versions of the Quran, each with different words.
@@peterhwang1860 Word for word preservation is not a myth. And all the Qiraat that we have now are from the same Uthmanic text (the same consonantal script). If you take the Quran we have now back to the time of the Prophet, then this Quran would be considered as 100% accurate. (The reverse may or may not be true because we dont have all the Qiraat and Ahruf through reliable chains, some Modes are through weaker chains) However, we have reliable chains of transmission for some Qiraat, especially those that are recited today, but not all the Qiraat/Ahruf. So if you read the most common modes of recitation such as Hafs, Warsh, etc., they are perfectly preserved, and have remained unchanged throughout history. The anti-Islam polemics try to equate the modes of recitation with the different versions of the Bible. That's quite unacademic and inconsistent. They are not the same. The various modes were conveyed by the Prophet himself. So whatever modes are recited today, each can be perfectly traced back to the Prophet with reliable chains of transmission that are corroborated by multiple (often independent) chains. So if you are to use the generic dictionary meaning of the word "preserved", then yes, the Quran is perfectly preserved. Note that almost all dictionary meanings put weight on the originality and unchanged-ness and not the wholeness, nor is wholeness implied. (Regardless, some scholars are of the position that any single Mode of Recitation is whole in itself, while others are of the position that all Modes of Recitation are needed to be whole)
@@peterhwang1860 Also, using the word "version" isn't really accurate, especially when compared with the "versions" used in Biblical discourse. Because all the Qiraats we have now, are based on the SAME Uthmanic script; the consonantal skeleton is identical. The vowels (which were added later to make recitation easier for non-Native speakers of Arabic) are where the various pronunciations can be identified. Instead of using "versions", "modes of recitation" would be a more accurate term.
@@AS-bm5xv Nothing could be further from the truth. While most of the variations pertain to diacritical marks and vowels, some differences are found in the rasm, the consonantal skeleton, as well. To dismiss these differences as mere differences in modes of recitation, or tajweed, is clearly false to all. The 10 qiraat lead to one inevitable conclusion, and that is that the Quran originated as a collection of written texts, written at a time in which the Arabic alphabet was not yet fully formed. If it was originally transmitted verbally, then the different qiraat would have never developed. Hence the now famous holes in the standard Islamic narrative.
@@AS-bm5xv In contrast to the 10 qiraat, 10 different Arabic versions of the Quran, there is only one Greek New Testament used by the 2+ billion Christians in the world. All the different versions you speak of are translations into other languages.
Surely Prophet PbUH could not provide a single mushaf to be passing down. Ayahs was send down in a random ways and its position in the 'book' can be at any position according to instruction (Gabriel a.s.). No body can make up a book until it is ensured that the message receiver have passed away or no further ayahs will coming. A single mushaf only can be collected in a single volume once Prophet PbUH died.
Do you know of any copy of the gospels, verified by the Peter, james or John? Dr Shabir doesn't think so, neither does biblical scholars like Dr Bart Ehrman. Shabir was just giving an example "like if we have copies of the teachings of Jesus, verified by the disciples". You can listen to what he said. Also, I don't agree with the perfect preservation of the quran narrative either. I'm not here to defend islam.
@@lyglo_apologetics I'm no longer a believer. However, even though I disagree with some of Dr Shabir's interpretations, I do appreciate his effort in promoting tolerance among communities. Instead of using an "us vs them" narrative, he tries to show the good in every community.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
I have a huge problem with what Shabir starts spewing at @11:49 This guy is not a scholar. Beware of him either his understanding of the deen is very week or he is an agent
@@elwynnforest1452 "Average Muslims have simply parroted the Quran is 100% accurate the way it always has been" Like are you for real a scholar?? Ofcourse it is 100% still accurate, even a child who just started learning about Islam knows that. May Allah guide this fool, any one these days can put a camera on their face and use some controversial video titles to get views and make money. What a time to be alive ! 2nd there was no "scholarly suspicion" The Prophet ﷺ himself taught all the Muslims that the Quran was revealed in 7 qirat, it can be recited in 7 different ways, all correct. What is Shabir on about. Beware of him
*THANK YOU DR SHABIR FOR BEING HONEST IN TELLING US THAT THERE IS NOT ONE KORAN BUT MANY KORANS BY TELLING US **_"OTHER COMPANIONS OF MOHAMMED MADE COPIES WHICH ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE UTHMAN KORAN"._* = most telling!!!
It is well known Muslims that the unofficial copies or manuscripts were ceased , and the authentic copy or codex was published by Caliphate as the official copy/ manuscript/ codex. But they cannot prove that the official copy was not conserved. But these minor variations or differences do not prove plurality of Qurans but constitute errors in copies while writing and making a manuscript in general. Any how what Respected Shabbir told you , is known to Muslims from the beginning .
1. 'version' of Qur'an: most telling 2. 'version' of Qur'an: telling most 3. 'version' of Qur'an: tells the most. Yeah, they are soooo different lol. I've seen animals having better conclusion capability than the OP..
@@parodontaxnexera5803 "Any how what Respected Shabbir told you , is known to Muslims from the beginning " PLEASE DO NOT LIE HERE. the vast majority of mohammedans can't even read a single line in arabic not to speake of K N O W I N G different versions of korans. WHAT A SILLY ATTEMPT!!!!
@Only_God_Is_Allah_SWT but the issue is muslims say the Quran is perfectly preserved for 1400 years, down to the very letter and punctuation. Muslim say the Bible is corrupt because of these same variations that don't change the meaning. If Muslims can accept that these variations do not make scripture corrupt, maybe we can get further in discussion with Christians about scripture.
The important thing is not process but the substance of the message which is what needs to be evaluated by each individual on its own merits who reads the Quran. The same goes for the Bible.
ddd Quran was corrupted. Every arabic Quran should be the same but today we only have different recitations in Arabic with different words. Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh Quran 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more. 1 is not the same as 3 or more.... Islam is a fake corrupted religion and Muslims have to lie to defend Islam. Muslims have no shame
@@Draezeth You like the message of pedophilia in Quran ? chapter 65 verse 4 - Tafsir Ibn Al Kathir The Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate.The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their Iddah is three months like those in menopause.....The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation.
@@muhammadibnwaraqa I think the problem is when a claim is made that something in written form is not corrupted for over 1400 years. You're just begging scholars to pick holes in it, which they will duly do. I would say this channel tries very hard to be truthful and give full and honest answers
@@stevenmarshall5244 The holes started with Prophet Muhammad already Sahih al-Bukhari: Book 66, Hadith 62 Narrated Aisha:Allah's Messenger heard a man reciting the Koran at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was CAUSED TO FORGET!
@@almazchati4178 Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS: 1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an. 2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans. 3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them). 4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation! 5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression. 6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission! Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did. In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did. With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation. (from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
@@lyglo_apologetics I don't care what he admitted or denied. He was certainly not around when this thing happened. So, he can not admit or deny anything. People are know to forge things for a long long time now.
Preserved like the Gospel😇 so Jesus did die then🤔 (sarcasm) as many people saw the event hundreds of years before an arab man in a cave further down south!
When he say gospel he's saying the aramiac gospel not the present day mainstream greek bible(new-testament) and that is why the quran clearly says it's a continuation of the prophetic tradition. Sumerian jews, aramiac christians and islam(arabic) all have a spiritual vocabulary, Shalom/Salaam.
@@bruckbedru8178 just remember, Muhammad states at his time being alive that the Jews & Christians have their book (also Quran 10:94) and never in history as we have our manuscripts before his time also was Qutum/Qatum/Mohammad AKA the praiseworthy one (only in islam) is mentioned. EVER! I'M MENTIONED IN THE QURAN BRUCK BEDRU, BUT IT'S BEEN CORRUPTED. AND YOU NEVER HAD THE ORIGINAL ONE... SEE HOW SILLY THAT EVEN SOUNDS!
@@richardfromkennington islam basically means judiasm for the gentiles. And if you wanna know more about islam roots then I advice you to read excellent scholarships written by europeans specially german epigraphics. You will definitely learn about the prosecution of jewish christians by the proto-orthodox, by being branded as "heretical christians" just b/c they were torah abiding jews and reject the doctrine of the trinity and vicarious atonement an epistemology adopted as a corner Stone of christianity by the proto-orthodox or mainstream christian church. and the chronology from 4thc- 7thc.. it's clear before the coming of islam arabian peninsula has the most varigated religious diversity which they found a safe heaven from being prosecuted by the church in levant and Antioch(southern turkey), tarsus, nacea.. some of the groups are Al-nasara(jewish christians) who was mentioned in the quran. So before you make a fallacious statement I advice you to read the aramiac gospel(peshitta) and the torah(jewish bible) and not the mainstream bible(greek new testament) which is highly influenced by middle and neo-platonism(anthropomorphism) that is why the quran continuously remind us that islam is a continuation of the abrahamic prophetic tradition(strict-monotheism)
@@bruckbedru8178 here's the problem with you, you have assumed my knowledge and I can't take you seriously. In reality you should address me as professor or Dr. You are in false religion which most likely you were born into. Maybe not, however, back up what you say with evidence. A verse, or link would suffice.
@@richardfromkennington no I am a former Ethiopian orthodox christian, second nation to accept christianity as a state religion in 330AD. so I know christianity like my backbone. Speaking of facts, well let's talk about trinity? 1)The Eternal law of the torah inexcusably state that Allah is transcendant and he don't beget or begotten 2) If you subscribe to vicarious atonement that, jesus had to die for your sins in order for G-d to forgive you that means he never really forgave you it's just the price was paid for you, Roman chapter 6. debt paid is not debt forgiven as it says in first king chapter 8 verse 47-50, people of nimbay jonah chapter 3 verse 10, Ezekial 18:21-24, I'am sry to say this sir, but mainstream christianity is impregnated from hellenistic metaphysics+greek mythology.
For those interested in a book source- "The History of the Quranic Text, From Revelation to Compilation, a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testamemts". Written by Hadith scholar Muhammad Mustafa al Azami.
Hard to believe that Muhammad left the umma without the Quran being collected as a whole and that it took three caliphates to do it.. The irony is muslims are ready to die in order to protect the Quran...and yet, the large majority of the muslims don't live by it nor practice what Allah has commanded..
Why is this women asking the questions? Sahih al-Bukhari 2658-The Prophet said: "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind." 😂😂😂😂😂
Witness to what ? Are you gonna actually read what you are looking at ? The witnesses were for contracts that were done.Most Woman back then before islam weren't allowed to participate in these contracts. When islam came and allowed them to, to account for the lack of knowledge, the witness to a contract deal would be 2 woman or 1 man. Because if women were not familiar with the contracts they could remind each other. Stop being ignorant
Dr. Shabir Ally needs to be on the Jordan Peterson Podcast. Please make it happen!
Agreed
Screw Jordan peterson, he has nothing to do with islam and our ideas!
I would love to see Br Shabir with Jordan as well as another with of Br Daniel Haqiqatjou with Jordan.
I think Br Shabir would give great insights on the Biblical and Quranic studies, while Br Daniel would give great insights on societal values and traditional values of Islamic principles!
@@TheRockeyAllen I agree 💯
Agreed I also want that
Dr, Shabir Ally and Dr, Shafiya episodes represent the best of enlightening muslims and non-muslims in the knowledge, practice and spirit of Islam. What a great blessing for us as a community to have such a presence in the media to educate and clarify our belief system.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript
Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
@@islamscience9379 How are you enlightened ? Perfect preservation double speak . Do you mean more deceptions ?? Educate before it's to late
An interesting book for those interested - "The History of the Quranic Text, From Revelation to Compilation, a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testamemts". Written by Muhammad Mustafa al Azami.
That's all Islam is: a belief system. Jesus Christ is the true Lord. Islam is a mixture of Paganism and things plagiarized from the Bible and changed around to benefit Muhammad the false Prophet.
You have done justice with history and your studies.
Dr Ally, when Uthman's codex was sent to Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Damascus and Basra did any of these codex end up with variations. If so, how is that possible if Uthman's codex was the same to all of these five towns and all artefacts and other Qurans were originally burnt? .Then we are ably informed that the Uthmanic codices encompass all of the seven ahruf. How can this be when the original codex was said to have simply been written in the Qurayshi dialect. So if the Uthman codex was written with one harf in mind, so therefore, does the Sana'a Manuscript reflect that harf down in Yemen.? This is particularly the case when the alleged original templates went to the Hejaz, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
There were no dots or airabs on the letters, so all recitations could be done with it.
In general, the Quran is preserved in the hearts and memories of its followers through time. As mentioned in the video about the Sana Quran, the differences between the lower layer (original) and upper layer were a matter of Ayat (Phrases) and Surat (Chapter) order or missing Ayat, this can be explained due to the Quran was revealed in over 23 years and not in order. Later and before the Prophet's death (about 3 months), the prophet re-organized the Surat (Chapters) and Ayat (phrases) of the Quran and instructed the writers to do accordingly. So, this is simply explains why the old (lower layer) write up was erased and corrected with the full Quran in its final version ( The Othman Quran). It is really a miracle that the Quran for over 1400s and going, still stands against all challengers and doubters and proves/demonstrates to humanity it is the words of Allah.
Do you know the "God of the gaps" arguement? What do you think of it
"the differences between the lower layer (original) and upper layer was a matter of Ayat (Phrases) and Surat (Chapter) order or missing Ayat," this is saying that this isn't the only difference, maybe look at it again? or look up the translation of the arabic if you don't know the language
The prophet reorganized the surah? Who taught you that? No he didn’t reorganize or ordered it to be reorganized
ddddd Quran was corrupted. Every arabic Quran should be the same but today we only have different recitations in Arabic with different words. Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh Quran 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more.
1 is not the same as 3 or more.... Islam is a fake corrupted religion and Muslims have to lie to defend Islam. Muslims have no shame
How could the prophet reorganize the Quran, if he could not read or write?
I hope they find more such manuscripts, I think it only validates what we have been believing
It is completely different from you current Quran, how it validate your believes? 😂😂😂
@@kamila3173
The Qur'an that OVER 90% of the Muslims all over the world are using today, and bought or even received as gifts when they did the Hajj or Umrah in Saudi Arabia Mecca,
......are FULL of mind blown numerical and even scientific miracles too !
This alone is enough proof that Allah has definitely protected the Qur'an
Completely different! did you actually watch this video ....
@@kamila3173Do you have a source for this?
@@kamila3173
It matches 95% of the current Quran. These are scribal errors and were probably copies used to learn the Quran in its process, that's it. In order to prove your point, you have to provide the idea that this was once seen as authentic under the Islamic rulership, or else this is nothing but one manuscript with errors in it, and the Quran's preservation was in hands of Uthman and the rest of the closely related companions of the Prophet, which means that whatever they were doing so, was in control of the original reading of the Quran.
Shabir Ali I have seen debates where you claimed dot for dot preservation ? Why you changing on me ?
It is dot for dot preservation. Notice how this Quran found in Sanaa was never publicized or memorized by anyone else but was hidden for more than a thousand years. The only one that is preserved and still being memorized to this day is the one that multiple scribes wrote together who had memorized it. Now it just proves how the Quran was barely changed since the prophets death.
@@destrother_ What it's a palmsist . It's been changed and it's 66 sura no where near 114 . They are scamming you guys but calling us the liars . How sad for Muslims
@@destrother_ But the fact is, there is a Quran, older than and different from the current Quran in circulation. Why? Which one is correct and why?
@@innocentodinkemere4597 The one that is widely spread today and memorized by more than 200 million Muslims. Not the one that has been rotting in an attic that no one knew about. I could write a Quran today and change many things about it but if nobody memorizes it and even knows about its existence have i really changed the words of the Quran or did I just write some words?
@@destrother_ Well popularity and widely used does not mean God. Afterall there are more Christians than Muslims today, so Christianity is the correct way by your argument
Exactly! Sahabas would have been the first to object to any discrepancies if at all it would have appeared in Usmanic Quran. Moreso when Bibi Ayesha (RA), Bibi Fatima (RA), Hzt Ali (RA) and entire Ahl ul Bayt along with more than 3000 Sahabas and numerous scholarly Taben were still alive during that period.
Elhamdulillah!
Exactly if any mistake or something went wrong missing verses or words we would have been told about it as the people at that time would have written anything of such things, not only that not the whole of Iraq Syria persia Egypt were Muslims the moment Islam came to them Muslims were the minorities and a lot of scholars Christians zoroastrians and others would have been writing anything against the religion if it has such mistakes in the Quran to discredit it.
Bibi Fatima was dead by then though
@@acesam2314 Jazak Allah Khairan I stand corrected on Bibi Fatima RA.
However, Quran was first compiled into a comprehensive book by Abu Bakar RA who was the 1st Caliph and close companion and father in law of Prophet Muhammad pbuh . As the Islamic Empire began to grow, and differing recitations were heard, the rasm - or consonantal skeleton of the Quran - was compiled for uniformity in recitation under the direction of the third Caliph Uthman RA (644-656 AD). So the consistency was the focus in compilation all through out.
I was unaware of the Sanna Manuscript, Dr. Ally gave an excellent explanation of why we shouldn't fear its discovery, this finding should not shake our faith but should strengthen it, because it is possible that this text was written by one of the companions of the Prophet, saw, Yes, the skeleton is out of the closet, the Sanaa manuscript doesn't conflict with the Quran we have today, it was/is a fascinating discovery . I'm looking forward to ordering and reading Asma Hilali's book.
Everything is a test, SubhanAllah!
the truth is Uthman made his copy and burnt all other copies. the question U should ask yourself is why did he burn them? if the other copies was the same as the one you have today, why did Uthman burn them?
Alli is admitting there were other versions of the Quran floating around, the question is how do you know that you have the ones sent by Allah, seeing as they were different and don't forget ali's explanation for 2 different layers on the sana is a guess.
@@emmanuelayodele7901 Quran was memorize by heart. One person can't change the Quran. Quran is only book that you can memorize. Allah promises to preserved. And Allah did that. Many were able to memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. TBH, the text is not big deal. Quran was preserved through Memorization and was passed from generation to generation since the Prophet time.
@@groundtrader173 but Allah didn't preserve it as he promised. Because if you listen to Ali conclusion he said it that there were other reading like that of ibn Masoud, and that there was a copy that has an underlying text that was clean of which is quite different from what you have today and which precedes the uthmanic manuscript that you don't even have today.
And again if you are very familiar with your tradition Al Bukhari said so many Quran verses were lost and not found for example stoning verse the breast sucking verse were and other verses were lost and not in the Quran today. I can give you the hadith reference if you want.
How do you know what was in the Uthmanic manuscripts? None have been found.
We dont have the Uthmanic copies themselves. But all Quranic manuscripts (other than Sanaa) have exactly the same text and scholars agree they must be copied from one unified text. Which we call in islamic tradition the Uthmani skeletal text
@ibrahemabbasi2635 Don't you know that the manuscripts are different and have been changed?
@@SuperCodemeister sorry I dont understand your point. Which manuscripts has been changed ?
Read the book by Daniel Brubaker. It's called "Corrections in Early Quran Manuscripts". 😂😂😂
The beard really has a life of its own!
The Hafs reading is the more common and used in most areas of the Islamic world. Warsh is used mainly in West and North-West Africa as well as by the Zaydiya in Yemen.
Here are some of the differences:
Quran 2:125
Hafs: watakhizu (you shall take)
Warsh: watakhazu (they have taken)
Quran 2:140
Hafs: taquluna (You say)
Warsh: yaquluna (They say)
Quran 2:184
Hafs: miskeenin (poor person
Warsh: masakeena (poor people)
Quran 3:146
Hafs: qatala (fought)
Warsh: qutila (was killed)
Quran 40:26
Hafs: aw an (or that)
Warsh: wa an (and that)
Quran 43:19
Hafs: ibaad (slaves)
Warsh: inda (with)
These are just a few examples since there are thousands of differences between the two texts and many of these variants contradict each other so they can't be different Qir'aat but these words sound similar to each other and look identical in the early text without dots so they are assumptions made by the scribes who were left to guess what the words meant.
Thank you for your knowledge.
no wonder why those manuscript was not kept safely, those palimpsest were used for learning, not to write the actual Quran. nowadays we used the same method to keep note but using paper.
it looks like sanaa manuscript has been perfectly preserved. why isn't it in use today?
Sana'a manuscript have different surah and ayat arrangements, minor text and orthography difference
@kaekaeoshi69 so it's not the same as the Koran today. Different arrangement and minor changes are still changes. And wasn't the idea for Koran to be totally proof against changed and minor alterations, as a way to show that it's somehow better than the Bible? What a joke.
@@artifexdei3671 when Qur'an revealed by Jibril to Prophet Muhammad, it was never arrange from the beginning (Al Fatihah) to the last (An-Nas) but based on situation and necessity. That's why Sana'a and uthman manuscript have different arrangement
You should understanding why uthman manuscript become standard version of the Quran, they collected all manuscript version and hafiz (the one who memorize the Quran) to get the most accurate version
So, why Bible didn't get they original version? Like written in Hebrew version?
Even the oldest of Bible was written in Greek hundred years after ascension of Jesus
Why didn't Allah just hand over a finished Qur'an to Muhammed. An omnipotent god should be able to do that
@@kaekaeoshi69But you don’t even have Uthmans Quran. Where is it? All you have today is a recitation of Hafs
What is clear is that the original Qurans were different from the current Quran and completely destroys the claim that it is preserved from when Gabriel gave it to Mohammed. If the Sanaa version contains so many differences then what about the rest of it? Muslims should stop the rubbish that the Quran is preserved and that is the Uthman version of which itself has been changed by later Caliphates is what is current today. Any other claim is just that.
dude the sana manuscripts literally was a blessing
plus there's no reason for later caliphate to change the Quran 😂
Excellent discussion which explores all perspectives and lays to rest all polemics.
Wouldnt you be able to date manuscripts via evolution of writing Arabic?
Dating based on parchment alone seems to ease the burden of positive-dating criteria, no?
Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS:
1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an.
2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans.
3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them).
4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation!
5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression.
6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission!
Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did.
In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did.
With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation.
(from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
First of all Ally does not represent Islam. We have experts of the 'Sciences of the Qur'an'.
Secondly, you seem to be ignorant about a lot of things with regard to this question. Most notably, the fact that the preservation of the Qur'an is assured FIRST AND FORMOST BY METICULATE ORAL TRANSMISSION one generation after another by thousands of people, each of whom having memorised the entire Qur'an by heart, starting from the prophet (pbuh) and many of his companions down to 7 year old kids today. Another thing you're ignorant about is that the Qur'anic variations, both oral and written, are ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR AND REPRESENT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE REVEALED TEXT ITSELF. In other words, the variations themselves PRESERVE the Qur'an as it was revealed. Lastly, some variations in script are later editorial additions (diacritics, vowels, pauses, verse endings, surah titles, partition symbols, etc...) intended to help the reader with the correct pronunciation and the correct application of the rules of recitation and to organize the text for better readability).
Comparing the Qur'an to the bible is absolutely ridiculous. Critical scholars of the bible have long established that there can be no comparison. The bible is a complete mess.
Addition: What Uthman ordered to be burned was simply everything anyone had written down for themselves. Some people wrote down what they had memorized for various purposes. These of course were personal scraps, not some version or copy or anything with any degree of authoritative value. He simply ordered everything to be burned because he had the original and complete Qur'an. The rest could contain errors as they were simply personal notes recorded by laymen here and there, many of whom were probably not even of Arab descent but Arabicised persians and others as Islam was spreading further and further. This was also the main reason for compiling and disseminating the original in the first place, as some companions were coming across non-Arab Muslims who would make mistakes in their recitations.
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 So if recitation is so perfect, why write it down at all?
@@groundtrader173
You can be refuted with one Hadith which said that it was easier to shift a mountain than to collect the Quran.
@@groundtrader173 I feel your pain in trying hard to defend undefendable things. That they memorized the Quran, so if they memorized it rightly, then why were there differences in the recitation that Uthman even had to suppress them and impose one version of the quran
What about missing Surah and verses, as its reported that Surah of Camel is missing from Othmanic copy and also the verses on stoning. Can you please share your views on that ?
I do not agree for one minute that this sana manuscript was originally a text for teaching students... Simply because to write on such an expensive piece of material just once, suggests it was meant to be kept not rubbed off and rewritten on again, I would have expected to have found multiple writings, all of them erased, all on different layers because it was a school textbook, but instead you find 2, one at the bottom and the final 1 at the top and therefore this is not a textbook, it's a record Based on what they had at the time, which undermines the idea that the Quran is preserved.
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 What are you talking about, no one can change the Quran... there are 36 different versions of the Quran today, to date in the world, All of them have differences and the Sana manuscript shows the differences between the older version you have today, but because uthman is supposed to have destroyed all the early versions, you have no idea what the earliest one looked like.... How can you watch this man admit the Quran has been altered And still say the opposite, are we watching the same thing?... Look at what he is saying and think about it.
@@leecooper3852 Quran has been preserve. My advice to you guys: Ba aware of YT Sheikh. They will say things just to make Westerners happy. But, in their heart isn't what they mean. Is like Sheikh will say positive things about Homosexuality just to fit the narrative. But the reality isn't as you think. Some of YT Sheikh, are using Liberal approach just to make others happy. IMO
@@leecooper3852 Dr. Shabir didn't say it was altered, he said that there were other versions. It Doesn't mean tht the Quran we have today (Uthmanic) wasn't there at the same time you know.
@@aiva729 the question is, what was there before uthman redacted the Quran to suit his own ideas and why do we not find uthman in secular history....he was a national leader.
Just wondering if you can mention the names of people who you claimed were companion of your prophet during his lifetime who were privileged to hear and eventually write the Quran? Thanks.
They are too many to just name
Wait!!! If they had already memorized the Quran, why did they need to go around to collect different fragments of transcripts of the Quran? Why not simply transcribe what they’d memorized? It seems that they weren’t confident about what they’d memorized. Either the memorization of the Quran was incomplete or differential.
It wasn't about confidence, it wad about standerdization. Even today, millions memorize Quran from cover to cover. The thing is, Abu Bakar wanted to standerdize the Quran so he odered all the scattered extracts, tht had been written by other followers, to be gathered and to compile them in one single, standard book in an organized manner
It almost seems as tho u are looking for things to worry about when there is probably something more relevant to you to worry about right now. Do you have an insecurity about the complexity of human memory? An insecurity that, we will always be unknowing compared to that which created us? Do you feel like your memory is enough? I hope you benefit yourself!
@@ziaulhasan6406 You’re really not addressing the issue here. The process of standardization would not have required the collection of scattered parts of the Quran if all the transcripts were the same and that the same Quran was memorized by the people of that time. It’s quite reasonable to conclude that the collection of different fragments of the Quran was an attempt to reconcile variants in the written and memorized texts, and arrive at some kind of consensus on what should make it into the Quran and be kept out of it. The implication here is that men were left to fix the Quran, the supposed direct speech of Allah. These are facts that even the hadiths attest to.
The Quran used by most Muslims today was canonized in the 1920’s.
@@tripplejay9810 I’m not sure about what you’re trying to say there.
@@delpthepath127 bro, you didnt get my point. Scattered fragments would create more room for errors and adulteration in thr future that's why the authority/government Abu Bakr ordered all the fragments to be collected because those disorganised fragments would cause confusion in the future. And more importantly, u are assuming tht god would preserve the Quran by any miraclous way. But god really doesn't work tht way. God doesn't just shine the sky to make the time a day rather he had created the sun to make it a day. Abu Bark, Uthman, the scribes and the millions of muslims remebering Quran are all part of god's scheme to preserve Quran. I hope u get the point.
What happened to ge quran is preserved word by word,letters for letters? Why would anyone erase the word of God n re write over it for?
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript
Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
May Allah SWT bless Dr. Shabir for addressing such matters in a logical way. There are several Islamophobics on TH-cam and other social media platforms that mispresent these historical findings and try their best to shaken the foundations of Islam or at least plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of ordinary people, Muslilm and non Muslim. Whomever Allah guides, they will find guidance.
_"Whomever @llah guides, they will find guidance."_ ≈ _"Water is wet."_
@@Lone-Lee I don't know if you got the point or you missed it, my friend. But this would have made sense to you in the same manner as "the sun is hot" or "the sky is blue" or "the night is dark.
@@rafisiddiq6168, my point was that your comment sound stup!d. If you said "@llah guides" it'd have been better.
Also, according to your statement, @llah is ultimately responsible for the faye of d!sbelievers too.
Dr Shabir is not logical tough.Making claims on false and man made stories.There sould be some ground level evidence to proof instead of just using the old fake stories as references. Read Surah Al Imran Ayat 3 and 4 where it is clearly mentioned that the Quran has been for all the mankind ..If he is logical why he is limiting the mankind to exist only 1400 years ago? Does not the mankind exist before 1400 years ago also..Do you think Allah is so irresponsible to reveal his Kalam in such an irresponsible manner and leave everything on people to assemble compile distribute etc etc after prophets deaths.When there is no guarantee that the words said to a person to another remain its exact sense many times, the people may misunderstand, then how Allah has left every thing on the past false stories characters to assemble preserve his words and distribute for all the mankind that cannot even see and know personally those false characters like zaid othamman etc etc.
That's why, *PEOPLE NEED EDUCATION.*
*Especially The Muslims.*
Excellent! Thank Dr. Shabir Ally for this clarification. Indeed Allah has revealed this (Quran) and He surely pritect it.
Only on thing that worries the Christian propagandists will use this as tool for creating fitnah. But i guess this is what they are trained and paid for.
Thank you for your Explanation
What's really different in the sa'naa manuscript?
رَبَّنَآ اِنَّنَآ اٰمَنَّا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا ذُنُوْبَنَا وَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ
Allahu Ekber!
Just fear and nothing else
Now Islamic scholar start to question the authencity/reluability of Sanaa manuscript and some said it was written by lay person to justify the differences between lower and upper layer of palimpsest. Carbon dating is also problematic as it do not give one date but range of time from 578 to 669 CE, furthermore it only predict the age of animal skin which may be many2 years before the texts were written. In other word Sanaa Manuscript cannot be used for pro or con arguement regarding preservation of quran. The questions remain unanswered whether the preservation did occur as:
1. Original mushaf kept by Hafsa was missing
2. Original Othmanic mushaf was missing
3. Othman burn the rest of quranic texts that he used as references to compile, therefore muslim after him wont be able to know what was the quran before him.
4. While compiling the quran, one of the most important companion of prophet who is also expert in quran ime Ibn Masood was not invited into the compilation team, that is strange.
Yes, quran was preserved partly by memorization but who can confirm that Huffaz pre Othmanic era memorized the same quran with post Othmanic era. Knowing that the main reason why Othman wanted to compile quran is because a significant different in the recitation discovered between grps of muslim from different locality. The concept of ahruf and qiraat are still not well understood even by Islamic scholar.
And now more and more muslim aware that Quran is not preserved word by word, dot by dot as what was previously believed.
While your argument is fine-Jesus(pbuh) said that blessed are those who believe and do not see.Look at the Quran from a linguistic standpoint and scientific standpoint where you will find your validation of 1400 year old document. Peace,Amen/Amin
The most important thing is not the authenticity of "word by word" but the entire context as a whole.
To me, the Quran is still the "Message from Allah" as conveyed to the prophet.
Take a look at the Birmingham manuscript, which predates the Sanaa manuscript and matches the current Quran.
@@gobah Burmingham manuscripts only represent small percentage of Quran, it is not a complete quran.
@Alan huge Difficult to tell and to confirm unless the entire quran is available. Another issue is the Burmingham manuscript is product after Othman and not pre Othmanic mushaf.
the Quran is an oral tradition, as the Quran should be recited in specific way called tajweed which is impossible to write ( go listen to any Quran video and you will understand why) , so the only way was oral tradition which led to the Quran being passed from generation to generation by hundred of thousands of reciters tracing back to prophet Muhammad himself, any written manuscript is worthless since we don't know who wrote it, why and how. it could be a he a she or a them, it could be a scholar a student or anything, anyhow hundred of thousands or even millions of Muslims memorize the Quran since the time of prophet Muhammad with it's exact way of recitation, a mysterious we don't even know who wrote it document is totally invalid. that's how historians deal with history and that's why a huge portion of our history is false
it cant be done without some written document. your argument is similar to sanskrit rigveda being preserved by brahmins since millions of years
a mysterious document that can't be traced to anyone does not pose any validity at all, and it's the nature of the Quran to be passed orallMuslimentirety@@suhelmallick
The situation with Ibn Masud was not the only problematic one. The matter with Ubayy, who was also praised by Muhammad as one of the most trusted Quran reciters, is also worth noting.
Muslim tradition suggests that Ubayy served as Muhammad’s secretary and one of the earliest collectors of the Quran. In fact, he was called “the master of the reciters of the Quran.” Among his virtues was his ability to memorize lengthy passages. He was able to recite the entire Quran in only eight nights. A man of his stature must have possessed firsthand knowledge of the revelations proclaimed by Muhammad.
He must have been able to distinguish the authentic text from forged Quranic passages. It would make sense that, if one were to seek to collect the Quran, Ubayy’s insights would have been considered.
Unfortunately, Uthman did not consult Ubayy’s copy of the Quran. The two copies were different not only in the order of the Quranic chapters but also in their content. Umar-who became the second caliph and was the first to suggest the collection of the Quran-is reported to have admitted, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation of the Quran yet we leave some of what he recites."
The inevitable conclusion is problematic for Muslim thinkers. On the one hand, if they claim that today’s Quran is the exact copy of the original heavenly tablet, how can they reconcile the reports of the mishandling of the different Qurans during the rule of the early caliphs? One way is to dismiss all of these reports as inauthentic, but then the entire tradition would be in jeopardy, as the corpus of the trusted hadith collections would collapse. On the other hand, if Muslims admit that Uthman distorted, forged, censored, or manipulated the Quranic text, then they must conclude that the traditional claim that the Quran is completely preserved as the exact copy of a heavenly original is incorrect.
(Ayman Ibrahim - A Concise Guide to the Quran)
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
"...the entire tradition would be in jeopardy, as the corpus of the trusted hadith collections would collapse"
Well i believe the viewers of this show already know that a lot of hadiths are problematic and inauthentic, much more than some traditional scholars thought.
@@groundtrader173 Oh, it is easy to understand... the Koran is the result of suppression, caused by Uthman himself. DR Ally confirms this in his video.
@@groundtrader173 that's is just an unverifiable claim
If "They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet" is true, why should Zaid search for verses from many kinds of sources? Why Zaid said "By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an"
Even the best of reciters (Ubay & Ibn Masud) had different version that Uthman's/Zaid's. And why Uthman don't consult them, even reject their version. Was Uthman better than them?
@@horseradishpower9947 Hahaha. You're trying hard. If you really wants to study Islam go place like Mauritania, Egypt. Stop this nonsense "The Video said"
The original of mushaf Ustman is not found until today, it mean that Quran codification process was not done or completed until Ustman and consequently the Quran codification process (including revision) was in progress until Abdul Malik Bin Marwan. Finally Quran was codified by Egypt Goverment on 1924. Based on scientific evidence, all holy books have been developed by many contributor. Holy books were not from God, but developed in the middle of cultural, social, political dynamics.
The Sana'a palimpsest is almost word for word identical to the Uthmani standard. It is an overstatement/misleading when he simply says the differences in the palimpsest are not significant enough to challenge what we believe and practice - it is more accurate to state that the differences are neglible.
There is no Uthmani standard. There is well over 30 different Qurans today and there are 70 differences between the Palimpsest and the Sanaa version. Hardly true to say "that the differences are neglible" when so many Muslims teachers state that the Quran is preserved word for word, letter for letter, and dot for dot.
@@John14.6 All the '30 versions' that exist today conform with the Uthmani text - they differ in their dialectical markings (dots and lines), this largely deals with pronunciation but occasionally results in a word being read differently.
Those 70 differences are largely instances of one letter being ommiited in a word (the dropping of the definite particle 'al') and words being replaced by words that have a similar sound and meaning - taking into account the fact we don't know who wrote the palimpsest, it makes sense for us to view it as mistakes.
In anycase, the finding of the palimpsest actually affirms the mainstream Islamic narrative that mistakes starting arising in the fringes of the Muslim world (such as in places like Sanaa') which is why Uthman r ordered a clear standardisation.
@@Hudhaifaable That is not the truth though is it. The 30 versions broadly agree with the Uthmani text but there are also a lot of differences in words (not diacritical markings because they didn't exist at the time of the Quran first been written). This would not be so much a problem if the statement "Quran is preserved word for word, letter for letter, and dot for dot" had not been made. This an impossible statement to make, not just because it is impossible to copy by hand exact copies over even a short length of time, but what is they to stop someone maliciously making mistakes to justify something that they want to do. Just one variant and the claim fails.
@@John14.6 I'm not sure how well read you are on the topic, but the idea that the Quran is preserved word for word can be understood in light of the hadith on the Quran being revealed in multiple ahruf.
Ahruf are often taken to mean the different dialects of the Arabs. But there is over 40 differences on opinion regarding what the ahruf are (ranging from recitation styles, dialects, style of emphasis etc). So Muslims understand this subtle variation as a result of the ahruf it was revealed in.
In any case, even if we concede (for argument sake) that these variations are indeed a result of poor preservation, there is still no argument that the Quran is, for all intents and purposes, word for word preserved. The variations both among the variants that exist today and archaeological Qurans only point to very occasional words being exchanged for synonyms that sound similar. From memory, the Sana palimpsest also has an instance of a verse being swapped for the one right next to it and of two verses being combined into one. But Muslims cannot accept the palimpsest, as its author is unknown and our sources tell us it was from a time (immediately after the Prophet's s death) when there were many new converts and non Arabs coming into the Ummaah and mistakes were arising in their recitations. Sanaa was really on the fringes of the Muslim world at the time.
I hope this makes sense.
@@John14.6 You must be a Jay Smith fan! When will you people learn, the Qur'aan is perfectly perserved. Variations in readings are allowed in some cases by the Arabic language. Variations in spellings do not change the meaning of a word. If you were to list all the differences between the Hafs and Warsh readings, they make NO difference to Islamic theology or Islamic law. As for 'manuscipts', they are NOT the official Uthmani codex. The recension done by the Prophet's[saw] scribe Zaid Ibn Thabit is purely an academic excercise. Zaid was a hafizzun but used at least two independent witnesses for each verse of the Qur'aan under the orders of Caliph Uthman. Complete Mushafs can be dated to within 100 years of the origins of Islam. Partial mushafs can be dated to within 20-30 years after the Prophet[saw] passed away. I say partial, because we have only discovered some of them. There are many still locked away in libraries and private collections. If you look at islamic awareness, they list 'manuscripts' from the first century of Islam, where almost 92% of the Qur'aanic text can be found. What does the Bible offer us,? a Greek translation supposedly of what Jesus[pbuh] may have said in the original Aramaic.
if ask you to write down lyrics of song you have remember by heart, how thick the compilatation could it be?
If the song was very well known and was sung very often, the compilation would be precise.
Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh riwayah 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more
Thank you for this important video!
Absolutely fascinating
The dating of the san'na manuscript is not as presented
"A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy."
The dating puts the parchment first existed in about a ~90 year period , we cannot say when ink was put to the parchment , only that the animal died during that period. The few decades claim after the death of Mohammed is the Islamic narrative , not something that can be supported explicitly by this dating.
Source?
the dating really doesn’t matter. even if this quran was from 100 years ago.
something important to realize is that humans are humans, so human error and variation is inevitable. these incorrect branches are cut off and burned, but the correct branch keeps on going down
@@zade4545
hey,
There is no "correct branch" . There have historically been several attempts to make "THE" orthodox Quran , and this always happened because variants were rife, any authority making choices in these times did not have authority or even capability of knowing what from what they had was the correct branch. Uthman et al chose from what was available and burned what he did not choose , no way to be sure he chose "correct", even then his distributed copies of this work supposedly had variations . The ten Quira'at were chosen from the many that were available, not by knowing the correct branch , but for other human reasons. Even ~100 years ago the Cairo standardization formed the Hafs Quran you have today, other different Qurans in Egypt were thrown in the Nile, but you will not find an identical Quran to this 1920's Hafs from centuries ago .
When we talk of the Uthmanic text it is not a book we have, it is the imagined common root document from which all of the subsequent variants , some we do have, are presumed to have originated. The oldest and almost complete extant Quran text is >150 years after mohammed, it has variations with modern texts, everything before that is fragments , with variations. If these variations matter is up to you, but "correct", or "preserved" really should be qualified by to what degree this can established . The often used "perfect" textual preservation is an impossible claim to show it true.
Well explained. Only the Quran will stand all tests of Time. Let all those object to it come together and bring their prove against It. What has come yo light is not a news for the scholars of Islam. The presence of all such manuscripts is validated by the islamic traditions and is also explained. ❤
Brother do u believe that Quran is only holy book that is preserved?
And I agree it’s a miracle if u could prove Quran was preserved but to do that u would need the original copy of the thing u say u preserved to make sure it is preserved
@@Ss3gokus
You don't have a complete copy and unlike Christians who were prosecuted in the first 2 centuries you had a golden age. What excuse do you have for not having a complete Uthmanic quran? You had cities filled with scribes.
@@OrdoMallius I’m not a Muslim in questioning the Muslims
@@Ss3gokus
Pardon me carry on
Give us the complete original manuscript like Christians they have their original manuscript
It was Zaid, Ali and a third one I did not get his name well.
So at the end of the day Dr. Shabir is simply saying THE QURAN IS NOT PRESERVED. Any other things he says is simply to please the Islamic world. THERE IS NO WHERE A PRESERVED QURAN.
"Perfect Preservation" is just a myth
When muslims gonna wake up??
People who memorize Quran can memorize Quran without reading text. In this case, They were many who memorize Quran at that time of Prophet. And when he died, it was already preserved in people's heart. This is the reason till today, no one can change Quran. Someone from Saudi, Pakistan, India, Africa, or America can recite Quran exactly as everyone else. And at that time of Prophet, most of Sahaba memorize Quran exactly as Allah promises. I hope you understand.
@@groundtrader173 if that is the case why did they have to go and look for.the Qur'an on stones and bones? They could have gotten all of them together and written down? But they feared other verses are missing
@@hopefaithlove7585 Not really. People will always look for something in order to justify their objective. In 2022, people are looking to justify homosexuality and gender. What a way to say something is missing in order to make argument for gender and other BS narrative. I'm telling you, these people are looking to justify global agendas nothing more. They know, they can't change Quran like they did with Gospel and Torah. No doubt, they're trying hard.
@@groundtrader173 no, but the Qur'an has been changed and verses have been missing for a while this what the hadith teach as well. Even The video said that Quran, is the words of Muhammad’s. Teaching
11:47 How come scholars always new this but never shared with the public :) How can muslims claim that Quran has never changed while we have many different accpeted versions. If there is one Quran how are you accepting conflicting manuscripts. It means one of them was always wrong or changed meaning that you are accepting a changed text. And lastly muslims always claim that many muslims memorized the whole Quran before it was written which should mean that there should have been people double checking the text from memory.. somehow. None of these make sense I am sorry.
It Also completely different if you read in Aramaic
Who cares about Aramaic?
Right of the bat shabir is incorrect, The Quran itself testifies that it had been written down by honourable scribes, therefore the Quran was written down during the time of Prophet Muhammad, furthermore the Quran says that God will compile the Quran therefore it is safe to assume that God ordered his messenger to compile the Quran.
Peace
yes, The Quran itself testifies that it had been written down by honourable scribes. But the Quran does not inform us, WHEN and WHERE it was written down and WHO the honourable scribes were.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript
Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
Thanks Brother for confirming my conviction of becoming a Faithful Wanderer. All Wanderers are not Spiritually Lost ones. In fact we're effective Spiritual agents of Change challenging the norms of Society from a religious standpoint. I thought Islam was the truth but your espousal of ancient text gives myself unconvincing belief in my own trueness that there's one God I serve with a complete Heart. I don't get sidetracked by tactics of divisiveness towards the trueness that is Faith. Faith as you might well know being a Scholar as I am in Sacred writings is the assured expectations of the things hoped for the evident demonstration or manifestations of realties although not so beheld. In other words I walk according to the ordinances of Faithful Integrity with my eyes focused on realties so presently around me as a cloud of faithful witnessed follower's according to the trueness of Godly enriched principals centered on non hypocritical, unconditional and unconventional Truths exemplified in LOVE.
so what you left islam?
Wait, so the recorded Quran only accurately represents the preaching of Muhammad? I thought it was the Words of Allah? Now it’s only a representation?
Excellent explanation
Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS:
1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an.
2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans.
3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them).
4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation!
5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression.
6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission!
Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did.
In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did.
With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation.
(from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
@@lyglo_apologetics yet you've never watched the video: the parchment dates back to *decades after The Prophet* which means it's not Pre Uthmanic milo lilo.
Second, difference in different word order is different to you.
What an ..iot.
The prophet had companions who were educated , why did he not tell them to write it down doing his time? Is there any original manuscript from the 7century ?
He did.....?
I need all the Muslim Scholars come together and explain all of these about preservation of the Quran. yes I am a Muslim. I have learnt a lot. Quran is more preserved then any other religious text book in this planet Earth.
Brother u should see Sikh holy book it’s only one where it’s a fact it’s perfectly preserved cuz we still have the originals
😂😂 the battle of book preservation starts here.@@Mgbizkut
@@Mgbizkuti mean the sikh religion only been around for 600 years and during that time there was a more accessible and efficient way to document things. Quran is over 1400 years old and as mentioned in the video, it was originally transcribed on diverse materials
@@Abuaaliyah1 not really in India then we still had to hand write it
@@Abuaaliyah1 I was just letting the person above know that the only holy book that can prove perfect preservation in the universe is the Sikh holy book.
We believe God did this so when someone sees this they cannot say to God in afterlife that we didn’t know this was your holy book
Because how will someone answer then
God can ask “so you thought my
Holy book was the one that’s not perfectly preserved? U thought a corrupted book is mine?”
I stay away from majlis that discusses preservation of Qur'an, especially if they included words like "orientalist", "conspiracy" etc., but not this one... 😇
From Hafvs Recitation to
Mathematical Miracle of the SAN'AA QURAN MANUSCRIPTf,
It was three (3) companions who compiled the manuscript. Not only Zaid.
Proud to be a Muslim. True religion. Alhamdullilah
I loved the objectivity displayed here. However i disagreed with the final answer. No you cannot with confidence say it was preserved directly from god unless god himself preserved it. Human memory isn't perfect no part of any human is perfect not to mention it wasn't compiled until years after the prophet passed. There was variations of the text as well. However it may be well preserved. He also mentioned earlier in the interview that it wasn't scholarly to think that it was.
God promised to preserve it in a verse. And the evidence is ample. There are no contradictions in the Quran, nor any missing pieces of law or important information. Further, if things were different or varied, we wouldn't have had had so many numerical miracles in the Quran. Things like a single letter repeated an exact, significant number of times, across 6000+ verses.
@@goblinmoothyou must not have ever read the quran
Great topic and a great answer. Theres no doubt that the Quran has been preserved.
How did you get that from what shabir said. Apperantly the quran is not the preserved word, for word from allah.
Truemono, how can it be preserved whereas according to your own islamic sources Uthman burnt some of your qurans, some eatin by goats ( adult breastfeeding) and you have abrogated verses..How do you know the chapter and verses you have left will not be abrogated?
@@defendthefaith2415 many muslims reject abrogation. The Quran we have today is missing no verses. The Quran has been preserved through human efforts. God doesnt throw a lightening bolt every time someone makes a scribal error. Uthman burnt the copies with mistakes so that there will be no confusion between the manuscripts and so we have an official document. This was accepted by consensus of companions
@@Hamza000h But Allah protects the Koran from corruption. There is a specific Sura and Verse in the Koran stating this.
So no Koran can be wrong, because Allah stops it from happening.
So what was Uthman burning?
@@horseradishpower9947 lol i just explained it your pigeon brain. Allah doesnt stop every scribal error, do you think God intervenes every time a scribe forgets to put a full stop at the end of a sentence.
Allah stop ‘THE Quran’ from being changed and corrupted. He doesnt intervene at scribal errors lol. What kind of trinity reasoning is this
Why would you have the exact, preserved, word of God written down then scrubbed out and the ‘exact’, ‘preserved’, ‘word of God’, written over the top???..mmmm..
The Quran till today was always preserved word for word
lol
@@FishingwithJhoe prove me wrong. Send a verse with other lines for guidance and mercy or are you just making baseless claims
I didnt say anything. I just loled you lol
@@FishingwithJhoe exactly. You guys do have nothing to say except futile claims
@@FishingwithJhoe I love the stupendous stupidity of Christians
❤❤ I love the explanation
So if I'm getting you right Uthman had to manipulate the original text and tune it in a way that he'll get the miracle of number 19 to make the whole text look devine right??.....otherwise with the original older manuscript the number 19 frenzy never existed correct??? Ohok got it. Thanks Shabir
No you fool!
10:34..Skeikh Shabir Ally: "...That (Sanaa Manuscript) becomes a "different" witness"...
...or more accurate...that(Sanaa Manuscript) becomes a witness to the oldest Quran being different...
📜≠ 📖☪✨
So what's the difference ...between variations in the Injeel of the Christians and the earliest pre-Uthmanic Quran of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them)?
...both Books have variant texts, that existed before either texts were finally standardized, under consolidated religious/political power....so, with due respect...where exactly is "the Miracle"?
With regards to Holy Writ:...
Uthman(Allah be pleased with him) is the Islamic Authorized Version of "King James".
..but unlike Uthman (Allah be pleased).. King James of England's political power just didn't extend to the places were older, "different witness", "unauthorized" biblical Texts existed...(Egypt, Syria, etc.)
...and apparently, Uthman's (Allah be pleased) power, also didn't quite quite extend to Yemen...
💡Hey !..maybe the Sanaa Qur'an was actually hidden up there by pious Muslims, to protect it from Uthman's "Bonfire of the Quran-ites" ?☪📜📜📜📜☛🔥...
The Uthmanic Quran was written in rasm [no dots and vowels] Arabic. Why is the current Qurans [ Hafs, Warsh, Al' Durie..._30+] written with dots and vowels.Uthman burnt six agruf[dialects agreed to, by Allah ,as Mohamed explained that there were variant reciting. Who gave Uthman the authority to burn the six variant aghruf??? Where is the six copies which Utheman sent to the Levant. We have the Sanaa and other copies but nothing from Uthman. if revelations stopped when Mohamed died, why did Uthman take it upon himself to burn the words of Allah. Also which copy is in heaven...Hafs, Warsh, Al'Durie etc. Its very confusing and sounds like a scam.
Uthman was the newly rich king of a new empire and he wanted a religion and heritage that could rival the Roma. Byzantine and the Persians. Hence he made it from scratch
Top one is Qiraat Hafs and the bottom is Qiraat Duri.
In Hafs Recitation, Arjulakum (being mansub) is linked to washing, while in Duri Quran recitation, Arjulikum (being Majrur) is linked to wiping. Thus, we get two fiqh rulings from the two different Quran riwayat i.e.:
1. Feet are to be washed in wudu.
2. Feet are to be wiped.
Chapter Five: 6 The Wiping or Washing of the Feet in the ‘Wudhu’
The scholars of Islam have differed on the type of purification of the feet required for the parts of the ‘wudhu.
Assalamualaikum sir. Actually I have a question regarding attributes related to Almighty Allah.
My question is that how can Allah be ( Merciful , kind and intelligent) at the same time if major portion of his best creation(human) will be in hell for infinite period of time. Reference Surah 7 ayayt 179
Brother-there is a mystical element in the surah ar rahman.Muhammed(pbuh) himself stated that God's mercy exceeds his wrath.Needless to say-that should speak for itself on our oft forgiving and merciful creator of all of creation aka Allah :)
@@mfnewt Bro as you mentioned Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stated Allah 's mercy exceeds his wrath but that is for momin (those who believe in Allah) only. Not for Kafir or Mushrik..... And let me tell you corrently in 7 billion population maximum there is 2 billion Muslim and rest 7 billion are non-Muslims . Allah clearly mention in the Qur'an that there is no forgiveness to non-Muslims in the life of hereafter. So 5 billion among 7 billion will directly go to hell irrespective of their deeds which is almost 70 percent of current population. Now Explain me Allah already knew that most of the human will not believe in him still he create human to suffer in the life of hereafter. Now here any rational person will questions the intelligence of Allah .
Mohammed shamsh Tamimi brother brother the secret is Surah ar rahman and what muhammed(pbuh) said-nowhere in that Hadith it is stated only believers. Mercy has no value for a pious person but it has double value for a sinner. Jesus(pbuh) talks about the parable of a religious scholar and a tax collector. The religious scholars thanks god for not making him a thief,murderer or a tax collector. But the tax collector does not even look up to the sky and says to God have mercy for I am a sinner. God blessed the tax collector and not the religious scholar. What you need to take from this is be humble and pray regularly forgiveness of yourself and others and God will forgive you . For in the Quran god is known as ar rahman-the merciful and gafurur rahim(the oft forgiving). Peace be upon you bro.Amen/Amin
Mohammed shamsh Tamimi the hell concept is by itself a means to correct the mischief of humans-needless to say it is more of a purgatory where the sinful soul will be cleansed of sins and reintegrated with the people of paradise. Gods created humans and jinns with free will and scolds them in the verse you shared for misusing the free will to do mischief. Nobody is automatically made for hell rather how they use their free will(in the same verse).and there is something called God’s divine decree which is a pretty complicated topic which ends with the answer that there never was a hell only heaven. Needless to say if you are concerned for others pray for their salvation.😐
@@mfnewt We know we have in this world.....but there was no free will when Allah decided to create human . I mean Allah didn't give option in terms of sending them to earth. If Allah has given free will at the time of creating human then that free will will be worthy. And one more Allah knew everything before creating universe I mean he knew that most of the human will go to hell and remain there forever. Any kind person will choose not to create such a human who will suffer for infinite period of time if that person have that much power. For example in Quran itself Angel asked Allah why he is creating human which will make mischievous things on earth. In reply of Allah says he knew what others don't. But he didn't mention that what he knew.
PEACE BE UPON HIM
YES
PBUH
PLEASE BLOCK UNTOLD HATE
in the Quran
It's horrible
Lol😂
Interesting analogy with the Gospel...
So, you agree that the existing Gospel we have today is preserved as Quran is preserved?
No
The Bible and the Quran are both books written by ignorant and fallible authors containing errors and exhibiting several versions of the respective book.
@@OWO-xm1tm do you hear about the comparison?
@@lyglo_apologetics yes I did
@Islam has NO KNOWLEDGE he did make a comparison that dose not mean he deems the bible as preserved
Quran is copy of the ot,nt
(Bible)remove torah and injil what is quran?
If the Bible (old and new testament) could be preserved intact, the question doesn't arrise of nonavailability of writing stuff, as such it had to be preserved by heart...
I'm a Christian minister. The Old Testament and New Testament were not preserved in tact. In fact the Bible has over 20,000 errors in it.
No one has ever claimed that the Bible is perfectly preserved. As we know most of Genesis was the stories that Moses told but in reality those where not written down until much later or lost to history.
@@bngr_bngr the sad part the people don't know that.
@@napolien1310 it’s a similar problem that the Quran faces. As most of the disciples of Muhammad memorize parts of the Quran. Many of them died in battle and those parts of the Quran died with them.
@@bngr_bngr yes parts but we know of the few who already memorised it as a whole not only parts.
That's why I said what I said the ones who knows of these missing verses would have came out and said the Quran is false, because most of the companions have travelled out of Medina and settled in Yemen Iraq Egypt Syria far away from the center of authority and would have teached their students about this.
Thank you for being honest and speaking truth
If something is wrong then memorizing it and preserving it doesn’t make it correct. I could never understand why Preservation of the Quran seems to be the greatest evidence for Islam 🤷
The Quran isn't wrong. It being correct is a miracle and it's preservation (where other books were unable to be preseved) is another seperate miracle. That's two of the many miracles of the Quran
@@diddydum You said the other books were “unable to be preserved”. Why is that? Isn’t Allah all knowing? So What was he doing when his Word was corrupted?
There are some forces behind scenes, who are trying to say something is changed in order to change the narrative. The whole objective of these dark forces is to change things in order to fit their narrative.
@@diddydum clearly Allah did not preserve the Quran as promised. What we have today is what one man decided is Allahs words. The Quran is made up of the recollections of man not Allah. If the Quran was Allahs words there wouldn’t be more than one version of the Quran.
@@TheTruth-hc7ww Allah sent other messengers and prophets to the people and the people kept on killing prophets and messenger ex prophet yahya(as). Think about he to was a prophet but people even dared for cruxification. And then he sealed the prophets and messengers with prophet muhammed(saw)
And now deal with it... Its human beings that made great mess not prophets.
People hated ibrahim(as), musa(as), jedus(as) and Muhammad(saw) so its not a big deal actually...
people hate no matter what...
Textual variations ? I was taught that the Quran has been preserved, word by word , letter by letter, harakat by harakat, that the current Quran was received by prophet Muhammad from Jibril, so no miraculous preservation, lately Ali Dawa confirmed what Hamza Tzortzis said previously , " no scientific arguments in the Quran, what is next ? that Prophet Muhammed is not mentioned in the Christian and Jewish BIble ? I feel so disappointed that Iman are teaching what they supposed to (:
It shows the quran was not preserved...the upper layer contains uthmanic text and the lower suppressed layer is preuthmanic. Showing that the variation between text of preuthmanic time and uthmanic time has 15000 variations....
Also, why did Uthman appointed 3 other none scholars with Ziad bin Thabit whom are known to be sons in law to uthman....why not ibn musa, Ubay Ibn ka'b and ibn mas'ud but his three son inlaws ? They were not scholars....all these sahabas hhad 116,110 and 114 chapters respectively different from 114 chapters of uthmanic quran today. If the quran is recited differently in Damascus from the one in Baghdad and Basra when they still have different chapters...
"Yeah, preservation didn't happen, and we knew about it; but preservation happened, and the fact it didn't happen is actually evidence it happened!"
What is this bizarro-land argument?
The Qur'an is preserved but not as the muslim laymen thinks. The Qur'an is revealed to the prophet pbuh in 7 ahruuf (reciting modes/variants). The Qur'an has never been a completely fixed text. To give you a perspective, these reciting modes/variant are 1,5% of the Qur'an. So the critiques are crying about 1,5% of the Qur'an which also is been revealed to the prophet pbuh.
This explains the variations which are mentioned in dozen of authentic Hadith. The variants in the Sanaa manuscripts are found in the Hadith so it confirm what we've already know. Also, the undertext of the Sanaa manuscript is not part of the tradition of the transmission of the Qur'an and seems to be a isolated educational example of a student which contains some commentaries next to the Quranic text as feedback. Asmae Hilali did a extensive research about this.
Are you sure Quran is written down under supervision of the Companions?? What qualification did Uthman & Zayd have?
----------------------------
During Muhammad’s lifetime, he reportedly emphasized in a hadith, “Learn the recitation of the Quran from four persons: Ibn Masud, Salim, Ubayy, and Muadh.” Both possessed Qurans that differed from the one authorized by Uthman, and their copies were not consulted during the compiling of Uthman’s Quran.
Ibn Masud believed that Zayd, who was entrusted twice to collect the Quran, was unsuitable for the sacred responsibility. In the end, Ibn Masud distrusted Uthman’s Quran and sent this
message to Muslims: “O you Muslim people, avoid copying the Quran and the recitation of Zayd.” In addition, once Uthman declared that every other Quran should be burned, Ibn Masud sent word to every Muslim in the Muslim lands: “Keep the Qurans that are with you, and conceal them.” Uthman was furious. He summoned Ibn Masud and allowed his servants to beat him violently, to the extent that Ibn Masud suffered several broken ribs.
Uthman forbade him from making any public speeches or traveling outside the city. Ibn Masud died a year or so later.
Without a doubt, Ibn Masud’s Quran differed from what Uthman composed. Because Ibn Masud never approved of Uthman’s Quran.
(Ayman Ibrahim - A Concise Guide to the Quran)
Lyglo where can I find your references on this issue of uthmqn and masud
@@leecooper3852 I give information about the book & writer: Ayman Ibrahim - A Concise Guide to the Quran
Chapter 10 is related to this topic
@@leecooper3852 Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3104
Sahih al-Bukhari 5005
Uthman (Ra.) used to recite the whole Quran in one rakat every night, he was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs so we just trust what he did.
@@ahnaflfc369 How do you know uthman recited anything, you only have information on him 200 years after he was supposed to have existed, you have nothing on him at the time that he was alive, the reason being, is that he was made up to suit an idea.
As a non-Muslim, I have always been told that the Quran used today is the absolute words of Allah. But if there are slight differences in the Sana'a pallimcest, which contains the absolute words of Allah, or do both come close, but neither absolute?
I read the sanaa differences my self it is only commentary on the verses them selves for example , the original one says (tell the them ) in the sanna one it says (tell them ) and it adds the reference to who it is saying them (the jews)
@@gsxii1292 interesting. my initial guess was that this palimpsest was used back then as a support during memorization. could this be the case?
@@stati5tik possibly, the majority of the differences however were the order of the verses. which doesnt really matter
@@MoonzzieThen Muslims should stop criticizing the Bible about getting corrupted. The Bible doesn't have any doctrinal differences... Very minor spelling errors.. Scribe issues just like this manuscript..And many different Christian denominations follow unique practices just like the differences between Sunni, shias etc.But nobody who's a Christian has a basic doctrinal difference! Idk why it's ok for the quran and not acceptable for the Bible. Genuine question 🙋
this manuscript was never used as a quran. nor is a quran rather it was most likely used for memorization and practice the quran is perfect, complete and has no mistakes or spelling errors or scribe errors. this is the difference between the quran and the bible @@auxshy
The lower text showed variation, but I thought nothing has been changed in the quran, someone is stretching the truth there.
so multiple korans are not an issue then?
Convey message of Islam to all people of the world and to everyone who will come also convey message of Islam to all world leaders...
Yes! Let everyone know about the myth of perfect preservation of qur@n!!
I am Catholic but I have already some knowledge about the topic. The oldest Qurans are Birmingham, Sana, Tübingen if I am right. In my opinion, it's not a flaw in your Religion, when you admit that there are varieties. Our Bible is not so much altered. We have mushafs since 400. The changes are more the selection of the books which changed and still change at other Christian religions.
The Bible doesn’t consider itself to be the literal, unchanged commandment from god. Quite the claim from Muslims when there are nearly 100,000 variants between the collected qurans in the world today. And also zero complete Quran’s from the 7th century.
Important clarification with the choice of words: The Quran we have to do IS word to word, unadulterated, unmanipulated, unchanged throughout the history of this ummah. The various modes of recitation that exist, including what we have today, can be traced back to the messenger PBUH through chains of transmissions. Just because other modes of recitation exist, does not undermine the preservation of Quran as we have it today.
There is an important distinction to be made, and we have to be careful with our words. Anti-Islam polemics will be waiting for opportunities when you err in your speech.
There are other modes of recitation that the layman may not be aware of, that however does NOT mean that the Quran as we have it now, is not word to word preserved. The mainstream idea that the Quran has been perfectly preserved is hence completely valid. So it shouldn't be dismissed as a "mainstream" misrepresentation etc.
You missed Dr. Ally's point, which is that word for word preservation is a myth, and there are real textual variants. The 10 qiraat are 10 different Arabic versions of the Quran, each with different words.
@@peterhwang1860 Word for word preservation is not a myth. And all the Qiraat that we have now are from the same Uthmanic text (the same consonantal script). If you take the Quran we have now back to the time of the Prophet, then this Quran would be considered as 100% accurate. (The reverse may or may not be true because we dont have all the Qiraat and Ahruf through reliable chains, some Modes are through weaker chains)
However, we have reliable chains of transmission for some Qiraat, especially those that are recited today, but not all the Qiraat/Ahruf. So if you read the most common modes of recitation such as Hafs, Warsh, etc., they are perfectly preserved, and have remained unchanged throughout history.
The anti-Islam polemics try to equate the modes of recitation with the different versions of the Bible. That's quite unacademic and inconsistent. They are not the same. The various modes were conveyed by the Prophet himself. So whatever modes are recited today, each can be perfectly traced back to the Prophet with reliable chains of transmission that are corroborated by multiple (often independent) chains. So if you are to use the generic dictionary meaning of the word "preserved", then yes, the Quran is perfectly preserved.
Note that almost all dictionary meanings put weight on the originality and unchanged-ness and not the wholeness, nor is wholeness implied. (Regardless, some scholars are of the position that any single Mode of Recitation is whole in itself, while others are of the position that all Modes of Recitation are needed to be whole)
@@peterhwang1860 Also, using the word "version" isn't really accurate, especially when compared with the "versions" used in Biblical discourse. Because all the Qiraats we have now, are based on the SAME Uthmanic script; the consonantal skeleton is identical. The vowels (which were added later to make recitation easier for non-Native speakers of Arabic) are where the various pronunciations can be identified. Instead of using "versions", "modes of recitation" would be a more accurate term.
@@AS-bm5xv Nothing could be further from the truth. While most of the variations pertain to diacritical marks and vowels, some differences are found in the rasm, the consonantal skeleton, as well. To dismiss these differences as mere differences in modes of recitation, or tajweed, is clearly false to all.
The 10 qiraat lead to one inevitable conclusion, and that is that the Quran originated as a collection of written texts, written at a time in which the Arabic alphabet was not yet fully formed. If it was originally transmitted verbally, then the different qiraat would have never developed. Hence the now famous holes in the standard Islamic narrative.
@@AS-bm5xv In contrast to the 10 qiraat, 10 different Arabic versions of the Quran, there is only one Greek New Testament used by the 2+ billion Christians in the world. All the different versions you speak of are translations into other languages.
Surely Prophet PbUH could not provide a single mushaf to be passing down. Ayahs was send down in a random ways and its position in the 'book' can be at any position according to instruction (Gabriel a.s.). No body can make up a book until it is ensured that the message receiver have passed away or no further ayahs will coming. A single mushaf only can be collected in a single volume once Prophet PbUH died.
"There are holes in the narrative."
nope its In Ur Brain
@@nooneasked1710 nah its in Muhammad's brain, what a fool he was
@@nooneasked1710 LOL emotional damage!
@@nooneasked1710, !nsults aren't arguments...
It only shows how desperate you're.
Any one can narrate a story, but with proof it is difficult,
I feel like Safiyyah Ally is an undercover Christian 😂
MashaAllah brother shabir❤❤❤
Dr. Shabir made me laugh with those comparisons 😂😂 thank you so much another video on this important theme
the more he talks about this issue, the more HOLES he uncovers 😆
Do you know of any copy of the gospels, verified by the Peter, james or John? Dr Shabir doesn't think so, neither does biblical scholars like Dr Bart Ehrman.
Shabir was just giving an example "like if we have copies of the teachings of Jesus, verified by the disciples". You can listen to what he said.
Also, I don't agree with the perfect preservation of the quran narrative either. I'm not here to defend islam.
@@ahmad6384 are you atheist?
@@lyglo_apologetics I'm no longer a believer.
However, even though I disagree with some of Dr Shabir's interpretations, I do appreciate his effort in promoting tolerance among communities. Instead of using an "us vs them" narrative, he tries to show the good in every community.
@@ahmad6384 Could I ask what your main reasons were for not being a believer anymore? Don't want to debate, just curious.
Very nice talk. Shukran.
The History of Writing the Early Mushaf (Quran) & The Birmingham Manuscript
Most channels remove comments that contain a link. You can reach the video by placing the above title in the TH-cam search box and Inshaa’Allah you will find it on Al Mudarabah Channel..
This man has blasphemous and heretical views about Islam. Stay away from him for the salvation of your own eman ان شاء الله
yes you are correct
I have a huge problem with what Shabir starts spewing at @11:49
This guy is not a scholar. Beware of him either his understanding of the deen is very week or he is an agent
@@elwynnforest1452 "Average Muslims have simply parroted the Quran is 100% accurate the way it always has been" Like are you for real a scholar?? Ofcourse it is 100% still accurate, even a child who just started learning about Islam knows that. May Allah guide this fool, any one these days can put a camera on their face and use some controversial video titles to get views and make money. What a time to be alive !
2nd there was no "scholarly suspicion" The Prophet ﷺ himself taught all the Muslims that the Quran was revealed in 7 qirat, it can be recited in 7 different ways, all correct. What is Shabir on about.
Beware of him
93,000 various is significant.
Debate between Dr.Jay smith vs Dr. Shabir about sanaas manuscript.
*THANK YOU DR SHABIR FOR BEING HONEST IN TELLING US THAT THERE IS NOT ONE KORAN BUT MANY KORANS BY TELLING US **_"OTHER COMPANIONS OF MOHAMMED MADE COPIES WHICH ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE UTHMAN KORAN"._* = most telling!!!
It is well known Muslims that the unofficial copies or manuscripts were ceased , and the authentic copy or codex was published by Caliphate as the official copy/ manuscript/ codex. But they cannot prove that the official copy was not conserved. But these minor variations or differences do not prove plurality of Qurans but constitute errors in copies while writing and making a manuscript in general. Any how what Respected Shabbir told you , is known to Muslims from the beginning .
1. 'version' of Qur'an: most telling
2. 'version' of Qur'an: telling most
3. 'version' of Qur'an: tells the most.
Yeah, they are soooo different lol.
I've seen animals having better conclusion capability than the OP..
@@parodontaxnexera5803 "Any how what Respected Shabbir told you , is known to Muslims from the beginning " PLEASE DO NOT LIE HERE. the vast majority of mohammedans can't even read a single line in arabic not to speake of K N O W I N G different versions of korans. WHAT A SILLY ATTEMPT!!!!
@Only_God_Is_Allah_SWT but the issue is muslims say the Quran is perfectly preserved for 1400 years, down to the very letter and punctuation. Muslim say the Bible is corrupt because of these same variations that don't change the meaning. If Muslims can accept that these variations do not make scripture corrupt, maybe we can get further in discussion with Christians about scripture.
Don't misquote you lisr!
The important thing is not process but the substance of the message which is what needs to be evaluated by each individual on its own merits who reads the Quran. The same goes for the Bible.
ddd Quran was corrupted. Every arabic Quran should be the same but today we only have different recitations in Arabic with different words. Quran riwayah of Hafs 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer: 1. According to Warsh Quran 2:184 how many poor people must you feed after missing a fast? Answer 3 or more.
1 is not the same as 3 or more.... Islam is a fake corrupted religion and Muslims have to lie to defend Islam. Muslims have no shame
As a Christian, I couldn't agree more!
@@Draezeth You like the message of pedophilia in Quran ? chapter 65 verse 4 - Tafsir Ibn Al Kathir
The Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate.The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their Iddah is three months like those in menopause.....The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation.
@@muhammadibnwaraqa I think the problem is when a claim is made that something in written form is not corrupted for over 1400 years. You're just begging scholars to pick holes in it, which they will duly do. I would say this channel tries very hard to be truthful and give full and honest answers
@@stevenmarshall5244 The holes started with Prophet Muhammad already Sahih al-Bukhari: Book 66, Hadith 62 Narrated Aisha:Allah's Messenger heard a man reciting the Koran at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was CAUSED TO FORGET!
We love this... hole by hole is uncovered more every day, and previous holes are getting bigger and clearer 😁
You will fall into one of the holes!
I don't see any hole. Where did you get the idea? The scribe acknowledged the mistake and corrected it.
@@almazchati4178 Dr Ally made 6 admissions in his response to this question on the Sana'a MSS:
1) The Lower layer was indeed different from the upper layer with "significant variations", though he claimed they didn't change any doctrine, theology, or practice. Nonetheless, this is his first public admission that there could have been another Qur'an from that of Uthman's canonical Qur'an.
2) This Sana'a Manuscript was actually "pre-Uthmanic", and could have come from other early collections by Ubay ibn Ka'ab (who lived in Damascus, who had 116 Suras in his Qur'an), or from Ibn Masu'd's Qur'an (from Baghdad, who had only 110 Suras in his Qur'an). Yet, since Uthman's Qur'an had 114 Suras, Shabir is admitting yet again that there were different Qur'ans.
3) That Uthman's Qur'an "accurately represented the preaching of Muhammad". But how does he know, since it didn't agree with the other codices of the companions of the prophet, and it was written 20 years after Muhammad died? Why would this one be better or worse than the other differing codices (Dr Arthur Jeffery in 1935, by looking at the differences between these codices which were noted in the Traditions, came up with 15,000 differences between them).
4) That the oft repeated claim by almost 99.9% of all Muslims today that there has been no changes to the Qur'an, that our Qur'an today is exactly the same, "Word for Word, and Letter for Letter" like that of Uthman's Qur'an, Dr Ally believes is only said by "idiots" and is not "Academic", because scholars know that there have been additions and accretions, and deletions. Yet, again, another admission of the fallacy of preservation!
5) That the Sana'a manuscript's palimpsest (with the differences between the two layers) proves that there was no suppression by Uthman of the final Qur'an; yet he just admitted earlier that the companion codices were suppressed by Uthman, and had he read Bukahri's account of the Qur'an's creation, he would have seen that Uthman burned every codice which didn't agree with his codex, proving that there was all kinds of suppression.
6) That Uthman's Qur'an was produced "With scholarly scrutiny of their collective representation of what they knew Muhammad had said. Much like the Gospel writers (Peter, James and John) recollections of what Jesus said and did, so was the Qur'an written down." What an admission!
Dr Ally is basically admitting in his conclusion that the Qur'an is not eternal, nor is it derived from 'preserved tablets' in heaven, nor was it 'guarded by Allah from any changes' (Surahs 10:15; 18:27; 15:9 & 85:21-22), but that it is nothing other than a document written by men (the companions of the prophet) years after the fact, made up of their "recollections" of what Muhammad possibly said and what he possibly did.
In 17 minutes Dr Shabir Ally has demoted the Qur'an from an "eternal text", preserved by Allah himself, to nothing more than a book like any other book, written by men who wrote down what they remembered another man said or did.
With these 6 admissions, Dr Ally, in one fell swoop, has destroyed the Qur'an's Perfect Preservation.
(from Jay Smith's video responding to this video)
@@lyglo_apologetics I don't care what he admitted or denied. He was certainly not around when this thing happened. So, he can not admit or deny anything. People are know to forge things for a long long time now.
@@almazchati4178 so, you don't care...
why bother making comments?
thank you
Preserved like the Gospel😇 so Jesus did die then🤔 (sarcasm) as many people saw the event hundreds of years before an arab man in a cave further down south!
When he say gospel he's saying the aramiac gospel not the present day mainstream greek bible(new-testament) and that is why the quran clearly says it's a continuation of the prophetic tradition. Sumerian jews, aramiac christians and islam(arabic) all have a spiritual vocabulary, Shalom/Salaam.
@@bruckbedru8178 just remember, Muhammad states at his time being alive that the Jews & Christians have their book (also Quran 10:94) and never in history as we have our manuscripts before his time also was Qutum/Qatum/Mohammad AKA the praiseworthy one (only in islam) is mentioned. EVER!
I'M MENTIONED IN THE QURAN BRUCK BEDRU, BUT IT'S BEEN CORRUPTED. AND YOU NEVER HAD THE ORIGINAL ONE... SEE HOW SILLY THAT EVEN SOUNDS!
@@richardfromkennington islam basically means judiasm for the gentiles. And if you wanna know more about islam roots then I advice you to read excellent scholarships written by europeans specially german epigraphics. You will definitely learn about the prosecution of jewish christians by the proto-orthodox, by being branded as "heretical christians" just b/c they were torah abiding jews and reject the doctrine of the trinity and vicarious atonement an epistemology adopted as a corner Stone of christianity by the proto-orthodox or mainstream christian church. and the chronology from 4thc- 7thc.. it's clear before the coming of islam arabian peninsula has the most varigated religious diversity which they found a safe heaven from being prosecuted by the church in levant and Antioch(southern turkey), tarsus, nacea.. some of the groups are Al-nasara(jewish christians) who was mentioned in the quran. So before you make a fallacious statement I advice you to read the aramiac gospel(peshitta) and the torah(jewish bible) and not the mainstream bible(greek new testament) which is highly influenced by middle and neo-platonism(anthropomorphism) that is why the quran continuously remind us that islam is a continuation of the abrahamic prophetic tradition(strict-monotheism)
@@bruckbedru8178 here's the problem with you, you have assumed my knowledge and I can't take you seriously. In reality you should address me as professor or Dr. You are in false religion which most likely you were born into. Maybe not, however, back up what you say with evidence. A verse, or link would suffice.
@@richardfromkennington no I am a former Ethiopian orthodox christian, second nation to accept christianity as a state religion in 330AD. so I know christianity like my backbone. Speaking of facts, well let's talk about trinity? 1)The Eternal law of the torah inexcusably state that Allah is transcendant and he don't beget or begotten 2) If you subscribe to vicarious atonement that, jesus had to die for your sins in order for G-d to forgive you that means he never really forgave you it's just the price was paid for you, Roman chapter 6. debt paid is not debt forgiven as it says in first king chapter 8 verse 47-50, people of nimbay jonah chapter 3 verse 10, Ezekial 18:21-24, I'am sry to say this sir, but mainstream christianity is impregnated from hellenistic metaphysics+greek mythology.
For those interested in a book source- "The History of the Quranic Text, From Revelation to Compilation, a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testamemts". Written by Hadith scholar Muhammad Mustafa al Azami.
Hard to believe that Muhammad left the umma without the Quran being collected as a whole and that it took three caliphates to do it..
The irony is muslims are ready to die in order to protect the Quran...and yet, the large majority of the muslims don't live by it nor practice what Allah has commanded..
He did. Most people had memorized the Quran. They just put it down on paper within 2 years after he died.
@BrokenSnake they wrote it down on a magna-doodle!
Evil hearts and evil minds what kind of book will this write? Sir
Why is this women asking the questions?
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658-The Prophet said: "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind."
😂😂😂😂😂
Witness to what ? Are you gonna actually read what you are looking at ? The witnesses were for contracts that were done.Most Woman back then before islam weren't allowed to participate in these contracts. When islam came and allowed them to, to account for the lack of knowledge, the witness to a contract deal would be 2 woman or 1 man. Because if women were not familiar with the contracts they could remind each other. Stop being ignorant