| A: |
Muhammad claimed that the Qur'an was a series of revelations he received from Allah through the angel Gabriel. The inspirational experiences were described by Muhammad to be like a bell, clanging in his head, causing him to shake and sweat profusely. Qur'an 4:82 says, "Do they not consider and ponder the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy and incongruity." Qur'an 085:021 says, "Nay this is a glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) on a Preserved Tablet." Qur'an 043:003 informs us that, "A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic. Further, 039:27 says, "We have coined for man in this Qur'an. (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein)." The Qur'an is considered to be an exact replica of the "Eternal Tablets" which exist in heaven. (085:022) Muhammad admitted to have also received revelations directly from Satan. Known as the "Satanic verses," al-Tabari records in his History under "Muhammad at Mecca" that "Satan Cast a False Revelation on the Messenger of God's Tongue." Muhammad's admission that, "I have fabricated things against Allah and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken." confirms that Muhammad was demon possessed. The only person who attempted to write down all of the Qur'anic revelations while Muhammad was still alive was killed by order of Muhammad. According to the Hadith, Abdallah bin Sa'd became concerned that some of the phraseology didn't sound godly, so he suggested enhancements. When Muhammad accepted his edits, Abdallah rejected Islam. He recognized that the Qur'an couldn't be from god if he, a scribe, could copyedit it. Tabari V888:178 goes on to report that "When the Messenger entered Mecca he ordered that the following men should be killed... first among them was Abdallah bin Sa'd." Clearly Abdallah bin Sa'd knew too much. Allah says the Qur'an was Arabic because "the Pen" wrote the Qur'an before man was created. Qur'an 46:2 says, "And before it the Book of Musa was a guide: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language." And in Qur'an 39:27 we find: "We have coined for man in this Qur'an every kind of parable in order that they may receive admonition. (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard (against evil)." Qur'an 41:3 tell us that: "A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who have knowledge." Then in Qur'an 41:44 we find that: "Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: 'Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a foreign tongue, a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?' Say (unto them, Muhammad): 'It is a Guide to those who believe; and for those who do not believe it, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes)!'" There are problems with the Arabic theory, however. The oldest Qur'an fragments date to around 725 A.D. - a century after they were first recited. Arabic, especially in written form, is a recent phenomenon linguistically. Not only wasn't it one of man's earliest languages, it was derived from a language that predated it by at least 3,000 years, having evolved among Syrian Christians as a stylistic derivative of Aramaic in the 6th century A.D. There is no evidence that written Arabic even existed in Mecca until after the Qur'an was revealed. Therefore, it couldn't have been the language of Allah if, as the Qur'an and Hadith attest, written scrolls were given to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus prior to the time written Arabic was even conceived. Even then, the Qur'an is filled with many non-Arabic words and phrases, including the word "qur'an," which the Syrian Christians defined as "to recite" or "to preach." Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an devoted 300 pages to this study. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as they refute the "pure Arabic" claim and put doubt on whether "Allah's language" was sufficient to explain what he intended. Thus the assertion that the Qur'an is pure Arabic and was thusly written on "Eternal Tablets" in Heaven is false. In addition, during the Qur'an's first century, the emerging Arabic alphabet did not have diacritical points, and some of its letters were omitted. The text that Uthman canonized, if this actually occurred, was a bare consonantal text with no marks to show verse endings, to distinguish consonants, or vowels. And without them it is impossible to comprehend the intended meaning of the text. Among other problems for the veracity of the Qur'an are the differing versions, even in Muhammad's day. Bukhari's Hadith reports: "Ibn Abbas asked, 'Which of the two readings of the Qur'an do you prefer?' The Prophet answered, 'The reading of Abdallah ibn Mas'ud.' Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated." Another Bukhari Hadith claims that: "Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. 'You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript).' By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?"" The Qur'an wasn't, therefore, as Allah claims--a book memorialized on heavenly tablets--but was instead comprised of an evolving text. The oldest Qur'ans differ from one another and from today's version. The original written copies were devoid of the diacritical points, so most words had to be chosen and their meaning interpreted two centuries after the Qur'an was revealed orally. It's not pure Arabic as Allah claims, and there are a plethora of foreign words. There are also missing words, wrong words, and meaningless words, as well. And most importantly, the leading authority of the initial script of the Qur'an, studying the oldest fragments says: "One out of every five verses is indecipherable - meaningless in any language." Excerpts from Prophet of Doom From chapter 10, "Muddled Message" In exposing Islam I have erred on the side of the Qur'an and Hadith. That is to say, I have been nearly as repetitious as they have been. By bringing the doctrine's most holy books together chronologically and placing them in the context of time and place, the evidence piles up one confession at a time. The truth ultimately becomes undeniable. Therefore, I will continue to present their scriptures as completely as your endurance allows. By observing a consistent pattern of behavior, you will be able to render an accurate assessment. In this light, let's dissect the 52nd surah, kissing cousin to the 56th. Qur'an 52.1 "I call to witness Tur (Mount Sinai) and a Scripture Book inscribed, written on a fine parchment scroll unrolled, and the House ever-peopled, and the roof raised high, and the sea kept filled. The Islamic spirit is trying to pull a fast one. The House wasn't "ever-peopled." As you will discover in the "Source Material" appendix, there is no archeological or historical evidence to show that Mecca even existed before the sixth century. Therefore, Islam's formation is based upon a lie, because without people it would have been impossible to pass on any semblance of Islamic ritual from Abraham to Qusayy. Elsewhere in the Qur'an, we're told that the "Book" was chiseled on Memorial Tablets, not inscribed on perishable parchment scrolls. But that's the least of the Qur'anic headaches. It claims, as Maududi confirms, that it was first written before creation, and that it was passed down and maintained in its original form - verbatim. "The Qur'an that you are bent upon belying is unchangeable: 'It is inscribed in the Preserved Tablet, which cannot be corrupted in any way.'" Since the Qur'an's claims regarding its origin and nature are essential to our understanding, I'd like to explore this matter more completely. Allah's "book" says of itself: Qur'an 012:001 "These are verses of the immaculate Book, a clear discourse." Immaculate means perfect, flawless - inerrant. Yet we've already discovered scores of errors, big and small. Qur'an 012:003 "Through the Qur'an We narrate the best of histories." Yet it is devoid of history. It doesn't even provide any context. Qur'an 2.1 "This is a book free of doubt." That is true, but not in the way it was intended. Qur'an 010:037 "This Qur'an is such a writing that none but Allah could have composed it. It confirms what has been revealed before." Not only would the behavior in the Islamic heaven be illegal in every state save the brothels of Nevada, the Qur'an contradicts rather than confirms the prior revelation it says is inspired. What's more, the writing quality is an embarrassment. While lecturing on creation, Allah's prophet professed, "All that was going to be was written on the memorial Tablet before anything else was created." And that is particularly odd since everything we have read thus far has been fixated on one man's quest for gold and glory. Said another way: the Qur'an's revelations temporal and they only serve Muhammad. The reason I bring this to your attention is to scuttle the Islamic claim that the Qur'an is a perfect reflection of the original tablet inscribed in heaven. The earliest Qur'anic writings all differ with each other, and they conflict with the present version. Coins from 685 A.D. have inscriptions that don't match today's surahs. The scripture inside the Dome of the Rock (691 A.D.) also varies. Further, the earliest copies of the Qur'an were written without vowels and the diacritical dots that modern Arabic uses to determine what letter is intended. It wasn't until the late eighth century, more than a hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death, that Islamic scholars added diacritical marks to clear up countless ambiguities. In doing so, they chose the letters and vowels - and thus the current words, punctuation, and meaning. They translated what was essentially code into the gibberish we are reading today. Then there is the problem of the parchments themselves. The oldest fragments date to the eighth century, not the seventh. They were found in a pager grave on the loft rafters of the Mosque of Saria'a in 1972. Aberrations from the accepted text abound, including the order of the verses, textual variations, and artistic embellishments. Gerd Puin, the leader of the German team analyzing the scrolls said, "Revisions are very clearly written over earlier, washed-off versions. What the Yemeni Qur'ans suggest is an evolving text rather than the word of God revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad." Puin went on to declare: "The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen.' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. A fifth of the Qur'anic text is incomprehensible. This is what has caused the anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language." This stark reality is frightening to orthodox Muslims who parrot their prophet's claim that the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly - unchanged and inerrant - just as Allah wrote it. The perfection claim Allah makes on behalf of his Qur'an would be impossible even if Allah were god. Language is an imperfect tool. One word can mean many things and meanings often change with inflection. Connotation is altered by context, something the Qur'an lacks. Knowing the time, place, and parties to a conversation is required to establish the intended implication. For example, the Classical Arabic word used for fighting could just as easily be translated killing. And the word for virgin is indistinguishable from the classical Arabic word for white grape. Yahweh knew better. He never said his Scripture was inerrant. He said it was sufficient. But while we are on the subject, I'd like to share something you might find interesting. There are thousands of prophecies in the Bible, most of which are exacting. There have been no misses. There are thousands of detailed historical depictions in the text - none of which have been shown to be invalid. From the "Source Materials" Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq's Sira, or Biography, stands alone - a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim. Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad's words and example. They also explain the Qur'an - a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Throughout Prophet of Doom, I have been less concerned with the validity of these sources than with what they have to say. Their message is all Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur'an are Islam. Therefore, I was willing to take them at face value. But you don't have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur'an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn't need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn't have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn't deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn't need a scholastic review of the Qur'anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely. While that remains true, I believe that I owe it to readers, especially Muslims, to explore the textual evidence for the Sunnah and Qur'an. I'll start with what the Hadith has to say about the Qur'an's origins, but I'm going to dispense in short order with the circular reasoning Islamic scholars use in that they all quote the Sunnah. While there are Hadiths that say Bakr tried to assemble the Qur'an and others that credit Uthman, Muhammad's third successor, it's like using the results of Carbon-14 dating to prove the validity of Carbon-14 dating. The source is the same. In Bukhari's Hadith Collection alone we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah's book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad's day: "Ibn Abbas asked, 'Which of the two readings of the Qur'an do you prefer?' The Prophet answered, 'The reading of Abdallah ibn Mas'ud.' Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated." This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur'an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled. Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions. That's astonishing. Islam's lone "prophet" left his Qur'an as vapor, sound waves that had long since faded. Bragging one day, the imposter called his surahs a miracle: Bukhari:V6B61N504 "Muhammad said, 'Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.'" If the Qur'an was his only "miracle," why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear. Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests. Muslim: C24B20N4609 "The Messenger said: 'Do not take the Qur'an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.' Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: 'The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.'" A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad's companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur'an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur'an's most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur'anic passages along with them. Bukhari:V6B60N201 "Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, 'Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad's Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. "The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur'an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur'an may be lost unless you collect it." I replied to Umar, "How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?" Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.' Zaid bin Thabit added, 'Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript)." By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?" Zaid declared that collecting the Qur'an's surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad's string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid's search for Qur'anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet's Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur'an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay. There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur'an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur'an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to "search" for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring. Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it's obvious he did. Remember: Tabari VII:167 "In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, 'I fear that they may change my Book.'" As is typical of the Islamic Traditions, the more one digs, the worse it gets. Bukhari:V6B61N511 "Zaid bin Thabit said, 'I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.'" [9:128] This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur'an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did? Bukhari:V6B61N513: "Allah's Apostle said, 'Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.'" So there were at least seven Qur'ans. That wasn't the end of the confusion. In version two of the angelic recital, Muhammad was the reciter, not Gabriel. Bukhari:V6B61N519: "In the month of Ramadan Gabriel used to meet Muhammad every night of the month till it elapsed. Allah's Apostle used to recite the Qur'an for him." Then, we go from every night to once a year. Bukhari:V6B61N520: "Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he died." No wonder they couldn't remember who said what to whom. Bukhari:V6B61N549 "Allah's Apostle said, "The example of the person who knows the Qur'an by heart is like the owner of tied camels. If he keeps them tied, he will control them, but if he releases them, they will run away." To release something you have memorized you would have to share it. So this Hadith is apparently telling Muslims not to recite surahs for fear of losing them. And speaking of losing it: Bukhari:V6B61N550 "The Prophet said, 'It is a bad thing that some of you say, "I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur'an." For indeed, I have been caused to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur'an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.'" This frivolity is important because it exposes a lie that sits at the heart of Islam. It's irrational to think God would shift from a reliance on literate Jewish prophets to an illiterate Arab. The foundation of Islamic teaching is based upon the notion that God chose Arabs because they had good memories. Therefore, they reason, the Qur'an wouldn't be changed the way the Bible was corrupted. All Islamic schools from Alazahr to Pakistan are centered around this obvious lie. The Qur'an was forgotten; it was changed and recited by so many people it was corrupted beyond hope before it ever found paper. And since the Bible started out as words on a page, it has remained true to its initial inspiration. But it's worse than that. Muslims insist on confining the Qur'an to Religious Arabic - a language which is so hard to learn with its complex grammar and antiquated vocabulary, it's ranked second by linguists after Chinese, as the world's least hospitable communication medium. Worse still, even in Arabic much of the Qur'an cannot be understood because many words are missing and others are nonsensical. It's not rational to think that God would choose illiterate people and such a difficult language if he wished to communicate his message to the whole world. It's like using diesel to fuel a lamp and then hiding it in a swamp. But there is a method to their madness. By confining the Qur'an to Religious Arabic, Islamic clerics and kings can say whatever they want - and they do. An Egyptian doctor who edited Prophet of Doom wrote: "You would be amazed how they can distort facts to deceive others." In keeping with the camel theme, Allah's divinely inspired messenger announced: Bukhari:V6B61N552 "The Prophet said, 'Keep on reciting the Qur'an, for Qur'an runs away (is forgotten) faster than camels that are released from their tying ropes.'" In the interest of full disclosure, I present: Bukhari:V6B61N559 "The Prophet said, 'Why does anyone of the people say, "I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur'an)?" I am, in fact, caused (by Allah) to forget.'" It's a wonder anyone takes Islam seriously. Continuing to cripple its own claim that the Qur'an was retained as Allah's Pen wrote it: Bukhari:V6B61N561 "Umar bin Khattab [the second Caliph] said, 'I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat Al-Furqan ["Al-Furqan," the title of the 25th surah, has no meaning in any language.] during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle. I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. So I was on the point of attacking him in the prayer, but I waited till he finished, and then I seized him by the collar. "Who taught you this Surah which I have heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You are lying. Allah's Apostle taught me in a different way this very Surah which I have heard you reciting." So I led him to Muhammad. "O Allah's Apostle! I heard this person reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way that you did not teach me." The Prophet said, "Hisham, recite!" So he recited in the same way as I heard him recite it before. On that Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way." Then the Prophet said, "Recite, Umar!" So I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way, too." He added, "The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in several different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you." If Muhammad were alive today and made this statement, he would be branded an apostate, hunted down and murdered. As we shall soon discover, he just contradicted Islam's holy grail. Examining these Hadith we discover that the first "manuscript" wasn't even in Muhammad's tongue, requiring it to be translated. Bukhari:V4B56N709 "Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur'an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, 'If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language.' So they acted accordingly." Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur'an's credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking. Since "wishful thinking" isn't sufficient, and since the Islamic Hadith is more conflicting than helpful, I am going to turn to reason and fact to determine what is true and what is not. First, let's establish what Muslims believe so that we can direct our attention to determining whether or not it is accurate, or even reasonable. As evidenced by the official Islamic introduction to the Qur'an, Islamic scholars contend: "The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors, such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superceded." Funny thing, though, the Allah-inspired Sunnah just confirmed that the Qur'an used "human words" and that it wasn't "fixed letter for letter by Allah." Muslims ought to read their own scriptures. Despite all evidence to the contrary, including their own, Islamic scholars contend that today's Qur'an is an identical copy of Allah's Eternal Tablets, even so far as the punctuation, titles, and divisions of chapters are concerned. Maududi, one of the most esteemed Qur'anic scholars said, "The Qur'an exists in its original text, without a word, syllable nor even letter having been changed." (Towards Understanding Islam, Maududi) Abu Dhabi, another leading Muslim said, "No other book in the world can match the Qur'an. The astonishing fact about this Book of Allah is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. No variation of text can be found in it." That's factually untrue, every word of it. The Qur'an says of itself: "Nay this is a glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) on a Preserved Tablet." (85:21) "A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic." (41:3) "We have coined for man in this Qur'an. (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein)." (39:27) Richard Nixon tried that line too. It didn't work any better for him than it does for Allah. Over the course of these pages you'll discover why. The Quran, however, in it's origional Arabic has never been changed. Not one single period has been moved, not one word changed, not one sentenced moved. (YR) First the Qur'an has many non-Arabic words. That would be a big deal if Allah didn't claim that it was pure Arabic. Second, the oldest surviving Qur'an fragment dates a hundred years after Muhammad's first revelation. It was maintained by word of mouth for a century. And that's really bad since even Muhammad said that he forgot Qur'an surahs. Third, the oldest Qur'an fragments differ from todays Qur'an in significant ways. You'll find the proof in the Source Material Appendix. Fifth, the oldest Qur'ans lack diacritical points, so it can't be exacting. During the Qur'an's first century, the emerging Arabic alphabet did not have diacritical points, and some of its letters were omitted. The text Uthman canonized, if this actually occurred, was a bare consonantal text with no marks to show verse endings, to distinguish consonants, or vowels. Without them it is impossible to comprehend the intended meaning of the text. In the introduction to his translation of the Qur'an, Dawood said, "Owing to the fact that the Kufic script in which the eighth and ninth century Qur'ans were originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority." For example, without the diacritical points the following words would be indistinguishable: repent, plant, house, girl, and abide, as are rich and stupid. There are thousands of Arabic words like these in which the meaning changes depending upon the placement of the diacritical marks. Yet the Qur'an was neither revealed nor initially scribed with these designations. Thus men had to guess as to what Allah was trying to say. The Qur'an cannot be letter for letter as Allah revealed it, because without the diacritical points and vowels, the identity of many letters is missing. As bad as that sounds, the Qur'an under scrutiny is a very feeble document. If you're interested in knowing its history from the perspective of the Islamic Hadith and then from the world's foremost scholars, you'll find the Source Material Appendix liberating. (Craig) |
