Release: A Critical Analysis of Jay Smith’s Mistakes About the Qur’an [Update]


Update: I have been made aware that some persons are unable to access the paper via Scribd, you can therefore click this link and download the PDF directly: Response to Jay Smith’s Mistakes.

All Praise is due to Allah alone. The paper has undergone some minor changes, which are listed in the paper under the title of, “Structure of the Paper”. A formatting error for some headers were corrected, especially for Appendix B.

and Allah knows best.

Originally Published: 12/11/14, 6:46 a.m.

21 comments

  • Reblogged this on Discover The Truth and commented:
    A Critical Analysis of Jay Smith’s Mistakes About the Qur’an

  • Thanks Ijaz.

    What do you think about this “mathematical miracles” thing? I really don’t find it convincing. Why don’t we promote the Qur’an from a historical angle? For example there are a number of instances where the Qur’an corrects clear historical errors in the bible despite this information not being available in the 7th century.

    Also jay is insufferable lol.

  • Very nice Brother. I really appreciate to see some serious work refuting some of the statements Jay has made about the Quran. Your work is very valuable to countering other doubters of the Authenticity of the Quran.

  • “See Mistakes #5 & #6, where he also incorrectly attributes Dr. Tayyar Altıkulaç’s dating to the 8th century CE, when he clearly wrote, 7th century CE.”

    How can you say he clearly wrote 7th century CE? Let’s read the quote,

    “Altıkulaç dates the Topkapi manuscript to “the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H. [due to] “vowelling and dotting.” (i.e. early – mid 8th century) (Altıkulaç, ‘Al-Mushaf al-Sharif’ 2007:81)”

    The quote itself clarifies its dating into the Gregorian calendar, “(i.e. early-mid 8th century)”. You are simply clutching at straws it appears. Regards.

  • Re-read the quote, the first half of the second century is defined as early to mid 8th century. You’re confusing what is being qualified. It would seem you’re attempting to justify Jay’s lying by omission. The first century is the 7th century, whereas the first half of the second century is in the 8th. You’re conflating the datings as Jay did, due to perhaps poor reading skills.

    If it as you claim, that the conversion to the Gregorian calendar is to blame, are you saying the first half of the quote which says the “second half of the first century”, dates to the early to mid 8th century? So 675 to 725 CE is early to mid 8th century? I thought mid 8th century started at 750? Maybe my Math is wrong, or perhaps you didn’t read what was written properly. Either way, you’re off by about 25 years.

  • It is not about how you decide to date and interpret their comments Ijaz. It is up to the author to clarify for themselves. In this case, they clearly tell us that “the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H.” is the “early – mid 8th century” CE. In other words, they converted the Islamic calender into the Gregorian as an 8th century document. No manner of rhetorical flare will erase that reality.

  • I agree that they converted the calendar, there is no problem there. You’re still very confused. There are two centuries being spoke of, the first century AH and the second century AH.

    Only one of those can correspond to the early to mid 8th century. You’re arguing that both of them refer to the 8th century, when they are from two different centuries.

    No rhetoric here. Simple maths. Two different centuries, cannot equate to one century. This isn’t the Trinity, it’s much easy to understand that 200 years does not fit into 50 years of 1 century.

  • I agree Ijaz, this isn’t difficult. It is just not claiming what you want it to claim. The second half of the first century AH falls somewhere between 672- and 722 AD. It need not start within the 7th century. We can be talking about the early 8th century and still be within the first century after Hijrah.

    You are wanting the quote to say the mushaf is still within the 7th century. That need not be the case. We can talk about the second half of the first century and still be in the 8th century. And unsurprisingly, this is exactly what the authors say- that it is an “early-mid 8th century” text. You cannot apply that only to the later phrase unjustifiably when the former fits within the 8th century aswell.

    Why won’t you just accept conclusions rather than trying to reinterpret them? You spent all this time chastising Jay, yet proceed to do the same thing you accuse him of. That is weird.

  • I’m claiming that the date falls within the 7th century, which you’ve already acknowledged and agreed too. So your arguing at this point seems to be baseless.

    You also said it need not start within the 7th century, but it does, he clearly says it starts within the second half of the first century which is WITHIN the 7th century!

    Are you denying that his time scale does not include 28 years of the 7th century? Because that’s what Jay argued and what you are trying to force.

    Answer the question, does the second half of the first century, fall within the 7th century or not? You said it does, therefore I was correct.

  • Reblogged this on ModWestMuse and commented:
    “Christian apologists in response to this weakening of their scripture, are now attempting to weaken the stature of the Qur’an’s preservation. Muslims for centuries, since the Qur’an’s revelation have held strongly to the belief that it is God who would guard the transmission and preservation of the Qur’an as is mentioned explicitly in Surah 15, Verse 9…

    Christian apologists have challenged the Muslim world to apply their methodology of Textual Criticism to the Qur’an, so that we may establish that the dismal state of the New Testament manuscript record is on par with the Qur’an’s.

    Unbeknownst to them, Muslims have been practising stringent critical studies of the Qur’an’s manuscript tradition since its revelation. For centuries before the development of New Testament Textual Criticism as it is known today, Muslims have been utilising the science of ‘Uloom al Qur’an (the sciences of the Qur’an). One such field within ‘Uloom al Qur’an is ‘Ilm al Rasm al Mushaf, or the Science of the Writing of the Copies of the Qur’an…”

    You’ve got to read this!

  • “I’m claiming that the date falls within the 7th century”

    That is not what you claimed at all. You claimed that the author “clearly wrote, 7th century CE”.

    Problem is,

    1. The author didn’t even mention the 7th century CE. That was your novel invention.
    2. The second half of the first century AH falls within the early eighth century
    3. The author clarified his position by highlighting the Gregorian calendar (early-mid 8th century)

    You are trying to save face by appealing to the fact that the last half of the first century AH falls within the 7th century as well. So what? That was never disputed. It also falls into the first 25 years of the 8th century, which is precisely what the quote says and clarifies. Ergo, this mushaf, according to the quote, is not a 7th century text. It is a late first century to early second century AH text, that is, early to mid 8th century AD EXACTLY AS THE AUTHOR STATES.

    Your misrepresentation is astounding, especially given the point you are trying to prove.

  • You’re contradicting yourself. According to you, I didn’t claim that the date falls within the 7th century, but I claimed that the author says it fell within the 7th century? Those are the same claim, there’s no difference between them. You’re trying to force a difference where it does not exist.

    Problem is:

    1. Author did mention 7th century, as that is what is contained in the second half of the first century. Are you denying that 672 CE to 699 CE are in the 7th century?

    2. The second half of the first century falls within both the 7th AND the 8th.

    3. The author clarifies his second dating of the two given by mentioning the first half of the second century. You’re ignoring his first dating of second half of the first century.

    It’s not saving face mate, it’s pointing out that you’re denying that the date he gives falls 28 years within the 7th century. That is exactly what you are disputing, in one line you go from saying it’s not disputed it’s a 7th century text to saying it’s not!

    If it’s a late first century text then it is a first century text, which IS THE 7th century! The text therefore falls within the SEVENTH/ FIRST century EXACTLY AS THE AUTHOR STATES.

    Your blatant self contradiction is hilarious, as you’re trying to lie in defense of Smith.

    Answer these two questions if you’re being honest:

    1. Does the second half of the first century, fall within the 7th century? YES.

    2. Does the 28 years from 672 to 699 CE fall within the 7th century? YES.

    Therefore you’re not only wrong, you can’t do simple math and you’re lying at the same time.

  • Ijaz said, “There are two centuries being spoke of, the first century AH and the second century AH…Only one of those can correspond to the early to mid 8th century”

    Later, he commented, “The second half of the first century falls within both the 7th AND the 8th”

    Which is it? Can only one of those correspond to the early -mid eight century (as per your first argument) or does the first century AH also fall within the 8th century (as per your second)?

    The longer you argue this, the more you expose yourself and the false premise you are trying to push. Again, this is very strange given the argument you are trying to produce against Jay Smith.

    Oh, BTW, how can “The author clarifies his second dating of the two given by mentioning the first half of the second century” when the “early 8th century” can only be a referent for the first century AH? If we are talking about the second century AH, then we are no longer talking about the “early 8th century”.

  • Also, Ijaz, by aditting that the first century AH falls within the 8th century, you’ve effectively refuted your own critique against Jay. Good work.

    Jay said, “According to Altıkulaç and İhsanoğlu this is a mid 8th century manuscript, not a mid 7th century.”

    This is very true and you’ve now admitted as such. Even by your own analysis, this mushaf is not a mid 7th century text.

  • Are you able to read properly? Only one of those two centuries can correspond to the mid 8th century. It’s impossible for both the first century and the second century to go up until the mid 8th. I thought I made that clear? For you to posit that both centuries go up till the mid 8th, is not only surprising, I am shocked. 622 – 722 (first century), 722 – 750 (second century which goes to the mid 8th). It’s impossible for both the first and the second to go up until 750 CE, the first century ends at 722, not 750.

    That would be a false dichotomy and a straw man. Only one of those can go up to the mid 8th century, unless you’re saying that 622 – 722 goes up to 750 CE? In that case, you’re wrong by 28 years.

    The longer you try to to argue that 672 CE to 699 CE is not within the 7th century, not only exposes yourself, and the false premise you’re trying to push, it also shows you are actively arguing against yourself.

    As for this statement:

    Oh, BTW, how can “The author clarifies his second dating of the two given by mentioning the first half of the second century” when the “early 8th century” can only be a referent for the first century AH?

    You’re conflating two different datings. The first century is from 622 to 722, but only the second century goes until 750 CE. To argue otherwise, as you are doing is illogical and impossible.

    If we are talking about the second century AH, then we are no longer talking about the “early 8th century”.

    The second century is early 8th century, it’s 722 CE. So I’m going to give you an option, kindly answer the questions I have asked, or the conversation ends. I have repeatedly answered your questions, but you have actively failed to and attempted to not answer a single question of mines. The questions are as follows:

    1. 672 CE falls within the first century, also known as the 7th century. He dates the manuscripts to the second half of the first century, which would be 28 years within the 7th and 22 years within the 8th. On what basis, does this dating exclude the 7th century, as you have been arguing?

    2. On what basis, can both the first and second centuries both go up until the mid 8th century, which is 750 CE?

  • Jay said that the manuscript does not fall within the 7th century, he says it’s an 8th century manuscript. Which is wrong, given that the second half of the first century starts at 672 CE and has 28 years in the 7th century. Therefore, Jay is wrong, as he denies 28 years of the manuscript’s timeline into the 7th century. So, no, I haven’t refuted myself and you’ve only done so of Jay and yourself by affirming the manuscripts are dated to the 7th century.

    I never argued it was a mid 7th century, I argued that the dating Dr. Altıkulaç gives, places the manuscripts within the 7th century. To explain it like a child to you:

    First Century = 622 to 722 CE.
    Half of First Century = 622 + 50 = 672 CE.

    Does the Second Half of the First Century Fall Within the 7th Century? 672 – 699 CE, yes, it does for 28 years, which Jay denied and therefore this is why both he and you are wrong.

  • Pingback: Muslim Studies on Qur'anic Manuscripts | ICRAA

  • Salaam Ijaz. Not sure where else to put this lol.

    Do you reckon we could do a link exchange?

    My website is ponderingislam.com.

    Either way I’ll be linking to your website. Keep it up!

  • wa ‘alaykumus salaam bro, what’s a link exchange? You mean trade domain names?

    Thanks for your kind words, I’ve just viewed your site, do you mind if I share some of your articles on my site?

  • I just mean link to my site on yours (just like how you linked to Islamic-Awareness, Bismika Allahuma, etc in the header) and I link your site from mine.

    Yes please go ahead and share the articles if you like them.

  • Pingback: T&T Debates: Introducing Ijaz Ahmad « Evangelium & Apologia Ministries