Search
In this 15 minute video, I respond to some common missionary claims made about the presevation of the Qur’an. More specifically, I respond to comments made by Dr. Daniel Wallace.
and Allah knows best.
In this in-depth video, myself and Br. Abu Ayoub examine the claim that Qur’an in Surah 18:83-86 literally says the sun is “setting in a spring of muddy water.” We walk through the phenomenological statements the Bible also uses in respect to the sun rising and setting, usually known as semitisms which is a form of language behaviour or syntax in the Semitic languages. In the end, we see that the Arabic and Hebrew languages use many language devices that are not meant to be interpreted hyper-literally and which use hyperbole to express some geographical boundary.
and God knows best.
Br. Sarwar of Hyde Park has released one of the most entertaining videos of the year, Br. Mansoor running laps around McLatchie in discussing monotheism in the Bible and the Qur’an. McLatchie’s main line of argumentation was, “…in my debate with Dr. Shabir”. The brothers at Hyde Park were unsure whether McLatchie thought all brown people were the same (given his previous comments about Muslims) and Br. Mansoor had to clarify that he indeed was not Dr. Shabir, several times! Surprise guests include my friends Br. Hamid and Br. Paul of Blogging Theology.
The ending of the video is quite a pleasant one, Jonny becomes increasingly frustrated and angry with being asked to explain his reasoning and beliefs. After seemingly being unable to joust with Br. Mansoor, Jonny decided to storm off mid-discussion. Hilariously enough, after several days, Jonny messaged one of the Muslims in the above video saying he enjoyed the “banter”. He enjoyed it so much, he had to storm off. The Muslims at Hyde Park would like to thank Jonny for coming down and helping them in their da’wah efforts.
and Allah knows best.
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire …
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval
And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise. (22: 52)
He certainly saw of the greatest signs of his Lord. (53:18) So have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza? (53:19) And Manat, the third – the other one? (53:20)
“Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani – Muhammad b. Ka’b al-Qurazi: When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire …and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval.
When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their Prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example….The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had heard, saying, ‘Muhammad has mentioned our gods in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high-flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval.’
…Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, ‘Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you.’ Then the Messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consoling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who desired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad’s tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed:
Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. Then God established his verses. God is knower, wise.
Thus God removed the sorrow from his Messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue … Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists …”
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe (Quran 45:6)
Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us (Source: Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, 1997, Volume I, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 13.)
Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. (Quran 4:48)
Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray. (Quran 4:116)
And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should associate [anything] with Allah , your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers.” (Quran 39:65)
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. (Quran 15:9)
Indeed, those who disbelieve in the message after it has come to them… And indeed, it is a mighty Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy. (Quran 41:41-42)
So I swear by what you see (69:38) So I swear by what you see (69:39) [That] indeed, the Qur’an is the word of a noble Messenger. (69:40) And it is not the word of a poet; little do you believe. (69:41) Nor the word of a soothsayer; little do you remember. (69:42) [It is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. (69:43) And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, (69:44) We would have seized him by the right hand; (69:45) Then We would have cut from him the aorta. (69:46) And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him. (69:47)
And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to [make] you invent about Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a friend. (17:73) And if We had not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little. (17:74) Then [if you had], We would have made you taste double [punishment in] life and double [after] death. Then you would not find for yourself against Us a helper. (17: 75)
Your friend (Muhammad) was not astray, nor was he deceived. (53:2) Nor was he speaking out of a personal desire.(53:3) It was divine inspiration (53:4)
He certainly saw of the greatest signs of his Lord. (53:18) So have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza? (53:19) And Manat, the third – the other one? (53:20) Is the male for you and for Him the female? (53:21) That, then, is an unjust division. (53:22) They are not but [mere] names you have named them – you and your forefathers – for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. (53:23) Or is there for man whatever he wishes? (53:24) Rather, to Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life]. (53:25) And how many angels there are in the heavens whose intercession will not avail at all except [only] after Allah has permitted [it] to whom He wills and approves. (53:26) Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter name the angels female names, (53:27) And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. (53:28)
And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise. (22:52) [That is] so He may make what Satan throws in a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension. (22:53) And so those who were given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it, and their hearts humbly submit to it. And indeed is Allah the Guide of those who have believed to a straight path. (22:54)
Conclusion:
and God knows best.
General Information:
The collection at Birmingham University is known as the Mingana Arabic 1572 collection. It consists of 9 manuscripts (leaves, pages, folios). Earlier today, Birmingham University re-classified the dating of 2 of the manuscripts from the collection. The collection was then split into two classifications: Mingana Arabic 1572a and Mingana Arabic 1572b.
The collection that was carbon dated to between 568 CE and 645 CE with a 95% probability is Mingana Arabic 1572a. This collection can be understood as follows:
The manuscripts are readable and its writing is easy to identify, Ilm Feed has produced a wonderful comparison:
Another person has superimposed the modern text of the Qur’an over the text of one of the manuscripts, the accuracy is incredible:
Click to Enlarge
Question and Answer:
Does this make it the earliest known Qur’anic manuscript(s)?
Yes, it does. The earliest manuscript before this was the C1 text of the Sana’aa Palimpsest (DAM 01 – 27), which dated to before 671 CE with a probability of 99%, before 661 CE with a probability of 95.5% and a before 646 CE with a probability of 75%. See Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, “Sana’aa and the Origins of the Qur’an”, Der Islam (2012), Vol. 87, p. 8.
Do these manuscripts contain vowels?
Yes, there are several dots and verse endings, otherwise known as “diacritical marks”. These however, may not have been written by the original “author” (scribe) and could have been added by a later one seeking to update the text or to make it readable.
What style of Arabic Script is it written in?
It’s written in Hijazi script, which is one of the oldest Arabic scripts known. It’s referred to as Hijazi because it was developed or most prominently used in the Western Arabian Peninsula’s region of the Hijaz (alt: Hejaz), which includes the cities of Makkah and Madina.
Do we know who wrote it?
In regard to the identity of the author or the scribe, or the amanuensis, we may never know their identity. It is equally probable that it was written by a Companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) during or after the Prophet’s lifetime (ﷺ), or by a student of a Companion.
Why split the collection into two different collections?
This is to help palaeographers and textual critics differentiate between the manuscripts they are studying and it is purely done for academic purposes. The other 7 manuscripts, remain dated to within the 1st century of the Hijrah (622 to 722 CE).
What parts of the Qur’an do these manuscripts contain?
Manuscript 1 (Recto/ Front) contains: Qur’an 19:91 – 20:13.
Manuscript 1 (Verso/ Back) contains: Qur’an 20:13 – 20:40.
Manuscript 7 (Recto/ Front) contains: Qur’an 18:17 – 18:23.
Manuscript 7 (Verso/ Back) contains: Qur’an 18:23 – 18:31.
I’ll update this post according to the questions received. If you’d like a question answered, send us a message or post it in the comments section.
and Allah knows best.
According to a just published BBC News article, a recent re-dating of manuscripts of the Mingana collection at the University of Birmingham (UK), has led to another re-dating that places the manuscripts to between 568 CE and 645 CE with a 95% probability:
Radiocarbon dating found the manuscript to be at least 1,370 years old, making it among the earliest in existence.
The tests, carried out by the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, showed that the fragments, written on sheep or goat skin, were among the very oldest surviving texts of the Koran.
These tests provide a range of dates, showing that, with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.“They could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam,” said David Thomas, the university’s professor of Christianity and Islam.
“According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Koran, the scripture of Islam, between the years 610 and 632, the year of his death.”
Prof Thomas says the dating of the Birmingham folios would mean it was quite possible that the person who had written them would have been alive at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
“The person who actually wrote it could well have known the Prophet Muhammad. He would have seen him probably, he would maybe have heard him preach. He may have known him personally – and that really is quite a thought to conjure with,” he says.
The collection consists of 9 folios, they are written in Hijazi script and have been carbon and palaeographically dated.
The collection has been split in two collections, now known as Mingana Arabic 1572a and Mingana Arabic 1572b. The collection that this article is about, is Mingana Arabic 1572a. The University has just updated the collection’s codifiction (classification). The “oldest” manuscripts, are 2 leaves (folios, pages) of the original 9 leaf (folio, page) collection. They have been both carbon and palaeographically dated.
The collection was re-dated several months ago to 1st century Hijri, and this is the second re-dating within a year, confirming it’s early dating.
Mingana Collection at Birmingham Uni. – Folio 1
More Information:
I’d like to thank Br. Kaleef from Discover the Truth for bringing the BBC article to my attention, may Allah reward him accordingly, Ameen.
Article in Arabic (Br. Ahmed Shaker):
من جديد أخبار المخطوطات القرآنية المبكرة:
أوراق قرآنية مكتوبة بالخط الحجازي من مجموعة ألفونس منجانا بجامعة برمنجهام تم إخضاعها لفحص الكربوني المشع (C14) في أحد معامل جامعة أوكسفورد فكانت النتيجة أنه من المرجح بنسبة 95% أن تكون هذه الأوراق قد نشأت في الفترة ما بين 568م و645م = 56 قبل الهجرة إلى 24 هجرية.
تعليقات (ديفيد توماس) أستاذ المسيحية والإسلام في جامعة برمنجهام:
هذه الأجزاء من القران التي كتبت على هذه الرقائق، يمكن، وبدرجة من الثقة، إعادة تاريخها إلى أقل من عقدين بعد وفاة النبي محمد. إن الشخص الذي كتب هذه الصفحات لابد أنه عرف النبي محمد، وربما رآه واستمع إلى حديثه، وربما كان مقربا منه، وهذا ما يستحضره هذا المخطوط.
إن هذه الصفحات قريبة جدا من القرآن الذي نقرأه اليوم، وهو ما يدعم فكرة أن القرآن لم يعرف إلا تغييرا طفيفا، أو أنه لم يطرأ عليه أي تغيير، ويمكن اعادة تاريخها الى لحظة زمنية قريبة جدا من الزمن الذي يعتقد بنزوله فيه.
and Allah knows best.
You won’t find mention of him in any Orientalist University or Orientalist published worked, but among the scholars of the Qur’an, he is perhaps one of the greatest to have ever lived. Today, he has passed away and with him, a wealth of knowledge which has been disseminated to thousands of Muslims globally. Shaykh Luhafi was one of the greatest scholars of the Qur’an, having specialized in the 10 Qira’at:
Shaykh Shukrī read the Ten Qira’āt in the way of Shātibiyya and Durra with Shaykh Yūsuf Abū Dayl, may Allah be pleased with him, and received the ijāza from Shaykh Abū al-Hasan al-Kurdī (d. 2009), may Allah be pleased with him. He also received the ijāza of the Ten Qira’at in the way of Shātibiyya and Durra from Shaykh Kurayyim Rājih, may Allah preserve him. He memorized the entire Qur’ān with Shaykh ‘Izz al-Dīn al-’Irqsūsī, may Allah be pleased with him, and was given the ijāza of the riwāya of Hafs from ‘Āsim.
In 1966 CE (1385 H) he began preparing his book titled Tu fat al-‘Asr fī ‘Ilm al-Qira’āt al-Mutawātirat al-Ashr. In the book he mentioned the ten Qurrā’ and their respective narrators and the variations in the recitations.
The Qur’an says:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.
By Allah, Shaykh al Luhafi was one of the means through which the Qur’an was preserved. Yet, we will not see a single mention of his work, his teaching or his scholastic capabilities by any Orientalist school or publication, only those familiar with the great scholars of Islam in Damascus would know of and take knowledge from this man. We can read Deroche, but Deroche does not compare and cannot be compared to the giant that is Shakh Luhafi.
At this time of mourning we say:
إِنَّا لِلَّـهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ
To read more about Shaykh Luhafi and his life, see this link.
and Allah knows best.
Last week we took a cursory look at the known scribes of the Qur’an, in comparison with the known scribes of the New Testament. This week, we’re going to venture a little deeper into understanding why the identity of the authors and scribes (amanuenses and copyists) is of concern to the modern reader. Unlike the Qur’an, the veracity of the New Testament is based on the claim that it is from eyewitnesses:
For almost seventeen hundred years, Christians regarded the four canonical Gospels as being, among other things, records of what actually happened. Divine inspiration seemed to guarantee historical veracity, as did the belief that the purported authors of those Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were either eyewitnesses or friends of eyewitnesses.[1]
It is therefore touted as a historical work, based on the witness of contemporaneous sources. However, both early sources and later sources agreed throughout Church history that the New Testament was ahistorical in many cases and as one Church Father would put it, based on “material falsehood”:
Even more clear-eyed was Origen, who in the third century anticipated modern criticism by candidly observing that at “many points” the four Gospels “do not agree.” He inferred that their truth cannot reside in “the material letter:” The Evangelists “sometimes altered things which, from the eye of history, occurred otherwise.” They could “speak of something thing that happened in one place as if it had happened in another, or of what happened at a certain time as if it had happened at another time,” and they introduced “into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own.” “The spiritual truth was often preserved, one might say, in the material falsehood.”[2]
The issue of scribes altering original works is not alien to the New Testament itself. A warning in Revelation 22, the last book of the Bible was placed there to very specifically warn scribes from altering the work, the author(s) of this work then, at the very least were aware of the fate that had befallen other Christian works of that time and prayed that this would not happen to their own:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”[3]
For those who argue that this book was written early, this quote demonstrates that at the time it was written scribes were altering works at such a scale of worry that the author(s) had to invoke a curse and warn them from altering their own work! Commenting on this passage, Phillip Comfort states:
“Since writers in antiquity were well aware that their books could be changed by scribes in successive copies, they made these warnings. Undoubtedly, they knew that there would be unintentional mistakes, which come through the course of making manuscripts. What they were hoping to protect against was intentional alteration of the writing.”[4]
What kind of intentional changes do we find in the New Testament manuscript tradition?
“Those who study the text and the history of its transmission realize that most of the substantive changes were made in the interest of “improving” the text. Various scribes were motivated to make changes in the text for the sake of harmonizing Gospel accounts, eliminating difficult doctrinal statements, and/or adding accounts from oral tradition.”[5]
“Whereas readers do this gap-filling in their imaginations only, scribes sometimes took the liberty to fill the unwritten gaps with written words. In other words, some scribes went beyond just imagining how the gaps should be filled and actually filled them. The historical evidence shows that each scribe who made a text created a new written text. Although there are many factors that could have contributed to the making of this new text, one major factor is that the text constantly demands the reader to fill in the gaps. During the reading process, the reader must concretize the gaps by using his or her imagination to give substance to textual omission and/or indefiniteness. Since this substantiation is a subjective and creative act, the concretization will assume many variations for different readers.”[6]
“Metzger considered the early Western text to be the work of a reviser “who was obviously a meticulous and well-informed scholar, [who] eliminated seams and gaps and added historical, biographical, and geographical details. Apparently the reviser did his work at an early date, before the text of Acts had come to be generally regarded as a sacred text that must be preserved inviolate.”[7]
“More often than not, the editors of the UBS/NA text considered the Alexandrian text, as the shorter text, to have preserved the original wording in Acts. My view is that in nearly every instance where the D-text stands alone (against other witnesses—especially the Alexandrian), it is a case of the Western scribe functioning as a reviser who enhanced the text with redactional fillers. This reviser must have been a well-informed scholar, who had a penchant for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details (as noted by Metzger). More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details. Furthermore, he shaped the text to favor the Gentiles over the Jews, to promote Paul’s apostolic mission, and to heighten the activity of the Holy Spirit in the work of the apostles.”[8]
In Uloom al Hadeeth or the Science of Hadeeth, criticism of a transmitter is necessary for validating or verifying the information they are transmitting. This type of criticism is known as Rijal al Hadeeth, in which the character of the transmitter is examined. One might wonder, how detailed is this science in Islam? The following text should clarify the extent to which our methodology goes in order to validate information on a transmitter:
“A man bore witness in the presence of `Umar ibn al-Khattaab -radiyallaahu `anhu, so `Umar said to him: “I do not know you, and it does not harm you that I do not know you, but bring someone who does know you.”
So a man said: ‘I know him, O Chief of the Believers.’
He said: “What do you know of him.”He said: ‘Uprightness.’
He said: “Is he your closest neighbour; so that you know about his night and his day, and his comings and goings?”He said: ‘No.’
He said: “So have you had (monetary) dealings with him involving dirhams and deenars, which will indicate his piety?”
He said: ‘No.’
He said: “Then has he been your companion upon a journey which could indicate to you his good character?”
He said: ‘No.’
He said: “Then you do not know him.”
Then he said to the man: “Bring me someone who knows you.”[9]
Such a detailed criticism of any transmitter (whether orally or textually) in early Christianity has never been done, nor had such a science been developed in the Christian tradition. Rather, the most critical methodology of verifying information in the Christian tradition has been one of assumption. Rather than critically examining the characters of scribes, and transmitters, it is assumed that the earliest witnesses would have corrected misinformation from being shared:
“The primary reason is that the writers (or their immediate successors) were alive at the time and therefore could challenge any significant, unauthorized alterations. As long as eyewitnesses such as John or Peter were alive, who would dare change any of the Gospel accounts in any significant manner? Any one among the Twelve could have testified against any falsification.”[10]
We’ve already seen just how unreliable the early scribes were, and now that we know that there was no methodology to verify early transmitting of information, how can we be certain that if we assume the disciples were around, that they would be able to correct and thus stop misinformation from spreading? We cannot be certain of this, in fact, this assumption is erroneous given that the very Gospels themselves which are alleged to have been written during the time of the 12 disciples can’t even get the origin of Jesus meeting some of his most important disciples correct! In the origin story of the disciple Phillip, Jesus meets Philip in the city of Bethsaida. This is anachronistic, as Bethsaida only became a city after the ministry of Jesus ended. Therefore when Jesus met Philip in Bethsaida, it was considered a village. The Gospel of Mark in 8:23 correctly identifies it as a village (Greek: kome), but John in 1:44 refers to it as a city (Greek: polis). Considering that three disciples, Philip, Andrew and Peter were from Bethsaida, then how is it possible that all three of them let such a minor detail in one of the twelve’s origin stories be incorrect?
So that’s a minor detail, what about the origin stories for both Peter and Andrew?
In Matthew 4:18, Jesus meets Peter and Andrew on the seashore while fishing with nets. At that time the poorer fishermen did not have boats and so they would cast nets from the shoreline and catch whatever they could have. Just three verses later in 21 – 22, Jesus meets James and John with their father, who unlike Peter and Andrew, have a boat and are mending their nets. So Jesus in 5 verses, meets four of his most prominent disciples. In Mark 1:16 – 20, he tells us the same story in Matthew, but with a big difference, the third man in the boat when Jesus meets James and John for the first time is a hired servant and not their father, thus showing their wealth in comparison with Peter and Andrew. He makes the distinction between their places in society more noticeable.
In Luke though, it’s a different story. Jesus when he first comes to Capernaum, goes to Peter’s house and cures his mother in law (Luke 4:38). Then later, he stumbles across Peter on the shore of the lake, but they have a boat and he finds Peter mending a net, not using it to fish, a different story from Matthew. Jesus then proceeds to embark on Peter’s boat, perform a miracle in the lake and it is then that James and John notices the miracle and joins Peter. Again, this contradicts both Matthew and Mark’s story in which Peter, Andrew and Jesus while walking on the shoreline, spots James and John, then they leave their boat and follow Jesus on the shore. Have you noticed Luke never mentions Andrew? That’s a problem because in John’s account, Andrew met Jesus when Jesus was at the River Jordan with John the Baptist. Then Andrew finds Peter and takes him to meet Jesus (John 1:39-42). Then they go to Galilee in the region of Bethsaida. No mention of meeting on a boat, by a boat, because of a boat, or because of fishing, a completely different narrative. Definitely no mention of either James or John, the sons of Zebedee.
All four Gospels, have contradictions, errors and in some cases, a completely different narrative regarding the origin of Jesus meeting four of his twelve disciples. As we read earlier, according to Christian scholarship, if the disciples were alive they would have corrected any falsification, as we have just seen, either the disciples were complicit in falsifying information or the Gospel stories as we currently possess them were not verified by the disciples themselves. In fact, the reason that we cannot critically assess the character of any of the early transmitters in Christianity, or its disciples is because we know so little about them. Take for example, the rock on which Jesus is alleged to have built his Church, the disciple Peter, the most important disciple. What do we know about Peter?
“It is one of the inscrutable ironies of Christianity’s humble beginnings that we know so little about Jesus of Nazareth’s leading disciple— the one identified in the Gospel of Matthew as the “rock” on whom Jesus would build his church, listed in later Christian tradition as Rome’s first bishop, and one of its two apostolic martyrs at the hands of Emperor Nero. But who was this man, and what happened to him? Any conventional quest for a “historical Peter” runs into the ground rather swiftly.”[11]
“Yet they remain remarkably vague or silent about many of the things we would like to know about this apostle’s origin, character, missionary career, and death. Why would these sources show such a lack of interest in the fate of such a prominent apostle? This can only leave the modern reader frustrated and mystified. The historical Peter himself left virtually nothing in writing, and even less of archaeological interest— whether in his native Galilee, in Jerusalem or Caesarea, in Antioch or Corinth.”[12]
“Among the numerous extant writings in his name, there are of course two short and remarkably different letters of uncertain date and origin in the NT. Beyond that, we have a bewildering range of apocryphal sources, styled as written by or about him, dating from the second through (at least) the sixth century. The authenticity of these documents remains contested among scholars of diverse critical presuppositions. On perusing the scholarly secondary literature, it seems hard to dispel the impression that the vast majority of leading specialists on both sides of the Atlantic now regard neither of the NT’s two Petrine letters as coming from Peter’s own pen.”[13]
It is amazing that Christians would like to tell us what the disciples believed about Jesus, but the reality is that they themselves do not know much, if anything about Peter. Moreso, not only do they know nothing about Peter, they have very little to tell us about the origins, or ends of any of the disciples. Therefore, when Christians claim that the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony and that the New Testament is historically accurate, on what basis are they making these claims? The early Church had no methodology for verifying and validating information made about Jesus, the one theory Christian scholarship offered about the disciples correcting information did not stand up to scrutiny, historically we know nothing about the earliest witnesses, therefore by every criteria they claim to stand on, the New Testament fails every one of them.
In contrast to the disaster that is the Christian transmission of information, the sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth and Uloom al Qur’an, are far more detailed and critical of transmitters. More critical, than any methodology ever offered by the Christian tradition. It is often claimed that our hadeeth corpus is on par with the New Testament’s authenticity, but as demonstrated last week, this cannot be the case. Pursuant to this, if one of the sub-sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth, Rijal al Hadeeth, is more demanding and critical than any methodology ever used in Christian scholastic history to validate or verify the New Testament, then it stands to reason that our weakest narrations from the hadeeth corpus are more authentic, valid and historically viable than the entire New Testament.
and Allah knows best.
Sources:
A quick comparison on the identities of the scribes of the Qur’an and the scribe(s) of the New Testament. Quite the disparity!
Click to Enlarge
The list of names of the Qur’anic scribes was transcribed from Shaykh Muhammad Mustafa al Azami’s work on the Qur’an’s preservation[1]. To understand why the New Testament has unknown scribes, it should be noted that Irenaeus in 185 CE, was the first to name the authors of the New Testament gospels[2][3]. Prior to this, no name was attached to them and none of their authors were known. Moreover, since none of their authors were known, we know of none of their scribes. Comparisons are usually made between the hadith corpus and that of the New Testament. However, this is the fallacy of false equivalency, as the conditions for establishing a narration as da’eef, or weak is not met by the New Testament literature:
The Riwaayah of an unknown person is not acceptable because if his name is not known then his Haal (condition) cannot be defined (as to whether he is reliable or not). The Saheeh (correct) verdict is that a Mubham (unknown) Raawi cannot be declared as Aadil (reliable).[4]
On this basis, at the very least, the New Testament does not compare to a single weakly graded tradition from the hadith corpus.
Note: Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan (d. 640 CE), is not to be confused with Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah (d. 683 CE), they are two different persons.
and Allah knows best.
Sources:
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.