Adnan Rashid and James White debate the textual transmission of the Quran. Adnan argues that the Quran, unlike the Bible, was transmitted directly from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) very reliably by his disciples. Adnan’s view is that every single word of the Quran can be traced back to the Prophet Muhammad. James on the other hand contends that the Quran’s textual transmission is not as magnificent as the Muslims claim. He uses a number of sources to make his point.
© Transcript (Experimental)
Disclaimer: Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We rely on volunters to edit. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
hamdulillah salat wa salam ala rasulillah.
Nicaragua in Allahu Allah half Elune. Their friends Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, thank you very much for attending the second debate of the day. I just recited a verse from the Quran Chapter 15 verse nine. God Almighty tells us in the Quran that we have revealed the Scripture, the remembrance,
and we will guard it against corruption. We will guard it against corruption. This was a promise made in the Quran, by God Almighty, to a people who were absolutely unlettered, there was no Arabic script at the time, or no standardized script at the time when the Quran was revealed. In fact, the Quran was the source of the Arabic script, which was later on later on, developed by the companions of Prophet Muhammad in order to pin down the Quran. So what is the Quran? I would like to define the Quran before I begin,
just like I tried to define the New Testament, what is the New Testament? Who wrote it? What constitutes the New Testament? Now likewise, I would like to define what constitutes the Quran. And this quote is taken from one of the classical authorities we have a balcony.
He stated, The Quran is the Arabic speech of Allah, which he revealed to Muhammad in wording and meaning and which has been preserved in the must haves and has reached us by meltwater transmission, continues transmission, uninterrupted transmission, and is a challenge to mankind to produce something similar to it. This is the Quran. So in other words, the Quran is the word of God, delivered by Muhammad sallallahu alayhi, salam to his companions,
who then deliver it to their companions. And this text of the Quran and his recitation reaches us via a continuous reporting. To this day.
We have people alive
to this day, who can trace back they chained directly to the Prophet. So if someone memorize the Quran, and are they re memorizing the Quran here, put your hand up, Allahu Akbar, how many, I have about six seven here in this audience.
These people when they memorize the Quran, they take this authority from the teacher who taught them how to recite the Quran not only to read it, how to recite it. And then that teacher took this authority from his teacher, and the chain goes back to the Prophet uninterrupted, no people missing from the chain, not even one individual. And every single individual is known by name by tribe, by character by age, and by color and tribe. Every single individual is known.
Unlike what we saw, in the case of the New Testament, we don't actually know who the author were, there are speculations about them. That's not the case with the Quran. So I'm applying the same criteria here.
We know who are the people who transmitted the Quran, from the Prophet. So this is what the Quran is. So anything other than this, transmitted by the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him is not the Quran. One may come along and say, I have this revelation, I have this verse and that verse, and this is the Quran, we will scrutinize that particular verse in the light of this definition. So the Quran we have today, which you read today comes directly from oath man,
the son in law of the Prophet, one of the earliest Muslims, who took the entire Quran in person from the Prophet himself, and serve. This is the authority of the Quran, and our book, unlike the New Testament, we don't have such transmission and such authority from the New Testament we don't know when the road where the road and why they wrote and who they gave the books to. The Quran is a different story altogether, we have changed going back directly to a man in manuscript and in oral transmission. And then with man, narrate from his teacher, the prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. So anything other than the moniker ascension, which was conducted by a committee
of scholars and companions of Prophet Mohammed, all of these people who were part of this committee, they were direct companions of Prophet Muhammad and we know exactly who they are. We know the names of the character, what they did and how they lived.
We know who they are.
And they collectively unanimously standardized the text of the Quran which we read today. And this standardization comes from the Prophet himself, even even the order of the sutras and the verses, the verses and chapters comes from directly the Prophet peace be upon him. So, how did the revelation of the Quran begin? Prophet Mohammed as we know the story was in the cave of Hara, contemplating
about the reality of his life and as to why he was created, and then the angel, Angel jabril appears to him and tells him read in the name of your Lord, read, the one who created you from a clot read in the name of the one who taught you the use of pen read in the name of the one who taught you how to speak.
And these verses were given to him he was in a straight straight of trauma and shock. He didn't understand what this means he runs to his wife, he asks her to cover him. And then she takes him to a man of scripture in the city of Mecca when he hears the story. What a Kirby novel or not a man close to his death. He tells Mohammed haga Namu, Salah Xena, Allahu Allah mudra This is the same angel who came to Moses, same angel who came to you came to Moses, same Angel.
And when Gabriel Angel Gabriel told Mohammed to recite for tourists to read, to proclaim, the Arabic term is ekra read and he said, My enemies are in I cannot read, I am not learned and the book of Isaiah chapter 29, verse 12, actually prophesizes this, it is clearly stated there in when the book is given to the one who is not learned. And it is said to him read, I pray, they even say I am not learned. I am not learning. This is exactly what happened in the cave of Hara.
And the book, The revelation started coming down, it came down. And teachings were being brought to the prophet of Islam and he was teaching them his companions, who would then penned this revelation down in the city of Makkah, these revelations were written down. Omar bin kata was on his way to kill the Prophet, one of the companions of the Prophet later on, who embraced Islam. This man was about to kill the Prophet. He was told to go to his sister's house who's a Muslim, and he went there in the city of Mecca in the f5 nabawi. When the Prophet had already been preaching for five years, he goes to his sister's house, and he finds her reading apartment of the Quran. It was written in
Okay, then we have other narrations, and they can be found in this book, the Quranic text written by me, and it is one of the most authoritative sources I would refer you to read in order to understand how the Quran was transmitted.
Then, the prophet moves on to Medina. And I don't want to go into the history of Islam, why he moved to Medina. That's not relevant to the debate here. How was the revelation penned down? How was it put down? This is the question which I wish to address. Firstly, the revelation when it started coming on the Prophet peace be upon him. You brought you came with one mode. One dialect, the Qureshi dialect brought the Quran in Arabic language. Then the Prophet told him that my people are illiterate. The Arabs are a very rigid people, they will not they will not recite the dialect of the Quran. They won't accept it, because they have tribalistic
antagonism among them and they will find it difficult to recite in the dialect of the courage and how many tribes are there in Arabia at the time major tribes Quraysh, CODEL Taki Havas in Canada, and Germany tribes. All of these tribes had different expressions and different modes of speaking in Arabic language just spoke the same language, just like the Americans and the Irish and the Scottish speak the same language but it sounds different. There are certain words different to the other accents. So this is exactly what was the case in Arabia at the time. So when gibril came with one mode, one dialect, the prophet of Islam, totally my people won't be able to recite this in one
dialect, they will reject it because the Qureshi dialect and then Jabra will give two dialects, two modes, that even this is not enough. Eventually Jabra il came with seven dialects. And he allowed in fact, he revealed the Quran in these seven different modes, the Prophet and the Prophet taught his companions in these seven different modes, and they were reciting the Quran in these seven different modes. So one of the incidents narrated by Imam Buhari and book 61 Hadith number 514. This incidents states that Oman Qatar he saw a man called a sham and hakima Muslim reciting the Quran the same chapter which was taught to him by the prophet in a different manner. So he he took him he
held him. And he took him to the prophet and he said, You're a pseudo prophet of God, he's reciting the surah Furqan chapter four Khan differently than you the way you have taught me. And the Prophet asked him to recite, and he decided, he said, I have taught him the way he's reciting. And then he told them that the Quran has come down in seven different modes, for you, the Arabs to have easy access to the book of Allah so that you can easily recite it in your own dialect, in your own tradition. So this flexibility was allowed by God to recite the Quran in seven different modes. And this is how the Quran was being penned down by the scribes of the Prophet and respected, respective
areas. So who were the scribes of the Prophet? Who were these people who were writing the revelation from the Messenger of Allah?
Who were these people? We know every single of these people who wrote the Quran directly from the Prophet, well, he would receive a revelation. Do we have anything like this from the New Testament? None, never doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. We don't even know who the authors were. Here we have a revelation coming down to the prophet and he himself dictating to his companions as to what should be written as the word of Allah and he in fact forbade them to write anything other than the Quran. He told them do not write my words, write only the Quran, write only the Quran less you may mix the Quran with my words, and who were the scribes of the prophet in Medina, scholars mentioned 60
different names and some of them are abortive Abu sufian Abu salah
and Abu Bakr Ansari, Abu Bakar, acidic Abbas will even come or come across a bit how they're all barreda Bishop fabyan place Java we thought javabean Amitabha gambin sod you him ha tipo de la Hussain hunza la Hawaii to Khalid bin Saif Ali had been bullied as Roberto bourbon, Alonzo, bourbon Arkham. And the list goes on.
On page 68, of this book, the Quranic text by Muhammad Mustafa, you will find all some of the names of the scribes of the prophet who were writing this directly from the Prophet himself. And all of this was collected within the life of the prophet in written form. So what happened when the Prophet peace be upon him,
passed away? What happened? Abu Bakar, the first cave of Islam comes to power. The first cave of Islam comes to power. And
he was told by Omar that now we should put the Quran in one Codex in one collection, because the revelation has ceased to come. It doesn't come anymore. The Prophet is past his dead, he has passed away. And now we should put the Quran in one Codex aboubaker said I shouldn't do it because the Prophet didn't do it or more convinced him that we have to click the Quran because the revelation has ceased to come down. So, Raven Sabbath, one of the young companions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was chosen for this task, because he himself personally revised the Quran in its entirety with the prophet in his final year, so he was the best person for the task. Some verses are
abrogated, whichever which are not to be included. Others were to be included, but they were still abrogated. So the decision was made by the people who were directly learning from the prophet and Saul Prophet taught them as to what the Quran is, and what is to go in, and what is to go out some words who abrogated and they were left out. So this concept of abrogation exists in the Bible is there and I doubted that
Dr. James White will ever bring this up as an argument, the issue of abrogation. So, the Quran was taught by the prophet to his companions, they penned it down. And then in the time of a worker, they've been SABIC was told by abubaker that do not accept anything from anyone when they bring the Quran to you. Now say there's a man who has memorized the Quran is in entirety, he knows it by heart. Abubakar knows it by heart, Omar knows it by heart, how do you know that by heart, and this incident happened only because a battle took place a battle of the battle, a battle called the Battle of yamamah. And in this battle, almost 70 of the recitals of the Quran passed away that died
fighting a false prophet.
And they passed away. So Omar came to Abu Bakar and he told him that we should put the Quran in one Codex, lest we may lose some of the Quran because of so many people dying. So many researchers died. Now what did he mean by that? He didn't mean that we we may lose the contents of the Quran written down because the Quran was already written down is in its entirety. He was talking about talking about oral transmission or authority taken from the Prophet as to how to recite the text, not the written text. The written text was there in its entirety. He was talking about losing authorities. 70 men died in this battle, who took the Quran directly from the Prophet as to how to recite it. So
we will lose this authority, put the Quran down and increase the number of these authorities.
so that people can read the Quran and the Quran now was penned down. And who were these people? Now James White has been claiming in some of his talks and presentations, that this was a big problem. 70 people died the Quran was lost, okay, but we have clear cut references in our histories that there were people alive even after this battle, who knew the Quran in its entirety by heart. For example, people like Abu Dhabi, boca de Cabo de bourree, Abu Musashi, Abu huraira, obey bin Cobb onsala mata Mima dari, who therefore have such a bizarre but Saleem, kind of a diva, so I've been obata. So I've been obaidul Akari. So start been Monday and the list goes on again. All these people
were alive after the Battle of your mama, and they had memorized the Quran is in its entirety. So the Quran was penned down in that way.
From the memories from written parchment from bones and, and the skin of trees and zigman slab is specifically commanded by abubaker, not to accept anything, not to accept anything other than a parchment which was written in the presence of the Prophet himself, accompanying two witnesses, Allahu Akbar, this is a man who had memorized the Quran himself. And he was telling a man who had all also memorized the Quran, himself in its entirety. But he's telling him for our conviction so that we today can be certain about as to what we find in the Codex, or in the text of the Quran. He said, don't accept anything from anyone, unless it accompanies two witnesses who saw this very
parchment, written in the presence of the Prophet of Islam. And that's how they'd been Sabbath protocol. But those different readings, I don't like to use the word variants, because what is a very intriguing what is the definition of variant variant is something which is uncontrolled, which was unintentional, or an intentional change. That is what a variant reading is. And that's what it constitutes. But something controlled deliberately put, deliberately disseminated cannot be regarded as variant because that's what it is, if I write the book, one book, and I give it to someone, and then I write another book with differently worded
sentences, then that cannot be regarded as varying because I am the one who is behind the book I have controlled, so the Quran came down in these seven dialects. And some of these dialects differ in wording. synonyms are used by different tribes to express certain words in different ways. And these synonyms were accommodated in the copy of aboubaker. But in the time of man, almost 10 years later, a battle was taking place in a place called Azerbaijan. And there some people were reciting the Quran different to each other. And now these are all new Muslim converts, converts to Islam. The Arabs knew exactly how to differentiate between one tribal dialect from another, they knew exactly
how to do but these new converts, this is a problem now they don't know how the dialects work. And they're all claiming the my reading is the perfect one. So he comes to us, man. So they've been here man from the battlefield, he comes straight to us, man. Interesting. Now is the time to standardize the text of the Quran to put it in one dialect, and the Prophet told Omar and his Sham when they went to him
talking about the dialect Prophet told him recite whichever is easy for you. It's in Bukhari, whichever one is easy for you recited, because the reason why God revealed the Quran is seven in seven different modes is to facilitate ease for you. So you can recite it easily. You don't have to stick to one tribal dialect. So now, this injunction was there from the Prophet, and who is with man, what authority does he have? Who is to Who is he to standardize the Quran without the prophetic injunction? In fact, we have a direct prophetic injunction and disregard. The Quran tells us
about the Messenger of Allah sallallahu sallam, how to be low pressure Tanga. rajim Bismillah R Rahman Rahim Amaya Antigua en el Hawa in LA you have Mohammed does not speak from himself. rather he speaks from Revelation. And he told us salatu salam aleikum wa Salatu was Salam ala la Rashi Alma de min buddy upon you is my way and the way of my successes and my rightly guided successes. And then another report it tells them my rightly godly, my rightly guided successes will govern for 30 years was mine is one of them. So of man had a direct authority from the prophet to do what he did. And he did it via consensus. He got all the companions together. And he said to them, this is a situation
we have, people are still reciting those dialects.
And now is the time with authorities who took the Quran directly from the Prophet. We know exactly what the Quran is and what dielectric came down and we can differentiate, we need to now standardize the text and put it in one dialect and he commanded occurred. He established a committee headed by azathoth it again the same man who abubaker chose earlier and he told them
Put the Quran in one dialect the Qureshi dialect, one dialect and if you differ with say because they It was not Qureshi, but he had memorized the Quran in the Qureshi dialect directly from the Prophet. He said if you differ with Zaid, he told the rest of the committee members who will Qureshi put it put it down in the Qureshi dialect. And this is exactly what was done. It was controlled, it was strictly controlled 100% control by the highest authorities possible in Islam, people who took the Quran directly from the Prophet, where is the comparison? Where is the comparison? That's the question, Where is the comparison between the Quran and the New Testament, the New Testament, the
oldest manuscripts are from when 200 years later, most of them, okay, and then we don't even know the authors and the canonicity debate. It wasn't even established to be the scripture or the Word of God. Up to the year 200. People still don't know what the New Testament is what it looks like. It did not exist. The New Testament up to the year 200, or even later did not exist.
It was canonized in its current form in the fourth century. And the earliest or the latest
testimony to this canonization we have is the letter of Athanasius. And James is aware of that. So now what about this? Now this parchment is from the time of man, James kept claiming that we have nothing from that time. We have 1000s Listen carefully. Ladies and gentlemen, we have 1000s of Quranic parchments, written similar to this one from the first century. I am a coin collector. I'm a news magician, as mentioned by my friend in the beginning, I have coins in my possession from the first century of Islam, hundreds of them with the Quran on them with the Quran on them. Entire chapters are there on the coins, small chapters, but they are there. And we have 1000s of parchment
some of them are found in Sunnah in German, and this is one of them. Now interesting thing about this one is that this has been dated carbon dated to somewhere between the mid first century up to the time of man with 99% precision 99% probability has been carbon dated, and paleo ographers people who study these manuscripts in the writing styles. They have also confirmed this, that this is a very, very early parchment. In fact, from the time of the companions the last companion was, in fact, and has been one of the companions of the Prophet who took directly from the Quran. He died in the year 94. He was a young man when this parchment was written companions in the 1000s of 1000s.
were alive when these parchments are written and we have hundreds and 1000s of them. Not hundreds and 1000s 100 1000s hundreds and 1000s of them. We have them and different libraries in the world. Now this one reads from Surah Baqarah chapter two verse 265. Is there a half is there very quickly I'm running out of time.
Any half is
Surah Baqarah come forward. Okay. Brother come over. Do you have a Muslim would you
come Come quickly come Can I borrow your life?
Can you recite Surah Baqarah from verse 265 onwards
Surah Baqarah 265 on do you have a most of the Quran okay.
Yeah, is there 265 if you read from 265 on this is a parchment from the time of man and it was written then
265 in Arabic
sorry, one second novel
365 Can you read the word so 265 on and please follow me. This is what I am really. This is what I'm going to be following and this is going to be there is not a difference of a word. There is not a difference of a word, let alone a sentence to 65
Okay, thank you.
Sorry about this. Can I quickly make this point and James can have some extra time.
I want to let him know shape on
He was beaten to see him. Gamma said you have better and better cameras and you have cameras and each one of watching also, you know
thing, the electrical superhighway.
This was a few sentences read from Surah Baqarah. From this parchment from the mid first century when a man himself was alive, there is not even a difference of a letter, let alone words in verses. There may be differences in other manuscripts. Thank you very much. I have to now finish. And I will continue in my rebuttal with the rest of my presentation. Thank you very much indeed.
All right, well, thank you very much. for that presentation, it is going to be interesting because I have the honor manuscripts in my presentation as well. And I'll be wondering if there's any loud talk beers at the end, when you discover that the actual original writings are different than what you have now, that'll be interesting to look at. Now, the key to this second debate is to apply the same standards here, that we should have been using and the examining of the New Testament was the transmission of the cut on a free transmission or a controlled transmission, I think we have already actually come to the conclusion on that we recognize that it is a controlled transmission. Now a
quote for you from medstar kotze. He says, Muslims and non Muslims both agree that no change has ever occurred in the text on the above prophecy for the eternal preservation impurity, the Quran came true not only for the text of the Quran, but also for the most minute details of its punctuation marks as well. It is a miracle of the Quran that no change has occurred in a single word, a single letter of the alphabet, a single punctuation mark, or a single diacritical mark in the text of the Quran during the last 14 centuries. That's the claim that I think a lot of Muslims here tonight believe. But at this point, there is truly no question. As scholarly sources, Islamic
and non Islamic both attest to the exact same story. And there's a massive difference between between what Islamic scholars say and what many Muslims believe on this particular matter. For example, in 2007, there is a publication of the Topkapi manuscript, I have a copy of this publication. And here you have one of the charts is produced, there are three pages of these charts showing the variant readings between major manuscripts of the Quran. This is an Islamic produce this is from, from Muslim scholars in Turkey, showing the variations in these moose Hoff in regards to the text, the Quran, I didn't produce this, they did. And there's three pages of them, you can look
at that for yourself. But I need to show these to you, I want to get to the real issue, which is the means of transmission, but the fact that there are textual variants has to be recognized. Because what you just did, I could put, I could put p 66. Up on the screen, maybe I'll do this in my rebuttal period, I could put p 66. Up on the screen and read to you in Greek, and it'll be exactly what's up there, too. That doesn't prove much. The question is, is what's in that manuscript, what was originally written by the author, that's the issue we need to be dealing with tonight. Not anything else. Okay. So let's try to keep the emotions to themselves like a Sarah three 158.
Here is a Veritas balancer 3158. Let's blow it up here. So you can you can see it, here's the text under consideration, which speaks of a loss surely gathering those who die to himself. Here is the same text from chronic manuscript 328, which is found in the National Library of France in Paris that is dated to around 100 years after Israel. But as reading Hejazi text is hard even for those who read modern Arabic. Let's expand the text out a little bit so you can see it. Now what you can see is that the Paris manuscript has an extra Olive not found the modern printed chronic text. But in this case, that extra Olive completely changes the meaning. In the ancient text, it says those
who die will not be gathered to Allah while the modern 1924 printed text, which I would imagine most Muslims in the audience have says that they will surely be gathered to Allah. Now, please make sure you understand why I point this out. I'm not saying we can't figure out the original wording, but I am pointing out how important it is to have a full unedited, widely dispersed manuscript tradition with which to make such determinations. That is very, very important. Likewise, surah two, you were just looking at surah, two 265 All right, sir, to 222. Let's look at it in the foggs palimpsest manuscript and also bring in on this Ana manuscripts as well. Surah two 222 provides another example
this time based upon foggs palimpsest manuscript a palimpsest is a manuscript where the original writing has been washed off and another version are completely different.
Work written on the washed leather. Using ultraviolet light we can often read the original writing. When we read the original text in the fog manuscript of surah. Two, which I have here on the top and compare the current edition, we see not just variation, we see wholesale editing, words are changed, the word order is changed, verbal forms are altered, grammatical terminations are changed, etc. This is clear evidence of the continued attempt at least a century after month of reading the Quran of the readings of Eben Massoud. But even more vital is the fact that a palimpsest portion of the serrana manuscripts which have been radiocarbon dated, as non was pointing out to have a better than
50% chance of being present with Monique and date contain a third reading of this text, which is different from both the foggs and the earth monic readings. Now, this is evidence of text types, just as we will see both bakary and Al Kindi record for us as we look through their texts. So here we have evidence in the palom says of preceding text types, even before you have monic text that exists that you were just reading and saying See, nothing has changed. Well, how did that text get on there before there that was different.
There was a redaction, there was an editing. And I want to know what was originally given not what somebody else thought should have been given. And that's why the free transmission of the text is so superior to any controlled transmission of the text. Now let's look at what Sahaba carry says about where the Quran came from.
This is the earliest sources we have many of the sources, many of the sources you have to have to put to manuscripts and they had to be those are later traditions. All you can talk all about Islamic chains you want every single Hadith in Bukhari and Imam rejected had an Islamic chain, there are 1000s of them. That no no one that I know of, and nobody that are non quotes in regards to history that he was using against New Testament would ever accept the idea of is not changed as the standard of historical research. They would never accept it. Again, we need to use the same standards. Now you know the texts sahale bakary, 6509 and 510 neuroaid. They've been thought of I will Baccarat
Siddiq sent for me when the people of your mama had been killed that is a number of the prophets companions who fought against Mr. Lima aboubaker then said to me humara has come to me and said casualties were heavy among the Kuta of the Quran that it was those who knew the Quran by heart on the day of the battle your mama and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Quran on other battlefields whereby a large part Kathir large part of the Quran may be lost. This has nothing to do with pronunciation.
How in the why in the world with these people be afraid that a large part of the cars will be lost? And actually, well actually, we have the entire thing written down, we even actually have all the verses, all the ideas and everything. It's all been written down. We've got all this, but it's the pronunciation we're worried about. That is not a meaningful reading of the original. And there are many Islamic scholars that would agree with that. That's not a meaningful reading of the original. There was a concern that the Quran would be lost because the Quran was not yet written down.
That's why there was a concern. Therefore I suggest you aboubaker or the Quran be collected. I said, Omar How can you do something which allows apostle did not do Umar said by Allah, it is a good project, Mark kept on urging me to accept this proposal until a lot open my chest for it, and I began to realize the good and the idea which Kumar had realized, okay, so he says I started looking for the Quran and collecting it from what was written on Palm stocks. Why didn't you just go and get the original that was already there with all the ideas and everything all there? No, he goes looking for the Quran and collecting it from what was written on Palm stocks. thin white stones doesn't
sound like it was hot to me, and also from the man who knew it by heart. Oh, so all of it wasn't written down till I found the last verse of Sardar taba repentance with abaca Ximena ansley. And I did not find it with anybody other than him. One person knew this text one.
What about those 70 others that died at yamamah? Did any of them know some that nobody knew?
That's the question has to be asked. It can't just be swept under the rug. It has to be asked.
And we're going to find out in the next Hadeeth that even at this point, this is right. It's days of abubaker this is right after the death of Mohammed 18 years later, so 15 to 18 years later, they're gonna find another verse that they didn't find the first time around. And this is your own handy sources. I'm just quoting that what it says
the verse that they found with one person was barely there has come on to an apostle Mohammed for amongst yourselves agrees in that you should receive any injury or difficulty till the end of Swords on top of so there you
There you have the last one bound with one person. Then the complete manuscripts copy of the code on remained with aboubaker till he died then with Omar till the end of his life then with hafsa, the daughter of Omar so there's the first collation abubaker next study, but either then all the woman came to Boothman, who died who was afraid of their the people have Sham and Iraq's differences in the recitation of the Quran, not just the pronunciation, how they're reciting it, there were differences. Why would that cause anybody a problem? Well, because they didn't have a fixed manuscript yet. And so, they come traveling back and they say, Boothman, oh Chief, the believers,
listen, listen to what's said here, save this nation before they differ about the book The cut on as the Jews and Christians did before. All so we don't want to have any differences. We don't want to have any argumentation. So we need one fixed version. There's a problem here. So we need to have one fixed version, so Boothman send a message the house is saying, send us the manuscripts the code on so we may compile the kanaga materials and perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. So Hopson house decides to come up with one. Now let me just ask you a question. If all they did was take what was from the days about the bunker, and reproduce it. This shouldn't have taken much
difficulty at all this wood. There shouldn't have been any more collation. They shouldn't be looking for new ideas. But that's not what happens. In fact, Boothman then ordered they've been thought of then you have the entire committee here, to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. And why would a man say to the three Qureshi men in case you disagree with they'd been thought on any point the Quran then write in the dialectic kadesh the Quran was revealed their language of Wait a minute, I thought you were just recapping what you already had? Why would you be worried about something like this? Didn't you do this back at the original collation? Hmm. Sounds like something more is going on
here. And it actually indicates very clearly they did so. And when they had written many copies with mon returned the original manuscripts to hasa, it was mon sent to every Muslim province, one copy of what they had copied and ordered that all the other chronic materials were there written and fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies be burned.
That is a reduction. That is an editing.
And that stops the level of certainty you can have in a transmitted text at that point, if he was, in fact, successful, and destroyed everything that came before. I don't think he was. But we know that he couldn't have been because if Massoud wouldn't give up his his manuscript, that's why we have evidence of him misses readings, but if he had been successful, that's as far as you can trace the text of the Quran back and you just simply have to believe both man and his committee got it perfectly right was this amount of profit? Was they've been able to profit? Were they sinners?
I can understand if you said that Mohammed did this, and he has inspiration. This is coming a lot longer. And folks, if you know your history, you know that right now. There is tremendous tension in the Islamic oma between Omar and Ali, that's going to result in what the very same tensions you have today.
You know, that's what was going on back then.
And don't you think it would have an impact on what with mon does with the Quran and the compilation of the Quran?
I think you really know that. They've been thought that added Oh, by the way, a verse from Surah Azov was missed by me when we copied the Quran I used to hear a lot of Apostle reciting it. So we search for it. And guess what we found it because I mean, been thought of it al Ansari, and the verse was among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with the law in Surah 33, so that I had just been left out in the cold for about 18 years. And now it is put in how many were lost at the Battle of your mama.
This text raises the question, the result was that in the caliphate, now here, let me switch over sorry, I just skipped too quickly. We can we can demonstrate that the traditions that Bukhari gives us were well known even outside the Islamic community. One of the earliest writers
against Islam as a Christian was named al Kindi. And around the time of 820 ad or so, he has an exchange a written exchange with with a Muslim. And the result is one of the most insightful encounters that we have. It's extremely important for us to look at this kind of information. Here's what he writes to his Islamic friend on this subject and notice the parallels to bakary. The result was in the caliphate of Boothman, it was discovered there was no consensus of the true text. One man then read one version of the Quran, his neighbor another and they differ. One man said to his neighbor, my text is better than yours while his neighbor defended his own. So additions and losses
came about and falsification of the text with mom was told that various versions were in use that the text was being tampered with, and that strife with all the mischief of party spirit was being engendered. They said, We do not believe that matters.
Continue as they are, it is an affair of urgency. They are slaying one another the sacred book is corrupted. A second apostasy is imminent. So there is great concern. Justice Bukhari says great concern that we don't want to be like the Jews and the Christians.
And so this isn't the time move on with mom now who by the son of cob was dead before it was made. Well, Evan Massoud refuse to give up his copy of the Quran. Remember, what did Muhammad say in the video? If you want to know the Quran, he pointed to four people, what was one of them? Even Massoud
zaven thought it was not one of them. And so I can imagine if you've ever read many of the Hadeeth that come from this guy,
he was a man's man, you know, you know what I mean? I mean, this guy, he was he had a backbone. And I don't think he appreciate being left out of the compilation to come on. Because Muhammad himself has said, This guy knows that he was left out of it. So can you imagine that? It was mom comes along Mohammed and said it was mom was the best. And it was mom comes on says, Give me your manuscript. I'm gonna destroy
a bill and Massoud says, I don't think so. And in fact, because of that his readings continue in the manuscript tradition for hundreds of years, especially in the palimpsest manuscripts. So they drove him from his post in Kufa and appointed Abu Musa as governor in his place. In fact, some historical sources say he was beaten because he would not give up as a Muslim. There is differences about that particular issue. When the revision had been completed. According to the various manuscripts four copies were made in large text, one of which was sent to Mecca, a second remain in Medina, a third was sent to Syria and is today in malatya.
In fact, I'll kindy goes through a whole story of what happened to each one. It's amazing the type of information that he had about this particular situation. When the next woman gave directions, the leaves and sheets the Quran, should be gathered in from the provinces. He ordered his agents to collect all that they could lay their hands on and destroy them till it should be certain that not a sheet remained in the possession of any private individual. That is the very definition of a controlled transmission.
That's like the government come along and saying, we now have the official version of the Bible. Give us all yours. You can trust us.
Sorry, I don't see Abdullah in the Cid doing that. There Hadith where he tells the people of Kufa don't give up your most Hoff
there were divisions there were differences if it was all the same Quran was no differences. Why are there these divisions? Interesting question.
Heavy penalties were threatened against the disobedience. All the leaves they could secure were shredded and boiled in vinegar till they were sodden, nothing remained not even the smallest fragment that could be deciphered. That is the as Monique revision. And that is a tremendous disruption in the transmission of the Quran. And by the very standards that odd non used it makes the cut on corrupt and untrustworthy.
Now, I don't say that I'm not making that because I don't use that kind of radical unsubstantiated double standard.
I don't know any scholar that does.
But that's what we had been used for the New Testament. And so I'm just applying it's by the same thing, make sure that we're being fair. Then he finally says to his his his Muslim friend, you know what happened between Ali Abu Bakr Omar and with Mung how they hate each other and quarreled and corrupted the text, how each one tried to oppose his neighbor and refute what he had said, Pray, how are we to know which is the true text and how shall we distinguish it from the false one? And there's the question, why is even Massoud wrong?
Why is why are his readings? I mean, scholarly sources will tell you, for example, that in the tafsir of suffering, Juan is a Sufyan in very early on 67 places. He mentions a difference in the rasm, the actual reading of the text and attributes them to Evan Massoud, and this is a fairly short tafsir. at that early period of time, they didn't have any problem talking about the fact that there were variations between Eben Masood lubei Evan Cobbs was primarily the same as it was, but there's some differences there. And now we have the Sana palimpsests, which you just had up on the screen during your presentation, which gives us another reading outside of Abdullah in the sun.
So we have textual variation. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Which methodology gives us the most certainty as to the real question? Do we possess the original words of the authors we believe to have been inspired of God? Now you can sit here and say yes, because we have it's not a change and if that's good enough for you
I wasted my time for you.
Okay, I'm not I'm only here for people who really want to know the truth and you're not going to be satisfied with the answers you already brought in here. Okay, I realized that that cuts off some folks. But that's the only way I know how to handle the truth.
I can't convince you I'm not going to try to.
But for people who have truth in their hearts and desire to be truthful, the question is, which methodology gives us the most certainty as to the real question, do we possess the original words of the authors, we believe to have been inspired of God. The free transmission of the New Testament text precludes the editing and revision that we just saw. The manuscript tradition shows us tenacity, the original readings still exists. No one could insert the deity of Christ in the text in New Testament, take out some other doctrine, put some denial, the resurrection, there's, they could not do that the transmission of the text could never allow that to happen. And it's because it was
freely transmitted widely transmitted from the very beginning. But the controlled transmission of the Quran, together with the monic revision, the possible later work of Abdulmalik, which I have even gotten to this evening, and the evidence of the different traditions at the Masood who might have been caught and possibly others. The honor readings that we saw, raises serious questions as to the originality of the orthodontic tradition. At the very least what I've proven to you is that you have multiple traditions. You've got earthman, you've got Eben Masood, and you've got this other reading and so on. And you've got Oh, by Evan Kopp.
You say, Well, I like the one great, fine, why? How do you know? What what methodology Have you used? And it's not a change? I'm going to cut that for you. By the way, what methodology does your system provide you to know that that actually represents the original? That is the question for all of us this evening. Islamic scholars and apologists must recognize that merely asserting the perfection of the Islamic tradition proves nothing. the realities of the various traditions must be embraced and examined before the Quran can be proven to have been accurately transmitted. What you need, my friends,
is a critical edition of the Quran. Now, for many of you sitting here, you look at our Bibles, and you look at those footnotes, or you look at the UBS fourth edition over there, and he holds it up. So see all this stuff. These are the variations and I go, thank God I have that.
Because that means no one has been able to get in there and and totally change this. And for me, I want that information. And we're wide open about it. Where is your critical cut on? I'm not talking about the the seven out roof. I'm not talking about that? Where is your critical kuranda there's a there's a project run out right now called the corpus canonico. But it's primarily Western scholars that are working on it. And there are a lot of people in the Muslim world. They don't support doing that. We don't need to have a critical edition of the Quran we all need to be telling people there was a variation, sir to 222.
I want to know that.
I want to know what john wrote. And I want to know what Mark wrote and I want to know what the original authors wrote, not what somebody wrote
100 years or 15 years or 500 years later, or what they thought should have been written. I want to know the original.
And so what I'm saying to you is, the reason for the debate this evening, is to try to bring the facts to light and call for the even scales.
If you embrace radical skepticism regarding the New Testament, you have no reason to believe in the Quran.
I'm not wasn't using the same scholarship there. There wasn't a one of those scholars that he was quoting they would they would believe a word he was just saying about well, you know, we've got these traditions and, and they didn't write anything down unless they had two copies, all the rest of stuff. Every single person who, for example, theoretically took the gospel of john apart and put into pieces with laugh at such methodology.
Not the same standards. And I submit to you that truth is defined by consistency. Truth is defined by consistency. If you use scholarship,
that is serious and examining sources tries to be fair, but recognizes that we are creatures of God and God has spoken that's gonna be very different than using naturalistic materialistic scholarship.
Now, you notice I didn't quote any of the modern scholars. I don't believe Muhammad existed. I could have stood up here and done the same thing.
He did with his liberal scholars and quoted them and saves up. Well, there you go. If you're a Rhodes Scholar, you don't believe Muhammad existed and therefore the Quran is a compilation of many authors. I didn't do that, did I? I can't, because that wouldn't be consistent. That's what we need to be this evening.
When I'm not comes up here, if I'm not just simply starts repeating the tradition is it
that I say to you the debate, so we need to have serious interaction about the methodology that we are using.
Thank you very much.
Oh, James, you're in trouble now.
James claimed that no one can.
No one can add anything into the Bible, or add any word to make Jesus God.
You stop the time, okay? There is a black and white evidence, piece of evidence here in front of us where someone came and change the word to God. The original verse was who was made manifest in the flesh. And then it was changed to God made manifest in the flesh so much with James textual criticism. Okay, so now we move on to some of the contentions raised raised by James. Now, he raised a number of issues which I will discuss very quickly varying readings in the Quran, the readings he mentioned, he put in front of you there, he didn't actually tell you where the readings come from. These readings come from the priests of money codices, which had what the dialect differences, the
dialect differences, which I already told, told you about. These dialects were revealed by God. God is the one who allowed these dialects these variations to exist. So all of these differences in these dialects were divinely stipulated, contrary to what James is trying to suggest that these were scribal errors or intentional change is far from it. This is why the text was standardized, but with man, so I challenge James now to come back to produce one verse, one verse from Othmani cross section from with Monique manuscripts, which we have from the mid first century to produce a verse, which differs from all other manuscripts. He won't find any verse whatsoever, extra Alif, Can you
believe that? Extra?
This is just crazy textual criticism. I'm not even going to address that extra elephant.
You know, anyone knows spelling differences. scribal styles may differ may vary. It's about the contents. This is why we have the oral transmission to tell us how to recite this book, palimpsest This is what a policy looks like. This is what it is. I put it up there for everyone to see. Can you all see now there is text, superior text and inferior text, you can see the text on the top and there is text in the bottom, which was wiped away. This is what happened in the time of man with man did not burn anyone for keeping extra books. He didn't punish anyone. All of these claims were made in the air quoting who al Kindi. Did you remember that? Do you remember? Who did James tell you all
Kennedy's? Did he tell you? I don't I don't remember hearing that. Al Kindi was a Christian polemicist writing in the ninth century.
Please, Al Kindi. Wait, okay, okay. I didn't hear it. I didn't hear it. Okay, this record is being recorded. It's being recorded. Okay. Now James wants to apply the same criteria to the Quran. Should we now listen to Julian the apostate about Christianity? Do you know what he said about Christianity in the fourth century? Should we now go to the pagan writers writing on the on the religion of Christianity in the second in the first in the third century, you will have no way to hide? If I was to mention all those people, quoting kindy on Islam is like quoting Hitler on Judaism.
So I won't even address points about kindy. And what he had to say about Islam and its source, we don't even know where it was coming from. Give us his sources. Where is his reporting from? Where are his historical sources? You don't have any okay if not chain are not the standard or historical source. James is simply unaware of is not studies had these studies carried out by Western academics? One such academic is masky, who is known to be an authority in the source. He clearly stated in his works, one of his articles recently written that is not the Hadees literature emanating from Western North outdoors as a book can go back to the first century is a valid source
of historical evidence. Okay, and then we have Jonathan AC Brown, who has written recently on Bukhari and Muslim and canonization and it's not he said, I was baffled by this.
strong and powerful historical tradition, and a precedent of which we cannot find in any other tradition whatsoever. Jonathan St. Brown, okay, so you don't know what you're talking about your mama, the Battle of your mama, nothing was written Did you hear him say that, that before the Battle of your mama, there was nothing written. That's why the concern was there. There's so many people that I quoted the names of people who had memorized the Quran in its entirety. I knew he's going to bring this up. And I quoted all the names, and the rest of the names can be found in this book. So I don't know where James is coming from one person. We don't want Quran coming from one person.
We don't Quran we want multiple people to write the Quran. Why do you want 1000s of variations in your manuscripts? If you wrote a book, James today on Christianity or any other topic, would you want me to copy it and change it? And then I want one of my brothers to change it, and another one comes along, he changes it. And by the time it gets to the 100, or 1000 people, then is already lost the original would you want me to do that to your book? Never. So what Mark want people to do that trace book, but Matthew want people to do that to his book to change, to manipulate, to add to subtract, come on, you're talking about free textual transmission, because that's what you have.
That's why you have to defend it. You have no other choice, we have the control. Imagine if the Christians had a manuscript from the first century. Imagine if there are a manuscript of the gospel of ma he mentioned specifically, he said, there may be a manuscript coming up from the first century of the Gospel of Mark James mentioned it in the New Testament debate. We have 1000s of them for the mid first century. 1000s 1000s does nothing James can't see them. He simply can't. He pointed out variations from the previous money codices which were divinely stipulated that's why this man standardized one text for everyone to read in one way in one recitation I hope that's clear. Was
mana profit absolutely not was maka profit was Luca profit. But Jonah profit?
Come on guys be serious. Okay. A lot longer. He said. People have come a lot longer along a lot later and have written these books. Now, you see, I told you when James come pay attention, he's going to take his gloves off and the standard is going to go out of the window which he applied to the New Testament. Okay. When is the first manuscript of the Gospel of Mark? What date is it from 220 to 20 ce, almost 150 years after when is the first book Quranic manuscript we have which can be carbon dated, this one from the mid first century. In fact, some scholars, Western scholars believe that this days from the time of the Prophet peace be upon him.
The undertaxed, not the superior tax to under tax the the tax which accommodates the different modes of recitation and different dialects. The superior tax is from the time of man. We have hundreds of these parchments and different libraries. Al Kindi has already been dealt with even Masood, I challenge him to produce a challenging to produce a report and authentic report about Abel Massoud when he was beaten.
Why is using this tatty version of history which doesn't exist. You have been corrected James on that point. James was actually corrected on that point. And he had to come back and apologize. There's a video on YouTube about this very issue where James had to apologize that he used the wrong reference in this regard. And this report doesn't exist in any authentic form shape. Even Massoud was beaten for that even Massoud his grievances were not about the contents of the Quran. He made it very clear that my grievance is about choosing Satan tarbet as the manager of this committee, because they It was a young boy when I was still learning the Quran from the Prophet. I have learned
the Quran 70 chapters of the Quran. And this goes against your point by the way, even Massoud outlive by far by so many years after the Battle of Yama. He said Battle of your mama the Quran was possibly lost. And then he comes back with an argument even was sued was a strong man. He was a very, very good man, you know, but he memorized the Quran, isn't it from the Prophet? It goes against your argument. It goes against your argument. Even Masood, we have authentic chains of narration from Eben Masood, going back to him coming to us today by via continuous bombardment of reports on interrupted reports and even lawsuits recitation transmitted by his students is exactly
what we read today guess what is exactly what we read today is not is a valid source of history have already shown you from historical studies and people who are best placed to comment on that. This is what we have in seven different seven not different seven Rich's illustrations of the Quran from
originating from the time of man and the Prophet, Prophet toward his companions, and these people in Makkah. nafi he took his Quran recitation from companions and we move on to the cara, the recitation of Medina now, Fabian abena him who died
The 169 Hijri. He took the Quran his recitation, oral recitation, oral transmission memorization from Jasmine Akaka and a Brahmin man hormonal Iraq and Muslim in June the man who Delhi and read muram Rahman and che bobbin Nephi. And then all of these people took their recitations from Abu huraira even a boss of de la mina Yosh, Eva, Eva Nabil rubia, Allah masumi obey been calm and the Prophet sallallahu sallam, the cara, the recitation of Makkah, Eben Garcia, another recite of the Quran, who took his authority from Abdullah bin Saif Al masumi, who took it from above and carb and above in cold turkey from the Prophet. The second source, he has another person who took the
recitation of the Quran from moja had been Jabbar, he took it from Abdullah bin Abbas, a companion of the prophet who took it from Arabian carbons, they didn't have it, and it goes back to the Prophet. And I have the rest of the recitations are there, and the chains, and all of these chains are uninterrupted. There is not a verse, there is not a word which is missing. Thank you very much for listening.
Well, on any scholarly level, this debate has been concluded. That was a recitation, recitation of assertions, without any accurate representation of what I myself had said, and I'm very disappointed in that. For example, He started off by showing the reading the inserted reading of the OSS, First Timothy 316.
If you're gonna debate someone, and they've provided you with information, you might want to, you know, take a look at what they've provided to you. This is a subject that I've addressed many times. And in fact, I have a feeling that the graphic actually came from my website, I certainly have posted it many times and have discussed the very reading and it has nothing to do with what I said, What I said was, if someone wanted to come along and take the New Testament that didn't teach the deity of Christ and try to insert it, they wouldn't be able to do so because of the distribution of the manuscripts. We can recognize the seventh century hand and Codex Sinaiticus, because we know
what the fourth century reading was, it was hos not the OSS. We know that because we have so many manuscripts that are widely dispersed. That's the point I can't make you hear that I can't make you understand what I'm saying. But there are people here tonight that do understand what I'm saying. And they're recognizing that my opponent is not understanding it and is not interacting with the sound scholarship that underlies it. And that is a problem. By the way, the difference in Surah. Two that I showed you, not only between the foggs palimpsest but the Sunnah manuscript is not a pronunciation difference when you are changing word order and grammatical termination. If you think
oh, well, yeah, that was given in all seven different forms. Are they all around today? Can you all find them?
I mean, there's a dispute amongst Muslims on that you don't even know whether the 704 even around anymore. But are you telling me that they actually allow you to have different words in different orders that makes the variations in New Testament look really tame? And use go? Oh, but Allah decided to do that. Really?
Don't Don't tell me that. That's the same text that I showed you up there. It's not and that's the sauna manuscripts. Then when you if I say, if you pray, God will reward you. Is that different than if I say, if you pray, God will not reward you? Is there sort of a difference between those two statements? I show you a variance in the Quran with an extra Aleph nelga.
But the differences between you will be gathered, it will not be gathered. That's 180 degree difference. laughter is not a refutation. My friends. laughter is a refutation for the unthinking not for the thoughtful. Think about that. Did I tell you who al Kindi was I most certainly did I told you when he lived. He was during the reign of the college Alma moon, he was a Christian in dialogue with a Muslim. I told you that and how many of you want to go talk fear? Because he says because he didn't hear that? You're listening very well, either where you
are not asked me why do you want 1000s of variants? Because I want to know what the original is not what someone came up with later on. I don't want 1000s of variants. The variants exist because human beings make mistakes in copying. That's why there were mistakes in the Quran as well. Any handwritten document will have mistakes. Do you think God whenever a scribe was getting tired while making other manuscripts of the Quran, he's just about to make a mistake and all sudden God just zapped him with caffeine or something.
there are errors in handwritten manuscripts. That's why you have to have multiples of them to compare with one another. It's not that I want 1000s of manuscripts and notice that the complete error and category on Audubon's part here, he says, Would you like to write a book Excuse me, I live today. We don't have to hand copy books anymore.
But the fact of the matter is, if I've written a book back then I'd rather have 7000 copies of it get to the modern period with variants in it, then only one that somebody later on decided to decide what I would actually said, because at least in the other way, there's a chance the originals there and the original is in the New Testament.
We were told there are 1000s of manuscripts of the Quran.
In the front of that book, and the back of that book, actually in No, not that one, the Greek New Testament, there is a whole listing of the manuscripts that are cited, where they're located and what they could you show me that for the Quran?
Yeah, where's where's the critical edition of the Quran that tells me which manuscripts are being cited, where they're located when they're written? And evidently, we didn't know who their authors were?
I know he has, is there is there an official listing of these 1000s of manuscripts that I can go and I can look at for myself, that's what I would like to be able to do. You can do that with the New Testament. Because we have a critical edition of the New Testament. That's something is very important. By the way, as I said, the corporate Chronicle is working on it, and I am glad that they're working out but there's a lot of Muslims that don't think that's a good idea and are opposing them. Now,
we are told that what Evan Massoud says is exactly what we read today.
Well, since there was a lot of clapping and screaming and so on, so Well, I was corrected before you know
what I had said before, and there are traditions that indicate and they're primarily from your Shiite brethren.
That Eben Massoud died of the beating he received but you want some I didn't say that tonight. I said that there are traditions that said he was beaten and as JC Vidal in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden Brill CD ROM edition 2004 notes. A public scene ensued between Massoud and McAuliffe who had him ill treated, you know, Ill treated is Yeah, okay. It is not known whether he died in Medina under a sort of house arrest or at Kufa, where his teaching was highly esteemed, but I will tell you what he said.
Which seems very odd in light of some of the things that I've not just said, Oh, you Muslim people avoid copying the Mazel Tov and recitation of this man by Allah when I accepted Islam, he was about in the loins of a disbelieving man meanings they've been thought it and it was regarding this, Abdullah bin Massoud said, Oh, people of Iraq keep the most half that are with you and conceal them. Hi them Jami at tirmidhi. How do you 3104? If you'd like to look it up? Why would he do that? If there were not differences? If there was a reason? to do that? That is the question. And I am not the only one who has raised that question. That is a question has been raised by Islamic scholars
who are intent not upon simply keeping a tradition alive, guys, traditions, easy. Traditions easy. thinking through your faith and finding solid foundations for it is not easy.
And what I've been hearing is whenever odd non just simply makes an assertion that I've somehow made a mistake, you don't wait to see if there's evidence. It's just like
Thank you, thank you for premiere.
So So is this the face? Is this the face? Is this the face that you want to present to the world? At this time in history, men,
when what we should be demonstrating is how Christians and Muslims can control their emotions, and examine their traditions, and come together as people who believe that they're the creations of God. And by the way, it makes us the minority in our culture these days, and demonstrate we love the truth, and that we will examine the truth, and that we will do so fairly.
This is the time in history. We need to be doing this, I am so thankful that I had the opportunity to debating in the East London Mosque.
Folks, when you don't let two groups argue
the only thing left them to do is fight.
We have to engage in this kind of respectful
Now I know some of you get excited about things or people on my side get excited about things.
But folks, this is the foundational issue.
If the New Testament is what the New Testament is, then Muhammad didn't understand it, and he didn't teach in accordance with it. And yet the Quran says that God sent down the Torah to Moses, he sat down the Injeel to Jesus and he sent up the Quran to Muhammad and
They all it's a line, read certified. And see it's an argument.
This is vitally important, folks, this isn't something to laugh about. This isn't something to let your emotions get run wild with you.
This is vitally important. And I say to you, I believe I have presented some pretty serious evidence that if you were to use the same scales use the same standards, I have raised questions for you about the difference between a free transmission of the text and a controlled transmission of the text as to those two methodologies ability to give you assurance that you're reading what was originally written.
I think the thinking person hears that, and you need to deal with that simply repeating
the same things over and over again, that does not interact with those assertions, does not accomplish anything for you. Thank you very much.
Okay, James, very quickly. First of all, thank you very much for attending this debate. These topics are vast topics, and it is very difficult to cover everything
in this short span of time. But I think we have pretty much presented the most powerful arguments we have up our sleeves. You mentioned a very intriguing, and it clearly states we will we go to God or we will not go to God. And you said, you're you're suggesting that it is a very intriguing. However, if you look at other manuscripts, which are,
I'm very sure.
Going to make the picture clear. This clearly appears to be a scribal error. Okay, when we die, where do we go? We go to God. And if the verse is saying, when we die, we don't go to God, then what is logic tells you, logic tells you a child will tell you that this is a scribal error. It is a scramble, when we look at the other manuscript of the same verse, time is up. Okay, go ahead. Let me let me respond to what I just said. He just engaged in textual criticism. He just what if you didn't have other manuscripts? What if you're just reading the Paris manuscript, that very early manuscript of the Quran that assumed a certain understanding of what gathering together means there in biblical
language being gathered together to God can be for judgment or for life?
So you see, you've now taken your theology, and you've taken the other manuscripts and you've done textual criticism, which I thought was why the New Testament was corrupt, because we did the same thing.
we don't need any of the manuscripts we don't need. If we lost all the manuscripts in the world, we still have our oral tradition, transmission, which is very, very powerful. And it cannot be doubted, for the reasons which cannot be stated in this debate. If you want to have another debate on it's not in its validity. We can talk about that in the future. But if you go to the scholars, Western scholars in this field, they will tell you that it's not is a perfectly valid source of information coming to corpus Quranic Comm. One of the academics was working on corpus Chronicle. And the manuscripts in his position is Michael marks. Michael marks is one of the people responsible for
this. He stated, after studying all the 1000s of pictures of the ancient Quran he has with him, he stated from the material that has been entered into a database to date, it would appear that any expectations that the old Quranic manuscripts in the old HRC script included in the Burke's book stressor for to archive would offer a different text of the Quran or unjustified
comment on that, I'll go a little bit beyond that. I have never the specific thing. And I sent out on my chapter in my in the book that I've written on the subject cut on it's not out yet, but I sent him a chapter on this. And what did I say in the chapter I said, What would you expect from a controlled transmission of a text, you'd expect? consistency, you'd expect? Very few textual variants only what you'd expect to find from handwritten manuscripts. But you would not expect to have much in the way of textual variation. So what that scholar just said, is exactly what you'd expect, but it all only goes back to Boothman. That's the point what about even Masood, what about
the Sana palom says, if it only goes back to that point of editing, and when we just set out under said, We don't need all those manuscripts.
Why then did Sahil bakary tell us that we were concerned about the people dying at yamamah because a large part of the of the Quran might be what?
I read it to you. I didn't make it up last. So yes, you should be concerned about that. Now you have the the demonic that's not the issue. The issue is is that
represent the original, why they were concerned was due to non Muslims or new converts to Islam. This is why because they were reading the Quran, because they were not Arabs, they didn't know the dialect. They didn't know the the differences in Arabic readings and writings. So it was necessary for them for the Quran to be written for for their convenience. So the new converts, they were the ones who caused the problem in the first place. When they fall, Benjamin was in Azerbaijan in a battlefield. And then these new Muslims from Iraq and Egypt, they were reciting the Quran in their own ways. And that's when I came back in this problem was never a problem before that problem of
dialect, specifically speaking.
Well, I'm sorry, that's just not what Sahil Bukhari says, we're in South Albuquerque that says, Oh, it's the new converts are messing everything up. He doesn't say that. And it would not follow that new converts. If the Quran already existed, if it was already written down. If the service is had already been provided by the prophet himself, there is no reason for the words, we feared that the Quran, a major portion, Kathir, a large portion of the Quran might be lost. There is no reason for that. And then there's really no reason for the next study that says, Well, we don't want to be like the Jews and Christians who differ about our book. And so we're going to do a complete revision, and
we're going to find more ayah and put them in there in the process. I'm sorry, but this is a much later construction that does not represent a meaningful reading of those original texts themselves. And when I quoted from Al Kindi, what I was pointing out was al Kindi has access to the very same traditions that Bukhari has and from a historical standpoint, that is extremely important. it verifies what bakari was saying. Thank you James Bukhari states. Clearly, Jose for Benjamin came to us man at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer army, Armenia and Azerbaijan, who they've always afraid of. They're the people of sharm in Iraq,
differences in recitation. So these people, the people of Iraq and charm on new Muslims, okay, so you haven't read the reportable hurry carefully, as far as man, if you have accepted which you have in front of everyone here, that the Quran can be traced back to us, man, Allahu Akbar. Are we happy with that?
Perfect, perfect, thank you. That's it. There's the debate. We're happy with that. There's the debate. You're happy with that? And you're
not? And you know why I'm not? Because I don't want to know what someone revised my scriptures to say. I want to know what they originally said. There's the debate right there.
There is a different methodology. One side is happy to repeat a tradition say this is our traditional text will hold to it. And the rest of us are saying that is not enough for issues of universal and final truth. That's the issue right there. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome, James, I'm always new.
Now, now the point is, the point is, how can you possibly have the original reading? When you don't even know what it looks like? You don't have an oral transmission to it. You don't have the array? You don't? You? Don't?
You? Don't you don't have any history about who mark is who Matthew is. You don't even know what language Matthew wrote his gospel in? How can you even think of the original, when you have 1000s of variant readings in front of you? How can you even construct How can you possibly construct in the 21st century, a text which was written in the first century? Can you explain that to me, we have a text here, which was given to the companions of the Prophet by the prophet himself. And we have that very text with us today. Thank you. There was the voice of absolute skepticism. He says, How can you reconstruct the text on on you've never done this, you don't read Greek? You could not use that red
book sitting at your right elbow, if you tried, if you could open that up. Could you read any of that? Could you read any of the textual critical notes? You cannot? And you've heard Yes, I see you that Christian scholars believing Christian scholars can reconstruct the text and that's why Kurt Allen, who founded the Institute for New Testament studies in Munster could say the words I said that the New Testament text has tenacity, which is why we can have confidence that we have the original readings. That was the voice of tradition, saying, we have the original and you don't how can you know what it looked like? Because we have 5700 manuscripts that tell us about it. That's how
we can know and they come from all over the They come from all over the world, and they could not have been colluded and there couldn't be a conspiracy and scholarship recognizes that's a far better thing to have than to have one text that goes back to one revision.
That is the essence of the debate this evening. Thank you very much.
You have you have, you have almost about less than 200 manuscripts for the first three centuries for the Bible. Listen carefully. He said 5,794% of them come from the ninth century onwards. He didn't tell you that. Of course, we discussed it in the New Testament testament debate. Now for the Quran, guess what, for the first two centuries, we have 250,000 manuscripts where's the comparison? Where is the comparison? Why, why can you not see 250,000? And you're only willing to see 200 in the first three centuries, where is the comparison? And then we have a man which you have accepted? Who gave us the Quran, when the committee with 1000s of companions backing him, they all backed him, none of
the companions not one, you cannot produce one reference who disputed about the contents of the Quran not one, not one. Thank you very much.
This will monitor him Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you so much for being such an amazing audience with all the views and all the clauses. Thank you so much. Now, I would like to take you all to modern scholarship on the Quran, people who are best placed to comment on the transmission of the Quran, its transmission, and its reception by the Muslims. These are the best people who have studied the Quran in Arabic they have spent their lifetime in doing so. And these are the conclusions they have reached. James doesn't know Arabic like I don't know Greek, I can only quote authorities. Okay, I have quoted Christian sources to tell you that the New Testament is lost, the
originals cannot be found. I've already substantiated that the Koran
Bell and what
Richard Bell and Montgomery Ward both of whom are Christians, will wrote a book introduction to the Quran on page 44. They state this establishment of the text of the Quran under oath man, maybe date is somewhere between 650 and his death in 656. It is Cardinal import point in what may be called the formation of the canon of the Quran. What may whatever may have been the form of the Quran previously, it is certain that the book still in our hands is essentially a moniker on earth man's commission decided what was to be included and what it excluded. It fixed the number and order of the suitors and the outline of the Continental text.
If we remember that to preserve every smallest fragment of genuine revelation was in an illicit electrical requirement, the commission under they must be a judge to have achieved a wonderful piece of work. And they carry on they continue on page 46. Thus, on the whole the information which has reached us about the previous Monaco disease, suggests that there was no great variation in the actual contents of the Quran in the period immediately after the prophets death. The order of the sutras was apparently not fixed. And there were many slight variations in reading because of the roof. But of other differences, there is no evidence what and Bell we move on to Angelica Neuwirth,
who wrote an article in the Cambridge companion to the Quran in 2006, page number 100. She states as a whole however, the theories of the so called skeptic or revisionist scholars, who arguing historically make a radical break with the transmitted picture of the Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth and or the ninth century, and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent have by now been discarded, discarded, though many of the critical observations remain challenging and still call for investigation. new findings of the Quranic text fragments more over can be reduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture
of the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the suitors we have. And Michael marks has already been quoted. These are non Muslim authorities who have studied the Quran, the experts in the field who have to tell us this, the Quran we have today is what Muhammad Salallahu alaihe salam delivered to his companions in manuscript and in transmission, this is what they have to say. On the other hand, the New Testament we have already discussed extensively. So ladies and gentlemen, we have to open our hearts to the truth.
You may not like James, you may not like me, persons, people, personalities are not important here. What is important, important is the truth. Where is the truth? Who is telling the truth? A lot of evidence was shared in front of you today. And a lot of contentions are raised. They were aborted, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully. It is your job now to go and think whether you want to live your life the way you are. Whether you want to die and face God with the truth in your hand.
Whether you want to go to Paradise or whether you want to end up in Hellfire, if you die a disbeliever be believing in things which cannot be from God and didn't come from God, then you are a disbeliever and going to hell. And if you believe in God and take what came in fact from God, then you are believer and you will go to Paradise which was promised by God Almighty God told us in the Quran, Chapter 59 verse nine
in Nashville, novikova Allahu la halfmoon We have revealed the remembrance the Quran, and we will guard it against corruption, and I have substantiate today beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Quran was indeed transmitted accurately and reliably from the prophet of Islam via his companions, while Arturo Dhawan and Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil alameen wa salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
First of all, thank you very much for staying here this late in the evening. It has been a pleasure here in London once again, we should be thankful that we have the freedom to engage in these types of things. There are many lands where this conversation could never ever take place. We cannot take it for granted because I'm not sure how long it's going to be allowed in this land, or in my land either. To be perfectly honest with you. I'm not just said the New Testament has been lost to the fact we have no originals
are originals of the Quran, therefore, the Quran has been lost. If we just apply the same standards, no one I don't. Bart ermine does not say that New Testament has been lost because we don't have originals and no one who studies historical texts makes that assertion and so on non uses one wildly unsubstantiated standard for the New Testament. And then boy, we can quote all sorts of scholars who says that we know what Ruth mon said as if that means you know what Muhammad said he jumped there but be that as it may we know it with mon said so in other words, conservative scholarship with the crown and naturalistic, materialistic liberal scholarship of the Bible. I told you I was gonna
happen, because that's what's happened every time I've had a debate with a Muslim all around the world. And that's the problem. I'm still searching for the consistent Muslim apologists, I'm still searching for that first Muslim,
who will use who will obey the Quran? Seriously, who will use the same standards?
And you see, once you do that, you cannot substantiate what the Quran says about the Bible. Because the author of the Quran didn't know the Bible didn't know what the New Testament taught
and misrepresented what the New Testament.
We've already debated that issue before.
Now, this evening, we've had a lot of talk about original texts.
I don't think there's any question whatsoever that any scholar could ever raise to the fact that in Colossians, two, nine,
the original words that the apostle Paul wrote, to deliver to the church of Colossi was hottie and alto katoa chi, Pon flat top play Roma tastes, they offer a toss. So Marcos,
I know of no textual variants.
That is the text that was written, no one could argue otherwise. You know what those words mean?
So we can talk Arabic, and we can talk Hebrew. I guarantee you my Arabic, so a whole lot better than his Greek is.
But those words, were what were written.
There's no variation.
The manuscripts are more than sufficient on any meaningful basis, any meaning historical basis to substantiate that that's what Paul said, you know what those words say to us tonight, speaking of Jesus Christ, it says, For in him, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.
You see, you we can have fun talking about these things, and we can get all excited. But you see, what we're really dealing with
is eternal truth.
And if Jesus Christ is in the New Testament says he is that he's your maker, and he's your Creator. And every breath you take, and every beat of your heart comes from his hand, and you cannot dismiss him as a mere prophet.
And so you see, the issues that we're dealing with are vitally important issues. And my hope is that after the rah rah and emotion wears off, you will take the time
to look at the sources that we've used and the arguments we've used. I'm sure this will be up on YouTube pretty fast.
Check it out for yourself and ask yourself the question, who was consistent
who apply the same standards, both to his text and to the other person's tax because if you apply
different standards, you lost this debate.
That is the nature of truth inconsistency detects these things, to be truthful is to be consistent. I submit to you
that on as much as I like him, I love his grin. I'd love to have his hair
as much as I like odd none. He did not use the same standards this evening.
And so take the time, consider
and think, because if the New Testament is right, the Jesus that presents is one you need to do. Thank you very much.