|
16 - The Facts on Islam
SECTION IV
A General Critique
16. Is the Koran uncorrupted?
Historical facts prove that it
is the Koran that has been corrupted. First, the Koran is not written in perfect
Arabic (cf. Sura 12:2; 13:37; 41:41, 44) but has scores of grammatical errors
and non-Arabic words. Second, the text of the Koran itself has been corrupted:
There are many conflicting readings on the text
of the Quran as Arthur Jeffrey has demonstrated in his book Material for the
History of the Text of the Quran. At one point, Jeffrey gives 90 pages of
variant readings on the text. For example, in Sura 2 there are over 140
conflicting and variant readings . . .
All western and Muslim scholars admit the
presence of variant readings in the text of the Quran. Guillaume points out that
the Quran at first "had a large number of variants, not always trifling in
significance." . . . The work of Western scholars such as Arthur Jeffrey and
others has been hampered by Muslim reluctance to let Western scholars see old
manuscripts of the Quran which are based on pre-Uthman texts . . . According to
Professor Guillaume in his book Islam (pp. 191ff.), some of the original
verses of the Quran were lost. For example, one Sura originally had 200 verses
in the days of Ayesha. But by the time Uthman standardized the text of the
Quran, it had only 73 verses! A total of 127 verses had been lost, and they have
never been recovered. The Shiite Muslims claim that Uthman left out 25 percent of
the original verses in the Quran for political reasons.
That there are verses left out of Uthman's
version of the Quran is universally recognized. John Burton's book, The
Collection of the Quran, which was published by Cambridge University,
documents how such verses were lost. Burton states concerning the Muslim claim
that the Quran is perfect: "The Muslim accounts of the history of the Quran
texts are a mass of confusion, contradictions and inconsistencies . . . "
In the abrogation process spoken of earlier
[referring to the Quran], verses which are contradictory to Muslim faith and
practice have been removed from the text, such as the "satanic verses" in which
Muhammad approved of the worship of the three goddesses, the daughters of Allah
. . . Not only have part of the Quran been lost, but entire verses and chapters
have been added to it. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his manuscript of
the Quran which Uthman omitted from his standardized text. Thus there were
Qurans in circulation before Uthman's text which had additional revelations from
Muhammad that Uthman did not find or approve of, and thus he failed to place
them in his text . . . Western scholars have shown beyond reasonable doubt that
Uthman's text did not contain all of the Quran. Neither was what it did contain
correct in all of its wording . . .The true history of the collection and the
creation of the text of the Quran reveals that the Muslim claims are indeed
fictitious and not in accord with the facts.
Thus, even the earliest
copies of the Koran must have contradicted one another or had other problems.
Why? Because these copies "led to such serious disputes between the faithful"
that it was necessary "to establish a text which should be the sole standard."
Dr. William Miller reveals that "for some years after the death of Muhammad
there was great confusion as to what material of all that had been
preserved should be included in the Koran. Finally, in the caliphate of Uthman
(644-656 A.D.) one text was given official approval, and
all [other] material was destroyed."
For Muslims to have destroyed such materials, the earlier
versions of the Koran must have differed significantly from this official
version:
The recording of the prophet's words in the
beginning was haphazard. Verses were written on palm leaves, stones, the
shoulder-blades of animals - in short, on any material which was available . . .
Before an authorized version was established under the caliph Uthman there were
four rival editions in use. These have long since disappeared, but we are told
that they differed from the authorized version . . .
On account of the variations and confusions which
had arisen among the reported sayings of Muhammad . . . a revision [was] made,
and all existing copies of the previous compilation [were] destroyed. Thus, the
present text of the Koran is not the first edition, but a second edition . . .
But how accurate were the
written messages or the memories of those who first heard the prophet? Were the
diverse sources from which the Koran was compiled equally reliable? If so, why
destroy them? Did Muhammad ever claim inspiration even when he was not inspired?
Also, we have already seen that the revelations were tampered with. In this
regard, respected Muslim authority Guillaume further comments that "the Quran as
we have it now is a record of what Muhammad said while in the [seizure] state or
states just mentioned. It is beyond doubt that his hearers recognized the
symptoms of revelation . . . [However,] one of the secretaries he employed
boasted that he had induced the prophet to alter the wording of the
revelations."
Muslims may claim that the Arabic Koran is the same today as
when it was first given to Muhammad, but this is not true. In The Islam
Debate, Josh McDowell comments:
The Quran's transmission is not free from errors
and variant readings in significant points. There is concrete evidence in the
best works of Islamic tradition (e.g., Sahih of Muslim. the Sahih of
Bukhari, the Mishkat-ul-Masabih), that from the start the Quran had
numerous variant and conflicting readings. That these are no longer found in the
Quran is only because they have been discreetly removed - not by direction of
God, but by human discretion. There is similar evidence that, to this day,
verses and, indeed, whole passages are still missing from the Quran.
Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a Christian
Arab, concludes his own study of the Koran with:
It is not the Bible which is contradictory and
confusing. No, it is definitely the Quran. If Muslims insist that the Bible is
corrupt, I will have to declare that the evidence, much of which I have
presented in this book, vindicates the Bible and condemns the Quran. No
reasonable person presented with the evidence can believe otherwise.
In conclusion, Muslims have
never proven that the Bible has been corrupted. But sufficient evidence exists
to show the Koran was.
John Ankerberg & John Weldon
|