@@guitarandrums It’s a waste of time to those who don’t have the love or reverence of God in their hearts, or who don’t care for spiritual guidance or knowledge. But then again, one can argue that an atheistic life which is void of any objecting meaning or purpose, and ends with eternal hopeless non-existence, is also a complete waste of time. So I think it’s clear which bet is more wise to draw. We’ll happily stick to following God’s words. By all means, you can stick to eating and drinking, and having fun until the Angel of death claims your soul.
It's wonderful to hear about Mr. Putten, a very humble intellectual with a profound knowledge of Islamic history and traditions, having said that, I suggest that Mr. Putten study the following topics to gain a better understanding: The concept of the seven ahruf. The reason why Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) asked Allah to reveal the Qur’an in seven ahruf. The first instance of the Qur'an being compiled in written form and the reasons behind it. The individuals who were involved in writing the first copy of the Qur'an in book form. The second instance of the Qur'an being compiled in written form and the reasons for it. The reason why Uthman (RA) standardized the Qur'an. The individuals who were involved in writing the standardized copies of the Qur'an. The presence or absence of marks and dots on early Qur'anic manuscripts. The significance of the term "rightly guided Caliphs," including Uthman (RA). Understanding these topics will provide insight into the Sana'a manuscript and the variations of recitation (Qira'at). I'm happy to help with any questions you may have.
Hahaha, this is the kind of conundrum that happens when people talk about Islam without a Muslim around. Instead of explaining in so many words let me just pose a simple question to direct you what I am talking about. If you go to a mosque or masjid in your neighborhood where Muslims pray five times a day. Will you find a single Muslim (the Imam or any of the followers) open a book called Quran during the prayer proper? If not then why? If opening a book is not an issue in today's Muslim congregations why would you think it would have been a critical issue in the early days of Islam? How does a scholar in textual criticism evaluate a book that doesn't rely on its existence as a physical book? As we always say, gather a hundred Muslims and they can recite to you the Quran verbatim from end to end. It would seem that Western scholarship has more to learn from Islamic scholars!
That is absolutely ridiculous, and it is not quite honest to say they won't use a book during salat or "the prayer proper" as some kind of standard. Go to any Masajid and there are rows upon rows of the Qur'an and people sitting there reading them. Even in Masjid Al-Nabi.
Quran was first compiled in a book in the era of first caliph Abu bakr in 632 , not the third caliph uthman. See sahih bukhari volume 9. In uthman era it was standardised to read in tribe of quraysh dialect to avoid discrepancies and bothering for Muslim who were mostly non Arabs and embraced islam and know very little about Arabic.
@@TingTong2568 for Muslims authentic hadith is much better than non authentic history. Plz check sahih bukhari vol 9 hadith 7188 or 7191 (exact number is slipping from mind at this mind but I am 100% sure that one of these number is correct.
@@TingTong2568 OK, let's put aside the hadith for a moment then plz enlighten me how it is settled that uthmanic text is prevailing which also not exist.
@@malikakajee4396 that's my question too. Where is the original uthmanic text? The answer is: it's nowhere to be found. The Quran today only exist with all those different versions such as Hafs, Warsh, Qaloon, Ad Dhuri, Shu'bah & etc that was recited by 10 verified imams.
Even today we can easily find different dialects in english words throughout the world American(more different dialects), British, Irish Australian, African(more differentdialects), Asian( more different dialects) and Arabian.
In ancient Semitic usage, a person’s name was often associated with a famous ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste and hence descended from Aaron, Moses’ brother, she was called a “sister of Aaron.” Similarly, her cousin Elisabeth, Zachariah’s wife, is spoken of in Luke 1:5 as one of Aaron’s
Daughter of someone is a proper way to denote desncendency. Sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran is way too specific and simply cannot be a coincidence that there happens to be a Miriam who is actually a sister of Aaron and Moses and a daughter of Imran (Amram). The responses that Mary was called that to mark her desncendency is incorrect because through her father she was actually a descendant of David. The other response that there was an Aaron in Mary' tribes who was pious and she was called his 'sister' because she was pious too is quite ridiculous. It is very clear that the Quran confuses two Maryams (Mary and Miriam) for the same person, although the two women lived more than a thousand years apart. You are being satisfied with explanations that are not convincing at all, presumably only because they reinforce your faith.
@@Nexus-jg7ev islam is a house built on sand and muslims will make lame excuses like their false prophet. if the quran was truly god's correction to gospel and torah it would look 99 percent like those two books with some corrections. unless a muslim wants to say allah let the books he dictated get totally corrupted before taking action. that is the theology issue. the practical issue is unlettered muhammad would not have a copy of torah and gospel handy to refer to before giving his monthly revelation. so he retold the stories he heard from jews and christians. that would be fine for nomadic arabs who didn't befriend the christian and jewish nomads in arabia. but people in cities who knew their christian and jewish neighbours would notice that muhammad was retelling bible stories he heard. the textual question scholarly types should ask is when the quran has contradictory stories WHO wrote the original revelation and who had to correct a mistake. muhammad or one of the first four caliphs. just like how old testament scholars distinguish writings from P the priestly source from material coming from J or E..
@Nexus 26 the use of brother and sister is more commen then the bible claiming Elisabeth is daughter of Aaron or jesus being the son of David. Even chrstians today reffer to people not related to them like priestss and nuns as brother this or sister that. chrstians are only obsessed about this because they need to find an error in the Quran because their bible is full of errors. And the name imran like the name jesus and the name miriam, was very commen, so finding people with those names wouldn't be that difficult. 20% of the jewish men and women were called miriam or jesus , and even early chrstians before islam refferd to Miriam as sister of Aaron.
@@Nexus-jg7ev you can find satisfaction in your explanation that bible calls Elisabeth daughter is ok, but that only shows that you are a hypocrite and are driven by your desires to reject Islam. Fact is the use of sister and brother to non blood relatives is very commen among all semetic languages it's even more commen then the use of son or daughter.
i certainly would find it cool to name my kid Mathew, mark, luke and if they have another brother, it would be john. now that i am a muslim, i would name them probably after the four caliph, Abu, Umar, Uthman and Ali. Naming them after good figures or the ancestors is a very common thing. idk why it would be weird. Sarah, Elizabeth and Mary in the bible for example, are hundreds or more years apart. It still woudnt be weird to name your daughter and her siblings those names.
During the time of `Usman ibn `Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) differences in reading the Qur’an became obvious. After consultation with the Companions, `Uthman had a standard copy prepared from the suhuf of Abu Bakr that were kept with Hafsah bint Umar wife of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)at that time. The following is the report in the Sahih of Al- Bukhari: Anas bin Malik narrated : Hudhaifah ibn Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifah was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to `Uthman, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an), as Jews and the Christians did before’. So Usman manuscript is not a new invention- it iwas copied from Quran manuscript kept with Hafsa prophet’s wife.
@@john.premose so? Just like every book in history, it's written after the event took place 😂atleast we verify those events actually happened and we verify the chain of narrators 🤷
the prophet pbuh himself is an ummi an unlettered person, during his time there were people who could read n write but the prophet himself committed to memory the Quran. the sahabah also memorized while those that were able to write , they wrote the quran. with the warring states there was a lot of people that was memorizing the quran were killed. the sahabah was concernedwith this situation.that was when the sahabah requested for othman to make n consolidate the quran in written form, but to muslims this is no issue because there are many muslims who commit to memorize the quran.es[ecially during ramadhan when the full quran are recited during the night prayers .so dont doubt the authenticity of the quran, it has both written n read thru memory
The myth of Muhammad being unlettered is not 100% certain within the Muslim community. Unlettered can mean people without a scripture. The S.I.N of Muslim is that Omar ordered Zayn Ibn Thabit to go collect the Quran from within the community because they thought it maybe lost if the reciters were dying off in battles (the battle of Yamama) If the companions ( Abu Bkr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali) of your prophet including Ibn Masud, Ibn Ka’ab had it memorized why go elsewhere? Why not sit in a circle and recite and write it down?
I like Marijn’s approach which is factual and unbiased. He he is calm and very balanced with his analysis without rushing into conclusions unlike Shady Nasser who comes across as someone with polemical motivations sometimes and quick to take his conclusions towards a certain place without enough investigation. By focusing on the facts and giving the Quranic tradition it’s respect Marijn came across as the perfect balance between a muslim apologist and a biased skeptic.
@@sirius3333 Apparently you are not well read on the topic at all. The majority of western scholarship falls in line more or less with the Islamic narrative. Those who deviated from the standard narrative like Michael Cook and Patricia Crone have been proven to be wrong. Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged." R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy." Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that "all sects and parties have the same text of the Qoran." Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars." Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself." Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt." Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it." William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text." Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted" 1. Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran." John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad." 1. Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected, Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
@@hmansour89 I noticed the majority of scholars you have quoted either belong to the 19th or 20th century period. Most of their views are outdated and problematic. If you want the current perspective of non traditional scholarship, you should check out the latest work in the field. I would recommend, The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective by Gabriel Said Reynold. Quran in its historical context ( part 1 and 2 ), edited by the same author In God's path by Robert Hoyland The development of exegesis in early Islam by Herbert Berg The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions by Emran Iqbal El-Badawi And ofc , (1) Creating the Quran (2) The Apocalypse of Empire by Stephen Shoemaker
@@sirius3333 I quoted from authorities from 19th, 20th and 21st centuries and the majority of western scholars has always confirmed more or less the standard narrative. I've read all the works you have listed down apart from Reynold. Shoemaker and Hoyland were both following the school of Patricia Crone who claimed that the Quran is an 8th century work. They are all way off and They were all proven wrong due to latest Carbon dating of manuscripts which confirmed the tradition presented by muslims of a standardized text in mid 7th century. They all worked from a framework of ignoring the islamic tradition completely and went on with theories of speculative natures only to see their theories torn down to pieces due to Carbon dating and archeological findings on rocks in Hijaz. Ayham Sidky's moved the scholarship forward using carbon dating to identify 7th century manuscripts. Then he proved based on computer analysis that the manuscripts from 4 different geographical locations form a stemma that lead to one manuscript which also confirmed the islamic tradition of 4 manuscripts being sent out by Uthman to 4 different geographical locations in the 7th century. Finally linguists like Marijn Van Putten proved based on linguistic features the origination of the Quran as an Arabic text specifically from Hijaz region which refuted the claims of Crone and others of an origination from a different location in Syria or Petra like Dan Gibson presented. These facts forced Crone to come out publicly and change her mind and admit many mistakes she made. The archeological evidences embarrassed those scholars so much so that now the claims shifted from an 8th century quran origination to an origination before the time of Muhammad!!
If you re interested in different views on Mohammad, would be good to interview Hamed Abdel Samad, who is writing books about the topic. He is a writer who is under life threat by a Fatwa for telling his point of view. He s an absolute expert. No sugar coating. He is in Berlin, Germany.
Ah yes, an absolute expert 😂 he's just another liberal islam-bashing 'ex muslim' who follows the popular currents and has no intellectual and philosophical standing. Let's not overdo it.
Regarding the Sa'ana Manuscripts, as we know there are 2 layers of it. As Muslims we are taught to write Arabic in schools (for none speaking Arabic speakers such as myself). What happens is that when we write it from the memory we tend to make a mistake (small mistakes not like messing up the entire word itself but the "Strokes" over the words. So when we know a certain stroke is wrong we erase that and correct it. That's what the two layerd Sa'ana Manuscripts did.
This is correct, we even know from the common mistakes on it that this was a person practising arabic, in fact on the script there are literally personal notes all over
This is just not true, The Sa'ana manuscript shows massive differences, you Muslims need to stop lying to yourselves. It's evidence that oral tradition can't be trusted and as Sahih Hadith shows whatever Quran may have existed at the time of Mo's death, it was almost instantly forgotten and had to be rewritten. The Quran is entirely authored by men.
Except that's not what's written on the upper (visible to the naked eye) and lower (I e., erased/scraped) layers. The lower/erased text (visible under UV light) contains surr places, individual appears to have been corrected in a separate hand before the whole lower text was erased. The suras do not follow the canonical order, and not all verses in the same order as the standard Qur'an The whole of s9 , verse 85 is absent, and there are many other lexical variations. By the way, even the top layer has variations from today's standard Quran
@@GilesMcRiker Like I said, for us it's a regular practice. Even as a kid I would do that and use the same paper over and over. Erase and write again. When it is 100% Correct, we'd leave it. Leaving traces of the corrections and previous writings under it. So what's your point? The surah have been arranged per length as instructed by the prophet. If you read it, you'll understand why it was done so but I doubt you ever did. Nothing has been missing from the Quran, the Sa'na Manuscripts and the Birmingham Manuscripts are the proof of that we do posses the Quran as it was compiled and recited during the time of Uthman. Now if you're a Christian, let's see you bring the " Original" Manuscripts. Good luck.
Quran is not saying she was sister of Aaron. Quran is saying people addressed her by that title. Now that these are all pre-historic characters, there is no way to find out why they called her that. Also too late to give any suggestions to those people that they should have used a better system of outlining lineage.
@@Crocaluthere is a hadith specifically about it, in Sahih Muslim (2135): Mughira ibn Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, the Christian monks asked me, “You recite the verse, ‘O sister of Aaron,’ (19:28) but Moses was born long before Jesus by many years.” When I came back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, I asked him about it and he said, “Verily, they used to name people with the names of prophets and righteous people who had passed before them.” Ibn Kathir in his tafsir (19:28) said: “This is like saying to somebody from the Tamimi tribe: O brother of Tamim, or to somebody from the Mudari tribe: O brother of Mudar.” Hope this helps
At the end of the day, the Qur'an we have today is the Qur'an agreed upon by the disciples of the Prophet Muhammad, the main one being by the Prophets personal scribe. That's good enough for us Alhamdulilah. Imagine if the New Testament was collected and agreed upon by the disciples of Jesus and the earliest manuscript tradition showed hardly any variant readings, who would doubt it?
At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference. It's only relevant to you if you think some arabic Mohammed was trustworthy on whatever he claimed, but only muslims believe that.
If it is good enough for you, that is fine. Christians believe that humans (finite) cannot understand God's (infinite) language. We can only glimpse it. Therefore, it is the message that is important, not the words themselves. It is waste of time to nick-pick on the words instead of the message. Why would God not give the Qur'an earlier? Why would God not preserve his text the first time? The preservation of text only brings up more unanswered questions.
@@kyoungd How do you know what the message is if you have no confidence that the words have been preserved? As for preservarion of previous text, its entirely God's prerogative as to why he let them perish. Your line of questioning here is quite pointless
I don’t even know why they’re here. Approaching Islamic history from a secular historical method will NEVER yield the same conclusions as their legend-like Islamic narrative of history. It’s tired at this point.
I saw your this video and also Dr. Sidky video and i am surprised that in both videos its quite clear that manuscript goes to H. Usman (RA) for word to word and spelling to spelling, but my question is that H. Usman(RA) and Prophet(SAW) are only 20 years apart at most and when you are carbon dating or finding the age of the manuscript which are 1300+ years old 20 years is not much significant, so is there a question that this whole story that H. Usman(RA) standardized the Quran is over blown. May be he institutionalized the writing of the Quran but as Dr. Sidky said that even the manuscripts which were erased and written over do not have much discrepancy, which means that the source is single and its Prophet Mohammad (SAW). I don't see any other way i can logically explain this thing.
What they forgetting is that the Qur’an was already memorised word by word from the prophet's time n passed on..the Qur’an was sent orally n we dont rely in the text because people already memorised it!
The quran is multiformic so an 'original' is not really identifiable. The Sanaa txt confirms the tradition that the companions had personal mushafs that differed. Not a problem. The islamic tradition is unparalleled in how it relays its history and should not be compared to christianity.
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia.. The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
@@elliot7205 this 'rosh lew' kid is a paid robotic agent.. He keeps copy & paste the same nonsense on each post in the comment section.. Either he has been brainwashed by 'jay smith', Or his just a paid bot working for 'jay smith and other islamphobes people.. Surely one of the above⬆️!
It should not be compared to Christianity but we can apply the historical critical method to Quran and Islam. It is no different from Judaism and Christianity in that regards. Take the tale of Zhul Qarnain. 1. According to the Quran itself, the Quraish or the Jews were aware Zhul Qarnain ( Surah Kahf, 83) 2. The legend of Alexander was already in ORAL circulation around the time and place of Muhammad. 3. The legend of Alexander and the tale of Zhul Qarnain resemble each other thoroughly. According to latest scholarship ( by Ahmed al Jallad ), we can trace a version, which resembles the Quranic account to early 600 CE
@@sirius3333 it's a redundant point respectfully. The only question is whether or not there is 'truth' in the 'story' and if that be the case then there is no issue because the origin of that information would still be the creator!
Basically another western scholar who confirms more or less the standard islamic narrative or at least from the time of Uthman where Muslims claimed the text was standardized. Here are some citations from other scholars for those who are interested: Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged." R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy." Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that "all sects and parties have the same text of the Qoran." Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars." Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself." Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt." Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it." William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text." Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted" Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran." John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad." Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected, Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
@@inquisitivemind007 scholars don't make the claim that prior to Uthman was in shambles. The numerous scholarly citations i've referenced in the first comment from western academia support my position. Also one can't simply ignore the mathematical patterns which were discovered centuries later in the Quran. Such patterns on addition to the scholarly work done on the Quran inform us that we have a devine preserved text that we have no doubt about. Here are few of these impressive patterns: The precise number of a word and its antonym mentioned in Quran “al Hayat” (life), 145 times “al Mawt” (death), 145 times “al-Dunya” (mundane life), 115 times “al Akhira” (the afterlife), 115 times “Malaika” (angels), 88 times “Shayatin” (demons), 88 times “ar Rajul (man), 24 times “al Mar’a (woman), 24 times “ar Raghba (wish), 8 times “al khauf (fear), 8 times as Salihat (good deeds), 167 times “as Sayya’at” (wrongdoings), 167 times “an Nafaa” (benefit), 50 times “al Fasad (corruption), 50 times The Word “Shahr” (month) is mentioned 12 times in the Quran, just as the number of the months there are in a year. The word “Yawm” (day), in the singular, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran, just as the number of days there are in a year. The word “Ayyam” (days), in the plural, is mentioned 30 times in the Quran, just as the number of months there are in a month. The word “Salawat” (prayers) is mentioned 5 different times in the Quran which equals the total number of obligatory daily prayers for muslims. The word “Land” in Quran appeared 13 times where as the word “Sea” in Quran appeared 32 times. This means that the total number of times Land and Sea appeared is 45. So if we examine it then 13/45*100 = 28.88888 32/45*100 = 71.11111 This makes up 29% of Land and 71% of Water which matches the actual percentage of land and water on Earth! This ratio was not possible to tell in the 7th century.
@@hmansour89 You lost all credibility when you sank to numerology. You also showed that you're just copying and pasting material lifted from propaganda websites. Shame on you!
@@inquisitivemind007 My dude, Uthman (ra) and Muhammad (saw) were alive at the same time. They were companions of each other. The Qur'an that Uthman learned is the Qur'an that Muhammad taught
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia.. The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
@@roshlew6994 yeah.. And all your sources comes from 'jay smith'.. Yeah sure!What a great scholar he is!🤣 Lmfao.. Bruh! Dont waste people time with just 'theory'..
@@justarshad8354 Islam began as an anti-trinitarian Arab Christian sect promoted by Arab empire.. Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia.. The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
I don’t like the way Van Putten put it when he said Uthman burned the bad Quran with variants. That’s a bit misleading. Uthman first of did not go out burning Qurans. He directed people to get rid of their personal texts in which there might be personal margin explanation or word substitutions that the author did for self use. Which was a good idea in effect. That way personal texts might become a problem later on when other people get a hold of them and suddenly they are authoritative instead of being not so. I am very glad Uthman did what he did. He was with the prophet Muhammad right from the beginning. He was with him twenty three years through bad times and good times. Also Uthman did not make the five copies. He directed Zaid ibn Thanit, the personal scribe of the prophet Muhammad, to choose a committee and tasked them with making the copies and distribute them.
He was one of 4 "Rightly Guided" caliphs therefore he did the right thing. Allah promised to preserved his last book on earth and so far the Quran in Quershi dialect ( one of the 7 ahruf) has been preserved in written as well as into memories of millions.
Something like it is referring to beauty, eloquence, linguistic and literary inimitability of the Qur'an. Remember the Quran used new words which people didn’t know but still understood.
Think you know Islam? Here are some choice quotes from notable mainstream Muslims of today: 1. (On child marriage) It's not rape if there's parental consent. (Daniel Haqiqatjou) 2. Islam & human rights are in 100% agreement. We only differ on who is to do the (wife) beating. (Daniel Haqiqatjou) 3. (On the Quran's perfect preservation) The standard narrative has holes in it. (Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi, PhD Yale) 4. (When Muslims invade, when we are strong in 40-50 years' time) We give you two good options (convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax) and live under sharia law. If you refuse, **neck slitting sounds** (Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem) (Note: This only applies to Jews and Christians. Pagans don't have the jizya tax option. They either convert or die.) 5. Yes, I do believe in miracles (like the flying donkey & moon splitting). (Mehdi Hasan, MSNBC broadcast journalist) 6. (According to the Quran, you can marry a girl) even if she's 5 years old. (Mohammed Hijab) 7. In a Muslim country, apostrophe (he means "apostasy") is dealt with with the death penalty. (Dr Muhamad Mukadam) 8. Without the death penalty for apostasy, Islam would have collapsed the day the Prophet died. (Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi) 9. Hundreds of young boys & girls aged 13 to 18 have openly declared their apostasy to me. They are hafiz, leading prayers at the masjid & engaged in madrassa. This problem is dramatic and large. They cannot talk to their parents. (Dr Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi) 10. Nobody saw the moon split because most people were asleep at night. (Farid Responds) 11. There are various benefits for the human being in drinking camel's urine. (Dr Zakir Naik, "Medical Doctor") 12. Camel's urine contains potassium, and albuminous protein. It also contains traces of uric acid. And sodium. As well as creatine (he means "creatinine"). (Note: This is the urine composition from any animal) (Dr Zakir Naik, "Medical Doctor") As you can see, Muslims today as just as coervice, violent, destructive and nonsensical as Muslims 1400 years ago.
Wait for a few more years and watch your religion die out, the only religion that will remain is Islam. As promised by Allah. He will make his religion prevail over every other religion even though the Polytheist ( Christians included coz they are Polytheist like any other pagans) may not like it .
EARLIEST COPIES OF THE QURAN: According to Wiki: The Birmingham Quran manuscript is a parchment on which two leaves of an early Quranic manuscript are written. In 2015 the manuscript, which is held by the University of Birmingham,[1] was radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645 CE (in the Islamic calendar, between 56 BH and 25 AH).[2][3] It is part of the Mingana Collection of Middle Eastern manuscripts, held by the university's Cadbury Research Library.[2] The manuscript is written in ink on parchment, using an Arabic Hijazi script and is still clearly legible.[3] The leaves preserve parts of Surahs 18 (Al-Kahf) to 20 (Taha).[4] It was on display at the University of Birmingham in 2015 and then at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery until 5 August 2016.[5] The Cadbury Research Library has carried out multispectral analysis of the manuscript and XRF analysis of the inks.[6]....The codex Parisino-petropolitanus is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Quran, attributed to the 7th century.The largest part of the fragmentary manuscript are held at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, as BnF Arabe 328(ab), with 70 folia. Another 46 folia are kept in the National Library of Russia in Saint-Petersburg. Two additional folia have been preserved, one kept in the Vatican Library (Vat. Ar. 1605/1) and the other in the Khalili Collections in London (KFQ 60)." In any case, there is controversy as to whether this manuscript was written during the last years of the Prophet, or under Abu Bakr or Uthman, both of whom were close companions of the Prophet, were known to memorize the entire Quran and were engaged in the written preservation of the Quran. So, there is no argument about the integrity of the manuscript; that it does date from the last years of the Prophets life to no later than the caliphate of Umar ibn Affan.
@@b34t7355you’re a liar, carbon dating proves that the Birmingham manuscript dates back to the years between 568-645 which is roughly during the lifetimes of the prophet muhammad, to the reign of the caliph uthman, so your claim is wrong and utterly delusional.
The situation with Christians doubting the authenticity and veracity of the Qur'an as the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, parallels the scenario of a blind person, or one with poor vision, questioning a sighted individual's knowledge of how to navigate to a baker at the end of the neighborhood. This blind person mockingly asks: "How on earth does he know the way? I can’t see how it’s possible!" Such skepticism mirrors the stance of Christians, who, despite lacking an unaltered, authenticated text attributed to Jesus, peace be upon him, that was contemporaneously transmitted and preserved, boldly question the Qur’an's integrity. In stark contrast, the Qur'an has been meticulously preserved for 1400 years, with its precise oral and written transmission safeguarded without alteration. Its memorization, letter by letter and word by word, has been miraculously maintained through an unbroken chain of transmission by millions of memorizers, reciters, and scholars, making it a unique and unparalleled phenomenon in the history of religious scripture.
Firstly, the majority of what he says agrees with the traditional Islamic narrative, secondly millions of Muslims globally speak Arabic as a first language, have been listening to Quran every single day via prayer and other things hence know the stories inside out, and have read plenty of classical literature. Many Muslims absolutely know their traditions well, obvs there are many who do not, but usually they are ignorant teens who have just started to learn.
@@thenun1846 yes those types exists however if we come from a place of hate then there is zero chance of waking them up, best to try to be as understanding as possible as to how much Muslims are brainwashed from birth . I personally lost all my Muslim friends when I woke up
I appreciate the scholar but on the issue of Mary, his opinion is wrong by bias or lack of investigation on the subject. The prophet was questioned about that and his answer was it was common for the Children of Israel to name their children after ancient illustrious ancestors or people. In addition, what most critics missed on this issue is that it is not the author of Quran who names Mary the "sister of Aaron" but he quotes in narration what the people of Mary were saying when she returned home with the baby Jesus. If you miss that point you have to also wonder why Elisabeth is called "a daughter of Aaron" , Jesus "son of David" or "David, father of Jesus"...
There is a gaping hole of 400 years between the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and the codex sineatus? You can’t really have much of an academic discussion that is robust. Maybe a bit about fragments of a manuscript written about 100 years after Jesus. Who wrote what and when, are questions that simply don’t have answers for the bible.
unlike Prophet Jesus Peace be upon him, the prophet Muhammad Peace be Upon him finished his life as the leader of the Arabs, not just their prophet, and his guidance and message became the norm of the people, and was succeeded by his best companions who loved him and followed his teaching to the dot, with thousands of people memorized the Quran to the dot… so, with an important document like the Quran, in the midst of all those who memorized it with the prophet himself.. it would be impossible to pass a copy with a single error… This, unfortunately, was not the case with prophet Jesus peace be upon him, who was on the run, and his companions were too, and the government was going after them. Not the same
the part with Miriam sister of Abraham was pretty weird how he approached it. and some other answers where he was rather evasive, but let's say this part stands up the most...
About the challenge of imitating the Qur'an, from what I understand, the challenge is to make a religion better than Islam basically, i.e. to make a speech or book which will convince people to join that other religion instead. And that the reason why everyone failed was because of the morality (giving alms, altruism that kinda thing), truth ("your idols can't defend themselves against being destroyed" for example), and miracles the people who converted witnessed. And there were those who tried, and got a few followers, but their cults would break down eventually and join Islam instead. So what makes it inimitable is that Islam has chosen what principles defines it, and if someone just copies those principles or copies the religion tit for tat, then they just de facto agreed with Islam. So instead, they would have to argue against giving the zakat for example, but the ordinary people thought the zakat made sense, and so nobody was able to argue something to dissuade people from that.
Theres an objective criteria for it. one of them is inventing a word that is gramatically correct, be understood imediately, have not been used anywhere before.
@@ridhuan2335 That doesn't make sense. It has no correct grammar before it's invented. And inventing a word is subjective, you choose what your invented word will be and there's no right or wrong way to invent a word.
The criteria was to emulate the qura , then a sura, then the challenge was reduced down 3 verses. It has to be meaningfull, provide unknown information, grammatically correct, use a new word, be eloquent. I suppose it has to rhyme as well, and not reuse the quran. I agree it's subjective but even then ppl haven't been able to do it.... there are some mocking versus recently that are funny. Apparently chat gtp wasn't able to do it either.
@@DDDSSDDDSSDDDSS That's not much of a challenge. Grammatic correctness, rhyming, eloquence and new information is not very challenging. But a new word has no grammatic correctness. For example, what is the grammatically correct way to write this word: "bsfgnfsgvdf"?
@tzimisce1753 from what I understand Semitic languages are based on 3 consonants that have a general meaning. Like the letters KTB provides numerous words that have a meaning related to books. So the words for library, bookstore, books, book vendor, etc. ; along with the numerous tenses of each. So I guess it's easier to make up a new word and ppl could know the meaning?.?... Arabic has like 10 million words so it should be doable 🤷🏼 The whole eloquence thing I do t know... in English: "What light through yonder window breaks." = "Who's that hot girl in the window."
we have not force people to believe into us ...we have method for people to believe us without force them.. If Allah willed, He would have made you one people (only), but Allah wants to test you against the Grace He has given you, so compete in doing good deed (Q.S. Al Maidah : 48) we don't waste our time debating which one is truth...we prefer wasting our time becoming useful in our community...becoming excellent in our deed
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 Brainwashing entails: (1) Isolation from the familiar, inclusive of, but not limited to colleagues, family, or the environment, (2) Absolute submission, and (3) A rigid system of reward and punishment in terms of obedience and unwillingness to cooperate, respectively. You guys meet 2 of the 3
@@thecanaanite let's me clear this dude...we are not mono group...Islam was more fragile than people think...there are many branch...we have problem about indoctrinated people...not using rasionality than provocation...because there certain group of people in Islamic word don't wanna losse their identity in islam and wanna beeing seen as the main contributor ....every relligion have this problem
@@thecanaanite 1) Islam demands involve the in the community and family. From just smiling / speaking to your family and community to service to them , all Islamic” rituals” are focused on avoiding isolation. 2) ridiculous claim of absolute submission. We are not robots. And God is out creator. Repeatedly the Quran mentions striving and effort. Expecting full submission would be futile. It is about developing a relationship over time. Overcoming weaknesses of mind and body to improve oneself. Thete is no mention of absolute submission 3) Every system, every nation, even every home has a system of reward and punishment and every single person is expected to be obedient to that system. Islamic law is not rigid. It is flexible within limits( like and contrition) . And there are methods of dealing with disobedience or unwillingness by the self and by society. So your misguided on all three fronts. You are judging scripture by the caricature portrayed in secular / liberal media
On the discussion of Sana palimpsest that what were written are different from the standard collected by Uthman, the critics have very good points. How did Uthman know which one is right when the original supposed to be in “paradise”? Didn’t he burned the Alexandria Library also, in addition to the “variants” in order to prevent future “contradiction” with his standard? If you want to find out the truth of Quran, please do not adopt Wilbur Cantrell Smith’s policy. Billions Muslims’ eternal life are at stake here.
If its the word of God and it wasn't Mohammed who chose the final quaran, than yet it is a problem when the person burning the Qurans and choosing the 1 isn't Mohammed lol. This guys tripping that a huge problem for muslims i know
At 1:02:40, Putten seems to be saying that you can get the 3-volume "Le Coran des Historiens" for free. I've been looking for it, but couldn't find a free download. Can anybody help me? Or am I simply mistaken on what Putten said?
The Arabic language is one of the richest, if not the richest language in the world, it has over 12 million words vs 5 million English words for example. Also, it is the most grammatically structured language. You can compare the Arabic grammar which is derived from the Quran to Newton's laws, that is the level of sophistication of the Arabic grammar. It is that structured. One word can have many meanings just by changing the vowel or the location of the word in a sentence or a paragraph. It is that precise. The Arabic grammar language was perfected because of the Quran, and it is still not completely comprehended by the most learned Arabic writers. There is a level of grammar in the Quran still not yet understood and so they are not able to create grammar laws for them that can be used by Arabic scholars in their writings. Arabic scholars will just say this is special to the Quran with no further explanation. The Arabic grammar was derived from the Quran which Muslims believe no one on EARTH can bring something like it. With regard to some so-called mistakes in the Quran like Maryam sister of Aaron, these has been debunked and extensively addressed. I know you are trying to look objective, but to be objective, you need to follow the scientific method, this what you need to do. Someone proposed a theory that he tested and claimed to be true. You as someone who wants to test his theory: The first thing you need to do is accept the premise that he is correct. Otherwise, if you reject the theory, why you want to test it. In the case of Islam, you need to accept that the Quran is the word of ALLAH (the creator). Clearly you did not. The second thing you need to do is to understand the theory directly from the source in as much detail as possible with absolute sincerity and good intention of understanding it. If I want to understand the Bible, I don't go to Muslim scholars, that will be deceptive. So, you need to go directly to Muslim scholars, not Christian scholars, to show sincerity and good intentions of wanting to understand why the Quran is the word of the creator and why the Quran has no errors or mistakes. Clearly you are not sincere and don’t have good intentions based on what you are doing. All what you are doing is creating the illusion, mostly to your Muslim listeners, that you are being objective by not allowing any criticism of Islam (mainly the Quran), but at the same time bring up issues to make your Muslim listeners think these issues have no answers, when the truth is the exact opposite. So, you have no intention of understanding Islam, and all the intention of districting Islam with zero objectivity. Third, you put the theory to test, not by bringing Christian scholars, but by confronting Muslim scholars about the claims in the Quran. Clearly you did not. Fourth, if the theory passes all the tests, then you must accept that theory. If you are able to prove ONE error in the theory, then you reject it. In summary, you are not objective, you are not sincere, and you have no good intentions with regard to Islam. My advice to all Muslims following him to stop supporting his channel unless he changes his tactics.
Your claim about 5 million English words vs 12 million Arabic words sounds false.Please check those numbers. Its probably closer to 350,000 for English and 120,000 for Arabic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictionaries_by_number_of_words
I wouldn't use Wikipedia to get these kinds of facts because anyone can write on Wikipedia. But you were right I was a bit off: Arabic language is over 12 million and several sites puts at 90 to 500 million words. My first language is Arabic and I didn't know it is that rich. English language is much less than I thought, it is no more than 1 million and probably less than that. Just google Number of words in the Arabic language Number of words in the English language You get many sites that put the Arabic language at more than 12 million. Anyway, thank you for letting me dig deeper into this issue. With this, the Quran makes more sense to be the Arabic with this vast number of word choices. That is why, there are many words in the Quran the English translation of them is complete sentences. If you translate the full meaning of the Arabic Quran into English, probably it will be over 10,000 page book.
I have been reading Stephan shoemakers “creating the Quran” and it really goes into depth about the various different Qurans and fighting between communities about “the true words of the prophet”. It really was a mess And quote “the reports are a mass of confusions, contradictions and inconsistencies. By their nature, they represent the product of a lengthy process of evolution, accretion and “improvement”. They were framed in response to a wide variety of progressing needs…. The existence of such reports makes it clear that the Muslims were confused. The earliest stage of the traditions on the collection of the quran did consist in incompatible attributions of the first collection to Abu bakr, to umar, to uthman.” Page 31. Creating the Quran. John burton, Cambridge and Stephan Shoemaker, University of Oregon are in agreement.
It's so stupid to narate Quran preservation with Christian garbage bible... Schumacher released that's book before studied Sanaa manuscript clear...we have stable manuscript from 650 BC untill now...that's variant is not contradiction but variant of recitation...we are not confused because we are sceptical society from the beginning...
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 “the reports are a mass of confusions, contradictions and inconsistencies. By their nature, they represent the product of a lengthy process of evolution, accretion and “improvement”. They were framed in response to a wide variety of progressing needs…. The existence of such reports makes it clear that the Muslims were confused. The earliest stage of the traditions on the collection of the quran did consist in incompatible attributions of the first collection to Abu bakr, to umar, to uthman” John burton, Cambridge. Btw shoemaker released the book last year and had a chapter on the sanaa manuscript. Virtually all scholars have said the dating for Sanaa is post uthman. And stop liking your own comments it’s sad. Stephan shoemakers book is free to read online go check it out 👍🏽
@@Unknownmale23 Quran was not garbage bible which compile without consensus of witnesses...we have companion of the prophet still alive during Ustman standard...the consensus of witnesses tradition still preserve untill today...every Quran new publicity have to be checked by hafiz(people who memorize Quran)....and from 650 BC our Quranic text was more stable...and it's supported by Sanaa manuscript and other old manuscript
@@Unknownmale23 Schumacher just a Christian biassed Morron...lot of people more intelegent than him...he just delusional and forgetting the fact that's Muslim earlier preservation during utsman involve lots of witnesses during prophet life such as his companion..We are more sceptical society...such a compile have to be checked before publication....it's tradition still preserve untill today...but Christian garbage bible?...not even all of complete mark gospel survive during 100 years ...and during 200 years later it's publication has anonymous problem...not even Jesus diciple involve and beeing witnesses but all gone...it's only narate by church... monopoly by church it's not holy book but a corrupt book
So according to these 2 there was no gravity until 1500 or 1600 because Issac Newton didn't discovered, it doesn't mean it didn't existed before only he presented in proper way,
I am still surprissed by the high standards they try to impose into quranic text and at the same time the laxe attitude towards biblical recopilation... be objective guys...and do not forget the support of millions of moslems recitating the same text with almost no differences and certainly no one really significant... good program.
Even after dareks constant forcing again and again marjin van putin bro is sticking to his conclusions,, Quran is same as it was 1400 yrs ago,,on the other hand we don't even know who wrote gospels and gospels don't even agree with each other to the extent that its laughable,, my faith has got even more stronger after listening to this episode Hallelujahhhhhhh God is Great ❤️
You clearly didn't pay attention. The Quran is the same (minus a few scribal mistakes) in between the time period of Uthman till present. From Muhammad to Uthman is was like the Bible - lots of different versions. P.S. I'm not a Christian
@@inquisitivemind007 Here's the problem with this narrative: Ibn Mas'ood along with the rest went to Iraq, Syria, Egypt and were teaching their Qur'an for over 10 years during Umar's tenure, before Uthman was even a Khalif. Ibn Mas'ood is the top of the chain of Hafs along with other Qira'at. It's still very close with Uthman. They differ in the order of Surah's. Islamic literature already knows this and recorded this over a 1200 years ago.
Damn this comment is really sad. So much cope. You realise that your god Allah is responsible for sending the gospels too? And just like the Quran, your god Allah's words are corruptable. Without the bible we wouldn't have the Quran, the Quran needs the bible to explain certain things so if it's corrupted, this is a confirmation that your god has failed in delivering his message. I hope you develop the ability to think more critically
I don’t give much regard to the ability to trace text back to an author. The real question is if the text transcends the author and time period. The Quran holds what we would expect from a primitive culture. There is nothing that suggests divine inspiration. If we take the Quran as written then we can conclude Allah is evil just as the Christian god is evil in the Bible. This Quran just adds evidence against god.
The evil Old Testament god is Yahweh the great deciever from the Southern Kingdom of Judah worshipped at Beer-sheba. The Masoretic Text (MT) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are corrupted Yahwism nonsense. Try reading the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) instead it's from the Northern Kingdom of Israel temple Bethel YHWH pronounced Yehowah (Jehovah in Latin). There's like 7000-ish differences between the two Torahs.
Have you read the Quran? It seems they have studied the history of the text and searched for differences, etc but they didn’t study what the text actually says…. The very accurate descriptions of how a baby is formed in the womb or the description of creation and the heavens and the earth which is in line with the way science now underlies it. Proving that its God speaking. Go read the book with the intention of finding guidance
@@riazmongratie4440Qur'an claims bones develop before the flesh, but we know today that they develop at the same time. The Qur'an's claim seems to track with the contemporary understanding of how babies develop
Millions of muslims memorize the quran today. This tradition of memorizing the quran had been passed down from generations to generations for 1400years since the time of the prophet. Hundreds of companions of the prophet memorized the quran during his lifetime. The quran has always been more like a living audio book that had been actively recited for 1400 years - not only kept as written dusty books in libraries. The written text have always been functioning more as the backup for the living audio Quran. This living tradition is a lot more believable and reliable than the wild speculations by unbelievers 1400 years after the event.
@@truthseeker9163 you clearly are ignorant about the quran. no wonder since you re part of revisionists speculating 1400yrs after the event. the consonant skeleton (rasm) had been standardized since Uthman's time based on quraish dialect and approved by consensus of prophet's companion. the pronunciation had always been varied without changes in meanings.
The way I view this is abit different. Perfection cannot be measured or seen because we are limited entities, however.. if you apply that word to the Quran when it was first revealed to him and he first repeated it, it would apply then, the subsequent aspect is not an issue because if the meaning is there but there are slight differences in recitation I have no issue. In reality there are not variant readings, when the prophet said to umar and hisham both of your recitations are correct even though they differed he said they were revealed that way, so the issue of 'variants' was included and addressed from the beginning but in reality it is one recitation which has this flexibility.
@@manusiabumi7673 well obviously you had huffaz dying on the battle field and the islamic empire was spreading across new regions were people were differing on how to recite because not everyone were memorizers so uthman formed a committee to standardize the Quran in the form it was revealed.
@@manusiabumi7673 not any variation is accepted . For example the words you can change into a million variants if you wanted to . ... but there are only only 7 or 10 qirat ...meaning there is a mechanism of authentic verification . Your trying hard .
@@Kassalawy56789 what do you know about the Ebionites ? How can I find peace when a man can have several wives? Maybe the man can, but even Abraham could not...see Hagar.
@@allebasi66 I don't know about several wives but in Islam it's up to 4. Of course that's comes with many conditions if you can't keep it you will be judged accordingly. But in a way, still it's much better than having 1 wife and a punch of girl friends & casual sex with anyone.
Conclusion: Uthman standardized the text because people didn’t even know what the verses even said, it was not about word changes. You have no clue or confidence if the version today is the exact words of the prophet.
Majority of western scholarship beg to differ...If this is your conclusion then you're not understanding what is being said here by Marijn or you are not being fair with your analysis. Here is what western scholars say regarding the quran and why your conclusion falls outside what experts say: Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged." R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy." Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that "all sects and parties have the same text of the Qoran." Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars." Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself." Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt." Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it." William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text." Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted" 1. Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran." John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad." 1. Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected, Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
@@hmansour89 nice and copy and paste, but all of these scholars were from late 19nth century to early 20th century, academia and scholarship can change a lot in almost 70 years. My original statement was in the words of marijn from the video with context with other scholars. Before uthman, there were variants and variations and people were reciting “differently not just different words”. Just watch the video man.
@@Unknownmale23 I've quoted from 19th, 20th and 21st century scholars. Sooo many modern scholars I could quote from like Angelika Neuwirth for example, Yassin Dutton, Hythem sidky.... They all say the same thing which frustrates the skeptics so much so that they start to accuse the scholars of receiving petro dollars from Saudi Arabia just like Marijn said in this video. He was accused to receiving money and his scholarship was attacked because he was factual and unbiased with his approach
Modern scientific historical research proves that the city of Mecca could not have existed as a large commercial caravan city in the years 600 AD Main reasons for this fact are: 1) Mecca is not an oasis, so there is no surface water (only a well, known as zamzam which is clearly unsufficient and inappropriate for watering many caravan camels) 2) Mecca is not shown on any map at that time or even previously 3) Mecca is located down of Hidjaz plateau and could therefore not be located on the caravan route which is located more than 1000 m above on the plateau (eg the city of Taeef is located at an altitude of ca 2000 m while Mecca is at 300 m) 4) there were no archeological remains or artefacts (coins, potteries, ruins, bones etc) discovered in Mecca dating from before circa year 700 5) no agriculture whatsoever is possible in this wild rocky desert location, how could a large city survive in such hostile environment ?
Definition of contradiction: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions" a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present. "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction" the statement of a position opposite to one already made. "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first" Splitting of the moon does not fit that definition. Also, Thulqarnine story does not fit the definition either. This guy should know better than to cite those two examples to intimate possible contradictions in the Quran. I’ll give you an example of contradiction from the Christian Bible. Mark 6:8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Matthew 10:10 Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff; for the worker is worthy of his provisions. Which is it did Jesus instruct his apostles: to take a staff or not? It depends on which book you read. That’s a contradiction professor.
Here are more contradictions Btw, did the moon split yes or no? 1) The Qur'an is in pure Arabic (12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:41,44) It contains numerous foreign words (Egyptian, Acadian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, & Ethiopian)1 2) Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him(87:6-7) Allah abrogates some verses or causes them to be forgotten (2:106), & so did Satan (6:68) 3) Allah will not mislead people (9:115) He misleads whom he wills (11:34; 14:27)
@@mmss3199 no I have not, the verse says “And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things” Why does allah say he will not lead people stray after what he has guided. And than say he intends to put error or stray in people?
@@Unknownmale23 month was splitting...you wanna proof...belief in Islam...that's simple....there is no contradiction about the abrogates...because that's surah itended into the believer not infidel like you...the believer in many surah were beeing thought to have positive thinking about GOD...and beeing manner toward GOD...if you wanna understand read surah Al Luqman cause it's not for believer only but infidel can understand also we don't waste our time debating some trivial...you debating about GOD...if you can presenting GOD personaly here..all of you know about GOD just your assumption..you can't presenting me your GOD here..you debate me without basic. .read my explanation above.. Note : Abrogation was known in fiqh area...it's our flexibility in using Quran to form our law...( It's positive thinking from believer that GOD foreseen to our trouble in fiqh)
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 mentions abrogation, another contradiction in the quran. its a huge theological problem. According to muslims/islam - the quran is directly from god and is timeless. An abrogation basically implies that god changed his mind over time. Which in turn implies he couldn't foresee what would happen, which implies god is limited and not all-powerful. How can an all powerful, all knowing being change their mind about something ? It makes no sense. How can a book for all time say one thing at a particular time and then change that at a later point ? Your quran is garbage
I'm 30 mins down the line and this is interesting to me. There is one thing that you may have totally missed, which is: The meaning of Quran is exactly "it is readable from the chests/hearts"... one standard way that Quran was propagated is by oral recitation, and this is valid until this very day. You cannot be an authorized reciter of the Quran without hearing it from an authorized person who heard from an authorized person ...etc, it is called Ijaza (permittance to read the Quran), and each Ijaza is specific to one way of reading the Quran (there are 10 different ways). There are rules as well on how to read the Quran and you will not be authorized until you are mastering them (what is called Tajweed, amelioration if I can say that). So, even if the Quran was written and canonized a bit later (which I believe differently and strongly believe that the Quran was written and gathered by the Prophet himself), the reciters of Quran were there and are still here ... Thousands upon thousands upon millions until this very day. In Islam, if someone reads the Quran and makes a mistake (even a letter or a sound), one of the other Muslims in the same place can, and will, rectify this mistake immediately, even if he or she is 6 years old, and everyone will respect that and confirms and apologizes for the mistake. Knowing the Quran by heart by millions of people all over the decades and centuries, makes it even more marvelous piece of holy thing and you can be sure with high confidence, it is the same book that was told by the prophet.
Uncovering The Truth About Quran Preservation With Dr. Marijn van Putten ua-cam.com/video/xkMqKB5SM1A/v-deo.html I think you will like this video better. He covers different oral recitation, different Qur'an variation and different Islamic traditions.
One of the mistakes that you are making here is that it seems like you are implying that the text was standardized in isolation of those that knew the oral tradition well
@@TingTong2568 this is done by validating the oral memorization word for word letter by letter through thousands of people who are not associated or even from the same area
The Quran doesn’t say stars shoot at the devil says we have adorned the heaven with lamps and we made them missiles to for the devils. Ibn Kathir explains it’s not the star itself it’s the solar flame coming from it.
Any historical aspect taken into consideration in this conversation will come to one conclusion, the prophet first had the 'revelation' enter his memory, after others started memorizing, writing down and that has carried on to present day with corrobative documented chains receding all the way back, the issue for me now is flipped.. if one is going to doubt the veracity of the Quran you have to do one of two things, provide something in opposition to what we have today that is contradictory that can be assed, or open the covers to the internal content and point out that this was definitely not part of the 'original' , I would suggest, either cannot be done.
@@Unknownmale23 what has god got to do with it! The primary method of how the Quran is transmitted is alive and observable today going back to it source the others that you mentioned cannot match that.
@@Unknownmale23 because the practice according to all the available evidence was instituted or began with the prophet Muhammad in the month of ramadan and today around the world muslims from the age of 3 to 75 ricite its entirety exactly how it was primary revealed. It is unparalleled.
It was memorized first women to memorize was Ayesha (RA) this was before she married prophet. She gave 2600 Hadith after the death of prophet which the companion did not know about. Since she was very close to prophet companion used to ask her about many things. She was a scholar and was one of the strong advocate of Islam till the age of 73 when she passed. Question to your scholar has he checked if the people who memorized Quran were involved in verifying, double checking, triple checking to make sure everything is Authentic?
2600 hadiths?? Its only 35-38% of the whole quran, habibi Sound like nobody actually memorized the whole quran at that time. Ohhh wait.. stoning and breast feeding verses aren't counted.
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia..
The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
once I saw passion of the christ. and dude on cross cried out ' Allaha Allaha why have thou forsaken me ' I left church for islam. cut out the middleman
@@etzelkaplan9677 Isa ibn Maryam of Quran is not Jesus of Bible. Isa is a fictitious nephew of Hazrat Musa made to resemble Jesus by authors of Quran 🤣
Quran actually is a oral book.... means it's needed to be recited ....so during prophets lifetime there was many people who fully memorized the Quran and ofcourse prophet himself memorized the whole Qur'an i.e. there was no need for a physical book......Even today you can find millions of people who have memorized the Quran, which was encouraged by the Prophet PBUH.....!! After the death of prophet when other people i.e. Turks,Babylonian,eastern Greeks,berbers,Indians,persians started accepting Islam the need of a Quran in written down form or book form. Then only Uthman AS standardized the Qur'an because there was many Qurans floating around the Islamic world which has many impurities or corrupted form because there was many non Arab tried to write the Quran without having proper knowledge of Quranic Arabic, even today Quranic Arabic is very different from the classical Arabic that's actually a miracle of Quran that type of Arabic isn't spoken anywhere except The Prophet.....so Uthman AS really eliminated the corrupted form of the message....and make the Quran standard as it is required in order to preserve the religion.
@@kyoungd you can get that from Arab speaking scholars as well who would understand the history and nuance. One thing that is missing in this discussion is the fact that we have an oral tradition that dates back to original sources in an unbroken chain The manuscripts that are deviant or in other lands don’t have a chain or record, someone could have mistakenly written something that is unverified and rejected We already have historical accounts of such activity that existed
@@nkamboh He is an Arabic speaking scholar, and he understands history and nuances. He just does not share your religious bias. And no. You do not have historical accounts. Do not mistake Islamic religious tradition with history. Historians differ from Muslim scholars when it comes to early Islamic history.
Western scholarship is only bad when it comes to the study of Islam. I never see conservative Muslims complaining about Western Egyptology or Assyriology.
@@apolloniusoftyana7049 no western scholarship is bad when it’s taken in isolation ignoring strict scholarship and sciences of the accounts from that time It’s like someone comments on a book when it’s written and generations later a new interpretation is taken without considering the comments of that time
The problem with this theory is that this is or was a patriarchal society and they did not use the mothers lineage nor did the bible use the mothers lineage. Even the biblical lineage of Jesus falls apart in the bible if you do the math and that is assuming Jesus even existed.
Current Quran is around 6200 verses. There are traditions to the effect that the original Quran was over 17000 verses. According to one tradition the verse concerning stoning of an adulterer was under Ayesha’s bed and was eaten by a goat!
@@malikakajee4396 I refer you to “ sohah setta” including Bokhari and Muslim who have mentioned cases that were excluded from the Quran according to Aasem as recited by Fahs. One example is the paper(s) with the Aya or Ayat concerning the stoning of adulterer written on it which was being kept in Ayesha’s room and was eaten by her goat.
@@dadbidad1322 that paper contains the ayats regarding punishment of married adulterer which recitation was left by prophet himself but its order was still in implementation and personal commentary of rules regarding fosterage like hazrat Ali has personal notes regarding zakat in cattles in the handle of his sword about which Shia create many stories. It is very painstaking to look all 6 hadith books ,that why I was asking for reference
@@malikakajee4396 the surah for stoning the adulterers and suckling were eaten by goats according the Hadiths. So from where is these stories coming from the shias when it is clearly Sunni Hadiths
@@TingTong2568 Shia stories regarding 40 paras of quran , 70000 verses of quran, goat eating 10 paras of quran , thickness of quran like leg of a camel , 30000 verses regarding Ahl e bayt, real quran missing , only imams have the real quran , only imam knows the tarteeb e nazooli at which order it was revealed verse to verse etc
Actually the answer is simple it's like asking how do we know Abraham Lincoln lived?, there was no Quran before prophet Muhammad, saw. I find questions like these really ignorant, but for the learner there are no stupid questions, so we must engage and be patient. I wonder why the host never invites Muslim scholars on his channel if he is seeking knowledge about Islam and the Quran. Consult those who live and breathe the faith.
As an ex Muslim I find this so incredibly fascinating. I always found it interesting that Umar needed to get involved to "finalise" the Quran. The power struggle that ensued directly after Muhammad was (potentially) assassinated, show the true motives behind establishing this religion and standardizing a version of the Quran
What I see is Muhammad screwing up. First he comes up with the idea 💡 of the 7 ahruf to help his ummah. It creates arguments and then Uthman ends up banning it.
@@alonzoharris9049 lol Alonzo. Do you sleep at all or do you spend your days just seething and coping in the comments. Can you point out my personally emotional argument?
@@alonzoharris9049 so stating that the caliphs were murdered is a fallacy? 🤔 are you telling me they all died from natural causes lol "The standardisation is known" 😂 yea we can can see the holes buddy. If only your prophet was as effective as uthman, maybe Allah chose the wrong person for the job and it should have been uthman all along🤷🏽♂️ Oh Alonzo, I missed embaressing you.
Why does the Quran engage with Christian theology and polemics when there wasn't a Christian community in/near Medina or Mecca ? Either the Quran borrowed from pre Islamic oral memory, which came from Christian community AROUND hejaz or it was added later on during the Muslim conquests, when the Arabs conquered territory with significant Christian population. The Quran shows the influence of Syriac Christian tradition and the Jewish Midrash from late antiquity. Second of all, why does the Quran mention occupations, like agriculture and fishing, which were unknown to people living in the Hejaz region ? Finally, oral memory is not reliable, esp when you don't have a written text with you to correct yourself. Before the canonization of Quran, the companions of Muhammad could only memorize bits and pieces of the Quran. Most of then were illiterate. Oral memory, individual and collective, changes with time in the absence of a written text. Even if the Quran became a fixed and stable text after thr canonization of Uthman, it happened a little too late, 20 to 25 years after the death of Muhammad.
Because it is simply a document that transformed over time and became standardized after some stuff was removed, some was added and quite frankly some of it was lost. Like any of the other abrahamic religions, we do not have a proper, nuanced and full text of supposed revelation that every non-heathenous religion claims to have.
firstly one of the shortest surah in Quran named Al ikhlas...it's easy to memorize...even me still memorize untill at this age even though I am bad on memorization.....it's surah consist of filosof about GOD...that's He was not begotten or have a child...this surah already explanation about our view on Christianity today...it's the earlier surah from Makkah...it's filosof originally from Islam not known in other religion even Judaism don't have that's statement and islam the relligion firstly directly critique Christianity Secondly we have tradition called tadarus which recite Quran collectively and correcting if someone wrong in recitation/memorization...every hafiz school / madrasa preserve this tradition...
@@KoniTheChiwa Do you think the Naskh Mansukh ( abroagtion) approach to Quran was developed as an aftermath of missing Quranic verses ? Hadiths are generally not reliable, but using the criterion of embarrassment, we can learn something about early Quran. Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 It was narrated that 'Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” Muslim scholars explain this hadith away by saying it was abrogated but l think the Quranic verse on abroagtion is itself a later product, to make sense of the contradictions in Quran and the missing parts.
@@tacom0nsta658 You need to improve your comprehension skills. Before Islam, Christianity was present in Yemen and northern Syriac region. Either Muhammad and his early followers had access to an extensive oral+written tradition from such community or the material was borrowed after the Muslim conquests. The first option is improbable, given the familiarity of the Quran with the theological disputes of late antiquity. Muhammad could not have gained such knowledge by interacting with people as a tradesman. It would only make sense if he had some kind of access to a library, which we know he didn't. My other point is Mecca or Medina didn't have any Christian population. So it doesn't make sense for the Quran to engage with Christian polemics. I'm not saying Christians didn't exist in the Arabian peninsula, instead, what I'm asserting is they didn't exist as a sizable population in the Hejaz region I would recommend Stephen Shoemaker's book, Creating the Quran. He discusses all these issues in great detail
Just a clarification. Quran doesn't mention Alexander the great, that's exegesis where people say could be talking about him. Whereas most exegesis state it can't be referring to him as marijn said, he wasn't a monotheist or a righteous man
A little weed, some Mythvision and Islamic history - goes well with today’s herb, “Kosher Kush” As a former Muslim and Christian, and a Middle Eastern Studies and religions major in previous life: this should be fun!
If every book is burnt down, be it religious or science or fictions or fantasy.... The only book that can be compiled in few hours with 100% of accuracy of words, will be Quran. Cause even today, to make a copy of Quran...you dont require previous manuscript....all you need those who are authenticated as Hafiz.
@@Jemuanzo1 Yeah...right !! a nursery rhyme. probably 20-30 words.. Like, Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are! Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. Not a book containing 77,430 words. and they are more prose than poetry. Shakespeare most famous Romea and Juliet had only 24,545 words. and no one absolutely no one has ever memorized that even. Btw, I bet you will have a rather hard time in remembering other four verses in twinkle rhyme..... and therefore they are not taught in schools. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the trav’ller in the dark, Thanks you for your tiny spark, He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often thro’ my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye, Till the sun is in the sky. ‘Tis your bright and tiny spark, Lights the trav’ller in the dark, Tho’ I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star. 👍 Goodluck
@@Jemuanzo1 Lets be honest.... my very first comment stated a "book" ..... and you never gonna find a book having only 4 lines of a nursery rhyme. Btw, have you memorized those other four verses? Nope.... Right?
It’s like asking a cow, how does a bird feel? Scholar of Islam knows more than a beginner researcher . And how would you expect to translate knowing that Arabic has over 12 million distinct words and according to Harvard University and Google in 2010, they estimated a total of 1,022,000 words in English . I’ll just give one remark (because if I reply to every hypothesis he has, I would write a 10 page reply knowing that I only have dipped my toes, islamic knowledge. The 7 (Ahrf) it means the 7 dialects (and Allah is the most knowledgeable) for example a (cats 🐈- feline). It Doesn’t change the main point . And another example some people can’t pronounce (j) they pronounce it (g) and (c) and to (k) ect… Basically the meaning is retained, but the pronunciation differs buy a 1 to 3 alphabet letters . Example, Kat - cat . One times he said it could be the words of the prophet 10 rows back and says no 😂 what exactly did you research you couldn’t even come with an answer . To prove something wrong is to give evidence not theories 😂
The Quran was standardized like the tradition says. Most companions were still alive during this compilation. This happened 10 to 20 years after the prophet with manuscripts of the prophets lifetime. So the Quran goes back to the prophet as he taught it to his companions.
Tradition makes different claims and different groups of Muslims believe different accounts. Your "10 to 15" years seems to be a unique claim because it fits between Abu Bakr's edit and that of Uthman. What is certain is that the Quran was authored by men and is not a revelation from god.
@@byteme9718 the Quran goes back to the prophet whether u believe he was a true prophet or not, that's another topic. And the tradition which i refer to is the tradition of the majority of all Muslims, Sunni Islam.
@@byteme9718 even the most critical scholars admit that the Quran was standardized, upto to at most 20 years after the prophet. Now compare it with the gospels for example. The Quran was completely revealed in 632.
@@byteme9718 Cook, The Koran, 2000: p.119 "the process of canonization ended under the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (r. 23/644-35/655), about twenty years after the death of Muhammad in 650 CE.
1 hour speaking of a medieval invention of arabia, trying to see somthing good in that bad comic coz it is an antichristian book. MVP only thinks how can use the medieval comic against xtianity.
@@etzelkaplan9677 and how is your new crucifix? with a hen or with a cow on the cross? Your super ignorant new god has not tell you what was on the cross? Your father has a crucifix with Jesus and you have a crucifix with a hen... your father knows you are lost and you will not be with him in Heaven. Your father now says "this traitor is not my son".
not only that, I've honestly been bouncing around religions out of curiosity with respect, I had a experience where the Preacher even admitted we know it isn't in the order it was written in, I know this is about the christians bible and this is about the Quran. I just find it interesting were in a age where they can come out and admit its not written from Genesis to Deutoronomy. The next best thing with due respect is not downing others holy books and calling the Torah and the whole book TaNaKh the "old testament" but now were in a moment of politicians wanting to Ban things in a free country because of their belief system therefore. idk i know i am going off on a tangent just sometimes when i run into those people i wanna find a place that is that religion and not religion - Government separation and be like try and live here and tell me how it is with how you want it here.
@@DarthKaiju a few decades after, until there was a complete written version, compiled by his closest friends who heard him recite The Quran daily. The Noble Quran was memorised fully by thousands of companions and their children and wives and since then till today, it is still memorised by millions of hafiz, all of it word for word! “Al-Quran” translated into english means; “The Recitation”.
First of all vast majority of the companions had memorised the Quran in the life time of the Prophet. Secondly the first quran was compiled by the closiest companion of the prophet named Abu Bakr. Thirdly Uthman did standardize the Quran and uthman was also one of the ten people who were guaranteed paradise whilst still in this world and was one of the closet companions of the prophet. Fourthly, there were hypocrites who wanted to corrupted the Quran like they did the bible and Torah and the Quran being standardised by the closest companions who had memorised it was a brilliant thing. Their efforts ensured the Quran remained untainted.
These guys completely ignored the Memories of the Quran. From the time of Prophete Muhammad (PBOH) to Abubakar , Umer And Usman there were thousand and thousand Hafiz who memories the Quran
Although the book contains an exciting premise, the works contained in the book are largely dismissed by most scholars, even those in the Revisionist School. It's an interesting hypothesis, but there isn't really enough to definitively say this is the case
The Quran is the first book - written in that language. Quraish and other clans might have talked in that language and in manifold dialects and variants. The IDEOLOGY of Mohammed - combining earthen goals of might, power and reign combined with "religion" and his "religion" might be a composite of earlier religions and cults is evident. NOTHING is developed among human beings out of nothing. People always travelled and got into contact with people of other languages, cults and traditions. So even the langugae of the first book written in Arabic must comprise the idea and factual traces of former concepts/words even sentences, quotations (maybe re-interpreted and fit in smoothly into the own agenda) of other religions using their concepts/words/ideas - revocalized maybe or altered or put into the opposite of its original meanings. The statement, that Lüling - especially Luxenberg and his researches and thesises would be on the very fringe of scholardom must be seriously rejected! Luxenberg was forced to published under an avatar name! Otherwise he wouldn´t be around us anymore. HOT stuff obviously. I bet Dr. Putten would face the same verdict if ...
I used to watch Mythvision when it featured the Great Scholar Dr. Robert Price. I watched today's show because of the intriguing Title. Unlike Jesus and Gospels, Quran and Prophet Muhammed are not Myths. I hoped to hear from Dr. Putten about the poetic beauty of the Arabic Quran.
Clearly the Quran is not a myth. It's a tangible, visible book. That doesn't mean it can't contain myths. Muhammad probably was is real man. That doesn't mean there are a lot of myths about him and what he taught. That's the difference.
@@experience741 Yes Jesus is one of the prophet but Muslim believe in Him by Faith without making up Historical proof like Christianity does. Historically He is more like a myth if compared to Muhammad. They just believe in Him without obligation to follow Jesus's law bcz according to Islam narrative, He (Jesus) was meant for the Israeli not the whole mankind and it is lost already. In Summary what Muslim believe abt Jesus is : - Jesus existed - He sent to children of Israel only not for all mankind like the Christianity teaches - He was a Genuine Prophet of God and nowhere to be divine Son of God as Christian claim Thats All..
Knowing classic Arabic, I don't find the Quran to be hard to understand as the guest says. I actually find it simple and repetitive. Listening to scholars who are fluent in Arabic, and those who link the text to Aramaic, the challenges are not the comprehension of the Arabic text, the challenges are in finding the original Aramaic words, which gives a different meaning in Arabic.
@@krisc3371 Yes. The short Suras are. I know a little Aramaic as well and can follow Luxembourg's arguments. He may have pushed the limits in some instances, but generally, he is correct.
What you think don't matter to me, its the matter of faith and Truth. Muhammed peace be upon him does not speak of his own desire. وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ (And he does not speak out of (his own) desire. It is not but revelation revealed [ to him ]....53:3-4].
In the last sermon at Ghadeer, Mohammad said that I am leaving behind two heavy things the book and my progeny. So the Quran was already in the form of a book. What Umar did was to twist the tafsir and he rejected the tafsir written by Ali. Quran challenges you to write even a single verse like that. For centuries none could alter the Arabic text. The sons of Mohammad remain to guide in the true sense for centuries later. The last heir Mahdi will rise soon along with Jesus.
The Quran has been preserved NOT because of the written form but by oral (recital) memorization tradition right from the Prophet's time until today. So the discussion on the Quran as a printed book is a futile exercise.
From what I've heard is Mecca may not be in the real location and it's sad how only islams are allowed to go and how it's been turned into a luxury vacation to many as around Mecca there's so many high end shops, stores and restaurants
I’m blessed to be a Muslim who’s memorized the Quran. This was a nice little dive into some interesting theories
Dude needs to vape indica he talks too fast to enjoy listening..
Why would you memorize it when it’s all written down already
@@guitarandrums it’s an Islamic tradition going back 1400 years to help preserve it. There’s millions of Muslims who have it memorized
@@Apollo05 sounds like a waste of time
@@guitarandrums It’s a waste of time to those who don’t have the love or reverence of God in their hearts, or who don’t care for spiritual guidance or knowledge. But then again, one can argue that an atheistic life which is void of any objecting meaning or purpose, and ends with eternal hopeless non-existence, is also a complete waste of time. So I think it’s clear which bet is more wise to draw. We’ll happily stick to following God’s words. By all means, you can stick to eating and drinking, and having fun until the Angel of death claims your soul.
It's wonderful to hear about Mr. Putten, a very humble intellectual with a profound knowledge of Islamic history and traditions, having said that, I suggest that Mr. Putten study the following topics to gain a better understanding:
The concept of the seven ahruf.
The reason why Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) asked Allah to reveal the Qur’an in seven ahruf.
The first instance of the Qur'an being compiled in written form and the reasons behind it.
The individuals who were involved in writing the first copy of the Qur'an in book form.
The second instance of the Qur'an being compiled in written form and the reasons for it.
The reason why Uthman (RA) standardized the Qur'an.
The individuals who were involved in writing the standardized copies of the Qur'an.
The presence or absence of marks and dots on early Qur'anic manuscripts.
The significance of the term "rightly guided Caliphs," including Uthman (RA).
Understanding these topics will provide insight into the Sana'a manuscript and the variations of recitation (Qira'at).
I'm happy to help with any questions you may have.
Hahaha, this is the kind of conundrum that happens when people talk about Islam without a Muslim around. Instead of explaining in so many words let me just pose a simple question to direct you what I am talking about. If you go to a mosque or masjid in your neighborhood where Muslims pray five times a day. Will you find a single Muslim (the Imam or any of the followers) open a book called Quran during the prayer proper? If not then why? If opening a book is not an issue in today's Muslim congregations why would you think it would have been a critical issue in the early days of Islam? How does a scholar in textual criticism evaluate a book that doesn't rely on its existence as a physical book? As we always say, gather a hundred Muslims and they can recite to you the Quran verbatim from end to end. It would seem that Western scholarship has more to learn from Islamic scholars!
That is absolutely ridiculous, and it is not quite honest to say they won't use a book during salat or "the prayer proper" as some kind of standard. Go to any Masajid and there are rows upon rows of the Qur'an and people sitting there reading them. Even in Masjid Al-Nabi.
Quran was first compiled in a book in the era of first caliph Abu bakr in 632 , not the third caliph uthman. See sahih bukhari volume 9. In uthman era it was standardised to read in tribe of quraysh dialect to avoid discrepancies and bothering for Muslim who were mostly non Arabs and embraced islam and know very little about Arabic.
That's according to the tradition. No proof of such process in historicity
@@TingTong2568 for Muslims authentic hadith is much better than non authentic history. Plz check sahih bukhari vol 9 hadith 7188 or 7191 (exact number is slipping from mind at this mind but I am 100% sure that one of these number is correct.
@@malikakajee4396 this is the problem with islamic sources regardless it is Sunni or Shia. The burden is on Muslims. Not the other way around.
@@TingTong2568 OK, let's put aside the hadith for a moment then plz enlighten me how it is settled that uthmanic text is prevailing which also not exist.
@@malikakajee4396 that's my question too. Where is the original uthmanic text? The answer is: it's nowhere to be found. The Quran today only exist with all those different versions such as Hafs, Warsh, Qaloon, Ad Dhuri, Shu'bah & etc that was recited by 10 verified imams.
Interesting discussion. I admire this academic's careful use of language.
Even today we can easily find different dialects in english words throughout the world American(more different dialects), British, Irish Australian, African(more differentdialects), Asian( more different dialects) and Arabian.
Arabs all over the world understand the different dialects, from Saudi Arabia, Morocco Spain, Turkey.. Qur'aan is the living language.
In ancient Semitic usage, a person’s name was often associated with a famous ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste and hence descended from Aaron, Moses’ brother, she was called a “sister of Aaron.” Similarly, her cousin Elisabeth, Zachariah’s wife, is spoken of in Luke 1:5 as one of Aaron’s
“daughters.”
Daughter of someone is a proper way to denote desncendency. Sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran is way too specific and simply cannot be a coincidence that there happens to be a Miriam who is actually a sister of Aaron and Moses and a daughter of Imran (Amram).
The responses that Mary was called that to mark her desncendency is incorrect because through her father she was actually a descendant of David.
The other response that there was an Aaron in Mary' tribes who was pious and she was called his 'sister' because she was pious too is quite ridiculous.
It is very clear that the Quran confuses two Maryams (Mary and Miriam) for the same person, although the two women lived more than a thousand years apart.
You are being satisfied with explanations that are not convincing at all, presumably only because they reinforce your faith.
@@Nexus-jg7ev islam is a house built on sand and muslims will make lame excuses like their false prophet. if the quran was truly god's correction to gospel and torah it would look 99 percent like those two books with some corrections. unless a muslim wants to say allah let the books he dictated get totally corrupted before taking action. that is the theology issue. the practical issue is unlettered muhammad would not have a copy of torah and gospel handy to refer to before giving his monthly revelation. so he retold the stories he heard from jews and christians. that would be fine for nomadic arabs who didn't befriend the christian and jewish nomads in arabia. but people in cities who knew their christian and jewish neighbours would notice that muhammad was retelling bible stories he heard. the textual question scholarly types should ask is when the quran has contradictory stories WHO wrote the original revelation and who had to correct a mistake. muhammad or one of the first four caliphs. just like how old testament scholars distinguish writings from P the priestly source from material coming from J or E..
@Nexus 26 the use of brother and sister is more commen then the bible claiming Elisabeth is daughter of Aaron or jesus being the son of David. Even chrstians today reffer to people not related to them like priestss and nuns as brother this or sister that. chrstians are only obsessed about this because they need to find an error in the Quran because their bible is full of errors. And the name imran like the name jesus and the name miriam, was very commen, so finding people with those names wouldn't be that difficult. 20% of the jewish men and women were called miriam or jesus , and even early chrstians before islam refferd to Miriam as sister of Aaron.
@@Nexus-jg7ev you can find satisfaction in your explanation that bible calls Elisabeth daughter is ok, but that only shows that you are a hypocrite and are driven by your desires to reject Islam. Fact is the use of sister and brother to non blood relatives is very commen among all semetic languages it's even more commen then the use of son or daughter.
i certainly would find it cool to name my kid Mathew, mark, luke and if they have another brother, it would be john. now that i am a muslim, i would name them probably after the four caliph, Abu, Umar, Uthman and Ali.
Naming them after good figures or the ancestors is a very common thing.
idk why it would be weird.
Sarah, Elizabeth and Mary in the bible for example, are hundreds or more years apart. It still woudnt be weird to name your daughter and her siblings those names.
During the time of `Usman ibn `Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) differences in reading the Qur’an became obvious. After consultation with the Companions, `Uthman had a standard copy prepared from the suhuf of Abu Bakr that were kept with Hafsah bint Umar wife of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)at that time.
The following is the report in the Sahih of Al- Bukhari:
Anas bin Malik narrated :
Hudhaifah ibn Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan.
Hudhaifah was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to `Uthman, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an), as Jews and the Christians did before’.
So Usman manuscript is not a new invention- it iwas copied from Quran manuscript kept with Hafsa prophet’s wife.
Evidence?
Omg.. another conspiracy dawahgandis bullshit spotted 😆
@@john.premosethe Hadith is there 😂
@@limbotheboy4951 written much later
@@john.premose so? Just like every book in history, it's written after the event took place 😂atleast we verify those events actually happened and we verify the chain of narrators 🤷
pastor Bosworth smith one of many biblical scholars to conclude ' the quran is the only scripture preserved in its original language '
Muslim here, looking forward to watching this 🔥
the prophet pbuh himself is an ummi an unlettered person, during his time there were people who could read n write but the prophet himself committed to memory the Quran. the sahabah also memorized while those that were able to write , they wrote the quran. with the warring states there was a lot of people that was memorizing the quran were killed. the sahabah was concernedwith this situation.that was when the sahabah requested for othman to make n consolidate the quran in written form, but to muslims this is no issue because there are many muslims who commit to memorize the quran.es[ecially during ramadhan when the full quran are recited during the night prayers .so dont doubt the authenticity of the quran, it has both written n read thru memory
The myth of Muhammad being unlettered is not 100% certain within the Muslim community. Unlettered can mean people without a scripture.
The S.I.N of Muslim is that Omar ordered Zayn Ibn Thabit to go collect the Quran from within the community because they thought it maybe lost if the reciters were dying off in battles (the battle of Yamama)
If the companions ( Abu Bkr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali) of your
prophet including Ibn Masud, Ibn Ka’ab had it memorized why go elsewhere?
Why not sit in a circle and recite and write it down?
I like Marijn’s approach which is factual and unbiased.
He he is calm and very balanced with his analysis without rushing into conclusions unlike Shady Nasser who comes across as someone with polemical motivations sometimes and quick to take his conclusions towards a certain place without enough investigation.
By focusing on the facts and giving the Quranic tradition it’s respect Marijn came across as the perfect balance between a muslim apologist and a biased skeptic.
He is a linguist, not a historian. Otherwise, non traditional scholarship is at odds with a lot of conclusions reached by Muslims.
Skepticism is, by definition, never biased
@@sirius3333 Apparently you are not well read on the topic at all. The majority of western scholarship falls in line more or less with the Islamic narrative. Those who deviated from the standard narrative like Michael Cook and Patricia Crone have been proven to be wrong.
Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged."
R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy."
Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that
"all sects and parties have the same text of the
Qoran."
Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the
University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars."
Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself."
Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it."
William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam.
Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text."
Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted"
1. Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran."
John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad."
1. Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected,
Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
@@hmansour89
I noticed the majority of scholars you have quoted either belong to the 19th or 20th century period. Most of their views are outdated and problematic. If you want the current perspective of non traditional scholarship, you should check out the latest work in the field.
I would recommend,
The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective by Gabriel Said Reynold.
Quran in its historical context ( part 1 and 2 ), edited by the same author
In God's path by Robert Hoyland
The development of exegesis in early Islam by Herbert Berg
The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions by Emran Iqbal El-Badawi
And ofc , (1) Creating the Quran (2) The Apocalypse of Empire by Stephen Shoemaker
@@sirius3333 I quoted from authorities from 19th, 20th and 21st centuries and the majority of western scholars has always confirmed more or less the standard narrative.
I've read all the works you have listed down apart from Reynold.
Shoemaker and Hoyland were both following the school of Patricia Crone who claimed that the Quran is an 8th century work. They are all way off and They were all proven wrong due to latest Carbon dating of manuscripts which confirmed the tradition presented by muslims of a standardized text in mid 7th century.
They all worked from a framework of ignoring the islamic tradition completely and went on with theories of speculative natures only to see their theories torn down to pieces due to Carbon dating and archeological findings on rocks in Hijaz.
Ayham Sidky's moved the scholarship forward using carbon dating to identify 7th century manuscripts. Then he proved based on computer analysis that the manuscripts from 4 different geographical locations form a stemma that lead to one manuscript which also confirmed the islamic tradition of 4 manuscripts being sent out by Uthman to 4 different geographical locations in the 7th century.
Finally linguists like Marijn Van Putten proved based on linguistic features the origination of the Quran as an Arabic text specifically from Hijaz region which refuted the claims of Crone and others of an origination from a different location in Syria or Petra like Dan Gibson presented.
These facts forced Crone to come out publicly and change her mind and admit many mistakes she made.
The archeological evidences embarrassed those scholars so much so that now the claims shifted from an 8th century quran origination to an origination before the time of Muhammad!!
Just downloaded the book while at work, I'll read it when I get home
Interesting discussion! I'm not muslim myself but I've been drawn to islamic history recently. Fascinating stuff!
If you re interested in different views on Mohammad, would be good to interview Hamed Abdel Samad, who is writing books about the topic. He is a writer who is under life threat by a Fatwa for telling his point of view. He s an absolute expert. No sugar coating. He is in Berlin, Germany.
Ah yes, an absolute expert 😂 he's just another liberal islam-bashing 'ex muslim' who follows the popular currents and has no intellectual and philosophical standing. Let's not overdo it.
Regarding the Sa'ana Manuscripts, as we know there are 2 layers of it. As Muslims we are taught to write Arabic in schools (for none speaking Arabic speakers such as myself).
What happens is that when we write it from the memory we tend to make a mistake (small mistakes not like messing up the entire word itself but the "Strokes" over the words. So when we know a certain stroke is wrong we erase that and correct it.
That's what the two layerd
Sa'ana Manuscripts did.
This is correct, we even know from the common mistakes on it that this was a person practising arabic, in fact on the script there are literally personal notes all over
Great explanation love you bro
This is just not true, The Sa'ana manuscript shows massive differences, you Muslims need to stop lying to yourselves. It's evidence that oral tradition can't be trusted and as Sahih Hadith shows whatever Quran may have existed at the time of Mo's death, it was almost instantly forgotten and had to be rewritten. The Quran is entirely authored by men.
Except that's not what's written on the upper (visible to the naked eye) and lower (I e., erased/scraped) layers.
The lower/erased text (visible under UV light) contains surr
places, individual appears to have been corrected in a separate hand before the whole lower text was erased.
The suras do not follow the canonical order, and not all verses in the same order as the standard Qur'an
The whole of s9 , verse 85 is absent, and there are many other lexical variations.
By the way, even the top layer has variations from today's standard Quran
@@GilesMcRiker Like I said, for us it's a regular practice. Even as a kid I would do that and use the same paper over and over. Erase and write again.
When it is 100% Correct, we'd leave it. Leaving traces of the corrections and previous writings under it.
So what's your point?
The surah have been arranged per length as instructed by the prophet. If you read it, you'll understand why it was done so but I doubt you ever did.
Nothing has been missing from the Quran, the Sa'na Manuscripts and the Birmingham Manuscripts are the proof of that we do posses the Quran as it was compiled and recited during the time of Uthman.
Now if you're a Christian, let's see you bring the " Original" Manuscripts. Good luck.
Quran is not saying she was sister of Aaron. Quran is saying people addressed her by that title. Now that these are all pre-historic characters, there is no way to find out why they called her that. Also too late to give any suggestions to those people that they should have used a better system of outlining lineage.
Just make up that ancient Jews addressed some people as Miriam, and the quran makes total sense!!😂😂
@@Crocalu are you saying Quran knew how to make up stuff without errors?
@@Crocaluthere is a hadith specifically about it, in Sahih Muslim (2135):
Mughira ibn Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, the Christian monks asked me, “You recite the verse, ‘O sister of Aaron,’ (19:28) but Moses was born long before Jesus by many years.” When I came back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, I asked him about it and he said, “Verily, they used to name people with the names of prophets and righteous people who had passed before them.”
Ibn Kathir in his tafsir (19:28) said:
“This is like saying to somebody from the Tamimi tribe: O brother of Tamim, or to somebody from the Mudari tribe: O brother of Mudar.”
Hope this helps
At the end of the day, the Qur'an we have today is the Qur'an agreed upon by the disciples of the Prophet Muhammad, the main one being by the Prophets personal scribe. That's good enough for us Alhamdulilah. Imagine if the New Testament was collected and agreed upon by the disciples of Jesus and the earliest manuscript tradition showed hardly any variant readings, who would doubt it?
At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference. It's only relevant to you if you think some arabic Mohammed was trustworthy on whatever he claimed, but only muslims believe that.
If it is good enough for you, that is fine. Christians believe that humans (finite) cannot understand God's (infinite) language. We can only glimpse it. Therefore, it is the message that is important, not the words themselves. It is waste of time to nick-pick on the words instead of the message.
Why would God not give the Qur'an earlier? Why would God not preserve his text the first time? The preservation of text only brings up more unanswered questions.
@@kyoungd because the god that the cheistians worship is different from the arabic god that the muslims worship
@@kyoungd How do you know what the message is if you have no confidence that the words have been preserved?
As for preservarion of previous text, its entirely God's prerogative as to why he let them perish. Your line of questioning here is quite pointless
@@bharathdeva9407 Agreed! One is strictly monotheists and the other is flirting with polytheism.
Thank you dear Derek.Thank you professor. I am muslim and find the discussion fascinating.
lol it's hardly an academic discussion..
@@youtubeexpert2441 What do you mean.His answers were very academic.
@@ronmullick253 not really, read my other comment somewhere hree about sana'a manscript
islam seems to be a copy of the pre islamic Al-illha tradition.
So fascinating to read all the armchair Islam apologetics, and see the differences and similarities to their Christian counterparts.
Spider-Man-meme.gif
They will try to defend their holy books
I don’t even know why they’re here. Approaching Islamic history from a secular historical method will NEVER yield the same conclusions as their legend-like Islamic narrative of history. It’s tired at this point.
I saw your this video and also Dr. Sidky video and i am surprised that in both videos its quite clear that manuscript goes to H. Usman (RA) for word to word and spelling to spelling, but my question is that H. Usman(RA) and Prophet(SAW) are only 20 years apart at most and when you are carbon dating or finding the age of the manuscript which are 1300+ years old 20 years is not much significant, so is there a question that this whole story that H. Usman(RA) standardized the Quran is over blown. May be he institutionalized the writing of the Quran but as Dr. Sidky said that even the manuscripts which were erased and written over do not have much discrepancy, which means that the source is single and its Prophet Mohammad (SAW).
I don't see any other way i can logically explain this thing.
What they forgetting is that the Qur’an was already memorised word by word from the prophet's time n passed on..the Qur’an was sent orally n we dont rely in the text because people already memorised it!
islam seems to be a copy of the pre islamic Al-illha tradition.
Dr Putten is fabulously clear. I feel well taught.
He’s not well taught.
He was all over the place and pretty clueless tbh
The quran is multiformic so an 'original' is not really identifiable. The Sanaa txt confirms the tradition that the companions had personal mushafs that differed. Not a problem. The islamic tradition is unparalleled in how it relays its history and should not be compared to christianity.
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia..
The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
@@roshlew6994 okay hahahah
@@elliot7205 this 'rosh lew' kid is a paid robotic agent..
He keeps copy & paste the same nonsense on each post in the comment section..
Either he has been brainwashed by 'jay smith',
Or his just a paid bot working for 'jay smith and other islamphobes people..
Surely one of the above⬆️!
It should not be compared to Christianity but we can apply the historical critical method to Quran and Islam. It is no different from Judaism and Christianity in that regards.
Take the tale of Zhul Qarnain.
1. According to the Quran itself, the Quraish or the Jews were aware Zhul Qarnain ( Surah Kahf, 83)
2. The legend of Alexander was already in ORAL circulation around the time and place of Muhammad.
3. The legend of Alexander and the tale of Zhul Qarnain resemble each other thoroughly. According to latest scholarship ( by Ahmed al Jallad ), we can trace a version, which resembles the Quranic account to early 600 CE
@@sirius3333 it's a redundant point respectfully. The only question is whether or not there is 'truth' in the 'story' and if that be the case then there is no issue because the origin of that information would still be the creator!
Basically another western scholar who confirms more or less the standard islamic narrative or at least from the time of Uthman where Muslims claimed the text was standardized.
Here are some citations from other scholars for those who are interested:
Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged."
R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy."
Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that
"all sects and parties have the same text of the
Qoran."
Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the
University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars."
Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself."
Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it."
William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam.
Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text."
Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted"
Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran."
John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad."
Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected,
Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
Yes but what about the time period between Muhammad and Uthman. What was the Quran like then? Answer: shambles
Where is the verse about Adam and the two valleys of gold?
@@inquisitivemind007 scholars don't make the claim that prior to Uthman was in shambles. The numerous scholarly citations i've referenced in the first comment from western academia support my position.
Also one can't simply ignore the mathematical patterns which were discovered centuries later in the Quran. Such patterns on addition to the scholarly work done on the Quran inform us that we have a devine preserved text that we have no doubt about. Here are few of these impressive patterns:
The precise number of a word and its antonym mentioned in Quran
“al Hayat” (life), 145 times
“al Mawt” (death), 145 times
“al-Dunya” (mundane life), 115 times
“al Akhira” (the afterlife), 115 times
“Malaika” (angels), 88 times
“Shayatin” (demons), 88 times
“ar Rajul (man), 24 times
“al Mar’a (woman), 24 times
“ar Raghba (wish), 8 times
“al khauf (fear), 8 times
as Salihat (good deeds), 167 times
“as Sayya’at” (wrongdoings), 167 times
“an Nafaa” (benefit), 50 times
“al Fasad (corruption), 50 times
The Word “Shahr” (month) is mentioned 12 times in the Quran, just as the number of the months there are in a year.
The word “Yawm” (day), in the singular, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran, just as the number of days there are in a year.
The word “Ayyam” (days), in the plural, is mentioned 30 times in the Quran, just as the number of months there are in a month.
The word “Salawat” (prayers) is mentioned 5 different times in the Quran which equals the total number of obligatory daily prayers for muslims.
The word “Land” in Quran appeared 13 times where as the word “Sea” in Quran appeared 32 times. This means that the total number of times Land and Sea appeared is 45.
So if we examine it then
13/45*100 = 28.88888
32/45*100 = 71.11111
This makes up 29% of Land and 71% of Water which matches the actual percentage of land and water on Earth!
This ratio was not possible to tell in the 7th century.
@@hmansour89 You lost all credibility when you sank to numerology. You also showed that you're just copying and pasting material lifted from propaganda websites. Shame on you!
@@inquisitivemind007 My dude, Uthman (ra) and Muhammad (saw) were alive at the same time. They were companions of each other. The Qur'an that Uthman learned is the Qur'an that Muhammad taught
The uthman standardization was done by majority opinion and ibn masood was a minority so in legal terms uthman is expected. No issue.
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia..
The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
@@roshlew6994 yeah..
And all your sources comes from 'jay smith'..
Yeah sure!What a great scholar he is!🤣
Lmfao..
Bruh!
Dont waste people time with just 'theory'..
@@justarshad8354 Islam began as an anti-trinitarian Arab Christian sect promoted by Arab empire..
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia..
The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
@@justarshad8354 - who the hell is Jay Smith?
Don’t tell me you’re another believer of a book that tells you the earth is flat in over 15 verses 😂
@@roshlew6994 prove it professor
I don’t like the way Van Putten put it when he said Uthman burned the bad Quran with variants. That’s a bit misleading. Uthman first of did not go out burning Qurans. He directed people to get rid of their personal texts in which there might be personal margin explanation or word substitutions that the author did for self use. Which was a good idea in effect. That way personal texts might become a problem later on when other people get a hold of them and suddenly they are authoritative instead of being not so. I am very glad Uthman did what he did. He was with the prophet Muhammad right from the beginning. He was with him twenty three years through bad times and good times. Also Uthman did not make the five copies. He directed Zaid ibn Thanit, the personal scribe of the prophet Muhammad, to choose a committee and tasked them with making the copies and distribute them.
He was one of 4 "Rightly Guided" caliphs therefore he did the right thing. Allah promised to preserved his last book on earth and so far the Quran in Quershi dialect ( one of the 7 ahruf) has been preserved in written as well as into memories of millions.
I admire Dr. Putten and brother Derek fir this interesting thoughtful discussion. Aa a muslim, I respect this type of unbiased intelligent discussion
Something like it is referring to beauty, eloquence, linguistic and literary inimitability of the Qur'an. Remember the Quran used new words which people didn’t know but still understood.
Think you know Islam? Here are some choice quotes from notable mainstream Muslims of today:
1. (On child marriage) It's not rape if there's parental consent. (Daniel Haqiqatjou)
2. Islam & human rights are in 100% agreement. We only differ on who is to do the (wife) beating. (Daniel Haqiqatjou)
3. (On the Quran's perfect preservation) The standard narrative has holes in it. (Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi, PhD Yale)
4. (When Muslims invade, when we are strong in 40-50 years' time) We give you two good options (convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax) and live under sharia law. If you refuse, **neck slitting sounds** (Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem) (Note: This only applies to Jews and Christians. Pagans don't have the jizya tax option. They either convert or die.)
5. Yes, I do believe in miracles (like the flying donkey & moon splitting). (Mehdi Hasan, MSNBC broadcast journalist)
6. (According to the Quran, you can marry a girl) even if she's 5 years old. (Mohammed Hijab)
7. In a Muslim country, apostrophe (he means "apostasy") is dealt with with the death penalty. (Dr Muhamad Mukadam)
8. Without the death penalty for apostasy, Islam would have collapsed the day the Prophet died. (Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi)
9. Hundreds of young boys & girls aged 13 to 18 have openly declared their apostasy to me. They are hafiz, leading prayers at the masjid & engaged in madrassa. This problem is dramatic and large. They cannot talk to their parents. (Dr Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi)
10. Nobody saw the moon split because most people were asleep at night. (Farid Responds)
11. There are various benefits for the human being in drinking camel's urine. (Dr Zakir Naik, "Medical Doctor")
12. Camel's urine contains potassium, and albuminous protein. It also contains traces of uric acid. And sodium. As well as creatine (he means "creatinine"). (Note: This is the urine composition from any animal) (Dr Zakir Naik, "Medical Doctor")
As you can see, Muslims today as just as coervice, violent, destructive and nonsensical as Muslims 1400 years ago.
😂😂 it seems you are ashamed of your own religion and culture that's why you are misquoting people.
Wait for a few more years and watch your religion die out, the only religion that will remain is Islam. As promised by Allah. He will make his religion prevail over every other religion even though the Polytheist ( Christians included coz they are Polytheist like any other pagans) may not like it .
EARLIEST COPIES OF THE QURAN: According to Wiki: The Birmingham Quran manuscript is a parchment on which two leaves of an early Quranic manuscript are written. In 2015 the manuscript, which is held by the University of Birmingham,[1] was radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645 CE (in the Islamic calendar, between 56 BH and 25 AH).[2][3] It is part of the Mingana Collection of Middle Eastern manuscripts, held by the university's Cadbury Research Library.[2]
The manuscript is written in ink on parchment, using an Arabic Hijazi script and is still clearly legible.[3] The leaves preserve parts of Surahs 18 (Al-Kahf) to 20 (Taha).[4] It was on display at the University of Birmingham in 2015 and then at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery until 5 August 2016.[5] The Cadbury Research Library has carried out multispectral analysis of the manuscript and XRF analysis of the inks.[6]....The codex Parisino-petropolitanus is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Quran, attributed to the 7th century.The largest part of the fragmentary manuscript are held at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, as BnF Arabe 328(ab), with 70 folia. Another 46 folia are kept in the National Library of Russia in Saint-Petersburg. Two additional folia have been preserved, one kept in the Vatican Library (Vat. Ar. 1605/1) and the other in the Khalili Collections in London (KFQ 60)."
In any case, there is controversy as to whether this manuscript was written during the last years of the Prophet, or under Abu Bakr or Uthman, both of whom were close companions of the Prophet, were known to memorize the entire Quran and were engaged in the written preservation of the Quran. So, there is no argument about the integrity of the manuscript; that it does date from the last years of the Prophets life to no later than the caliphate of Umar ibn Affan.
Abubakr also created a copy before Uthman. So Birmingham codex could be same as the copy of Abubakr which is same as copy of Uthman.
The birming page belongs to a full codex with that page missing I don't know how they got that one page
CARBON DATING PUTS THE TWO SHEETS FROM BURMINGHAM IN THE FIFTH CENTURY MAKING IT CHRISTIAN.
@@b34t7355 Liar, you will be held accountable by your knowingly spreading confusion. But you confuse nobody except yourself.
@@b34t7355you’re a liar, carbon dating proves that the Birmingham manuscript dates back to the years between 568-645 which is roughly during the lifetimes of the prophet muhammad, to the reign of the caliph uthman, so your claim is wrong and utterly delusional.
The situation with Christians doubting the authenticity and veracity of the Qur'an as the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, parallels the scenario of a blind person, or one with poor vision, questioning a sighted individual's knowledge of how to navigate to a baker at the end of the neighborhood. This blind person mockingly asks: "How on earth does he know the way? I can’t see how it’s possible!" Such skepticism mirrors the stance of Christians, who, despite lacking an unaltered, authenticated text attributed to Jesus, peace be upon him, that was contemporaneously transmitted and preserved, boldly question the Qur’an's integrity. In stark contrast, the Qur'an has been meticulously preserved for 1400 years, with its precise oral and written transmission safeguarded without alteration. Its memorization, letter by letter and word by word, has been miraculously maintained through an unbroken chain of transmission by millions of memorizers, reciters, and scholars, making it a unique and unparalleled phenomenon in the history of religious scripture.
Now we wait for all the Muslims to come out and say this dude is wrong when those same Muslims havnt even studied the subject.
Sad but true
Firstly, the majority of what he says agrees with the traditional Islamic narrative, secondly millions of Muslims globally speak Arabic as a first language, have been listening to Quran every single day via prayer and other things hence know the stories inside out, and have read plenty of classical literature. Many Muslims absolutely know their traditions well, obvs there are many who do not, but usually they are ignorant teens who have just started to learn.
Or the other types which will say "this has made my faith even stronger alhamdulilah"
@@thenun1846 yes those types exists however if we come from a place of hate then there is zero chance of waking them up, best to try to be as understanding as possible as to how much Muslims are brainwashed from birth . I personally lost all my Muslim friends when I woke up
@@thenun1846 🤣
I appreciate the scholar but on the issue of Mary, his opinion is wrong by bias or lack of investigation on the subject. The prophet was questioned about that and his answer was it was common for the Children of Israel to name their children after ancient illustrious ancestors or people. In addition, what most critics missed on this issue is that it is not the author of Quran who names Mary the "sister of Aaron" but he quotes in narration what the people of Mary were saying when she returned home with the baby Jesus. If you miss that point you have to also wonder why Elisabeth is called "a daughter of Aaron" , Jesus "son of David" or "David, father of Jesus"...
Would it be possible to have a discussion on this topic that is as robust as some of the discussions you have on the Bible? Just askin'
insha'Allah we must cover the non canon book of Enoch
They are probably afraid of assassination.
There is a gaping hole of 400 years between the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and the codex sineatus? You can’t really have much of an academic discussion that is robust. Maybe a bit about fragments of a manuscript written about 100 years after Jesus. Who wrote what and when, are questions that simply don’t have answers for the bible.
unlike Prophet Jesus Peace be upon him, the prophet Muhammad Peace be Upon him finished his life as the leader of the Arabs, not just their prophet, and his guidance and message became the norm of the people, and was succeeded by his best companions who loved him and followed his teaching to the dot, with thousands of people memorized the Quran to the dot… so, with an important document like the Quran, in the midst of all those who memorized it with the prophet himself.. it would be impossible to pass a copy with a single error…
This, unfortunately, was not the case with prophet Jesus peace be upon him, who was on the run, and his companions were too, and the government was going after them. Not the same
I got an odd feeling that Dr van Putten was afraid to give more direct answers for some of the questions.
*Like what?*
the part with Miriam sister of Abraham was pretty weird how he approached it. and some other answers where he was rather evasive, but let's say this part stands up the most...
@@stefang.9763
Because that's not his field of study. He's a scholar of quranic linguistics
I've interacted with him briefly on twitter, he certainly is intimidated in rubbing up against the Islamic community too much...
@@bobthebuilder4660
Or you biased mind just want to see something thats not there just so you can make sense your belief. Its a possibility.
About the challenge of imitating the Qur'an, from what I understand, the challenge is to make a religion better than Islam basically, i.e. to make a speech or book which will convince people to join that other religion instead. And that the reason why everyone failed was because of the morality (giving alms, altruism that kinda thing), truth ("your idols can't defend themselves against being destroyed" for example), and miracles the people who converted witnessed. And there were those who tried, and got a few followers, but their cults would break down eventually and join Islam instead.
So what makes it inimitable is that Islam has chosen what principles defines it, and if someone just copies those principles or copies the religion tit for tat, then they just de facto agreed with Islam. So instead, they would have to argue against giving the zakat for example, but the ordinary people thought the zakat made sense, and so nobody was able to argue something to dissuade people from that.
Theres an objective criteria for it.
one of them is inventing a word that is gramatically correct, be understood imediately, have not been used anywhere before.
@@ridhuan2335 That doesn't make sense. It has no correct grammar before it's invented. And inventing a word is subjective, you choose what your invented word will be and there's no right or wrong way to invent a word.
The criteria was to emulate the qura , then a sura, then the challenge was reduced down 3 verses.
It has to be meaningfull, provide unknown information, grammatically correct, use a new word, be eloquent. I suppose it has to rhyme as well, and not reuse the quran.
I agree it's subjective but even then ppl haven't been able to do it.... there are some mocking versus recently that are funny. Apparently chat gtp wasn't able to do it either.
@@DDDSSDDDSSDDDSS That's not much of a challenge. Grammatic correctness, rhyming, eloquence and new information is not very challenging.
But a new word has no grammatic correctness. For example, what is the grammatically correct way to write this word: "bsfgnfsgvdf"?
@tzimisce1753 from what I understand Semitic languages are based on 3 consonants that have a general meaning. Like the letters KTB provides numerous words that have a meaning related to books. So the words for library, bookstore, books, book vendor, etc. ; along with the numerous tenses of each. So I guess it's easier to make up a new word and ppl could know the meaning?.?...
Arabic has like 10 million words so it should be doable 🤷🏼
The whole eloquence thing I do t know... in English:
"What light through yonder window breaks." = "Who's that hot girl in the window."
"If you believe Islam is true, than what is true must be important." Damn dude. You're good.
we have not force people to believe into us ...we have method for people to believe us without force them..
If Allah willed, He would have made you one people (only), but Allah wants to test you against the Grace He has given you, so compete in doing good deed
(Q.S. Al Maidah : 48)
we don't waste our time debating which one is truth...we prefer wasting our time becoming useful in our community...becoming excellent in our deed
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 Brainwashing entails: (1) Isolation from the familiar, inclusive of, but not limited to colleagues, family, or the environment, (2) Absolute submission, and (3) A rigid system of reward and punishment in terms of obedience and unwillingness to cooperate, respectively.
You guys meet 2 of the 3
@@thecanaanite let's me clear this dude...we are not mono group...Islam was more fragile than people think...there are many branch...we have problem about indoctrinated people...not using rasionality than provocation...because there certain group of people in Islamic word don't wanna losse their identity in islam and wanna beeing seen as the main contributor ....every relligion have this problem
@@thecanaanite 1) Islam demands involve the in the community and family. From just smiling / speaking to your family and community to service to them , all Islamic” rituals” are focused on avoiding isolation.
2) ridiculous claim of absolute submission. We are not robots. And God is out creator. Repeatedly the Quran mentions striving and effort. Expecting full submission would be futile. It is about developing a relationship over time. Overcoming weaknesses of mind and body to improve oneself. Thete is no mention of absolute submission
3) Every system, every nation, even every home has a system of reward and punishment and every single person is expected to be obedient to that system. Islamic law is not rigid. It is flexible within limits( like and contrition) . And there are methods of dealing with disobedience or unwillingness by the self and by society.
So your misguided on all three fronts.
You are judging scripture by the caricature portrayed in secular / liberal media
@@Ashleii Prove god is your creator.
On the discussion of Sana palimpsest that what were written are different from the standard collected by Uthman, the critics have very good points. How did Uthman know which one is right when the original supposed to be in “paradise”? Didn’t he burned the Alexandria Library also, in addition to the “variants” in order to prevent future “contradiction” with his standard? If you want to find out the truth of Quran, please do not adopt Wilbur Cantrell Smith’s policy. Billions Muslims’ eternal life are at stake here.
Linguist is being bombarded with theological questions, kek.
Why you suprised...the channel is watched by bunch of internet atheists that want the historical linguists to just say the Quran is BS.
If its the word of God and it wasn't Mohammed who chose the final quaran, than yet it is a problem when the person burning the Qurans and choosing the 1 isn't Mohammed lol. This guys tripping that a huge problem for muslims i know
Burning was and is the only permissible to destroy things that contains God's word. You are not allowed to throw it in to garbage dump.
You can burn Qurans as a Muslim
At 1:02:40, Putten seems to be saying that you can get the 3-volume "Le Coran des Historiens" for free. I've been looking for it, but couldn't find a free download. Can anybody help me? Or am I simply mistaken on what Putten said?
I guess not free... but three volume thing...
I really love the arabic accent of the guest.
The Arabic language is one of the richest, if not the richest language in the world, it has over 12 million words vs 5 million English words for example. Also, it is the most grammatically structured language. You can compare the Arabic grammar which is derived from the Quran to Newton's laws, that is the level of sophistication of the Arabic grammar. It is that structured. One word can have many meanings just by changing the vowel or the location of the word in a sentence or a paragraph. It is that precise.
The Arabic grammar language was perfected because of the Quran, and it is still not completely comprehended by the most learned Arabic writers. There is a level of grammar in the Quran still not yet understood and so they are not able to create grammar laws for them that can be used by Arabic scholars in their writings. Arabic scholars will just say this is special to the Quran with no further explanation.
The Arabic grammar was derived from the Quran which Muslims believe no one on EARTH can bring something like it.
With regard to some so-called mistakes in the Quran like Maryam sister of Aaron, these has been debunked and extensively addressed.
I know you are trying to look objective, but to be objective, you need to follow the scientific method, this what you need to do.
Someone proposed a theory that he tested and claimed to be true.
You as someone who wants to test his theory:
The first thing you need to do is accept the premise that he is correct. Otherwise, if you reject the theory, why you want to test it. In the case of Islam, you need to accept that the Quran is the word of ALLAH (the creator). Clearly you did not.
The second thing you need to do is to understand the theory directly from the source in as much detail as possible with absolute sincerity and good intention of understanding it. If I want to understand the Bible, I don't go to Muslim scholars, that will be deceptive. So, you need to go directly to Muslim scholars, not Christian scholars, to show sincerity and good intentions of wanting to understand why the Quran is the word of the creator and why the Quran has no errors or mistakes. Clearly you are not sincere and don’t have good intentions based on what you are doing. All what you are doing is creating the illusion, mostly to your Muslim listeners, that you are being objective by not allowing any criticism of Islam (mainly the Quran), but at the same time bring up issues to make your Muslim listeners think these issues have no answers, when the truth is the exact opposite. So, you have no intention of understanding Islam, and all the intention of districting Islam with zero objectivity.
Third, you put the theory to test, not by bringing Christian scholars, but by confronting Muslim scholars about the claims in the Quran. Clearly you did not.
Fourth, if the theory passes all the tests, then you must accept that theory. If you are able to prove ONE error in the theory, then you reject it.
In summary, you are not objective, you are not sincere, and you have no good intentions with regard to Islam.
My advice to all Muslims following him to stop supporting his channel unless he changes his tactics.
Your claim about 5 million English words vs 12 million Arabic words sounds false.Please check those numbers.
Its probably closer to 350,000 for English and 120,000 for Arabic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictionaries_by_number_of_words
I wouldn't use Wikipedia to get these kinds of facts because anyone can write on Wikipedia.
But you were right I was a bit off:
Arabic language is over 12 million and several sites puts at 90 to 500 million words. My first language is Arabic and I didn't know it is that rich.
English language is much less than I thought, it is no more than 1 million and probably less than that.
Just google
Number of words in the Arabic language
Number of words in the English language
You get many sites that put the Arabic language at more than 12 million.
Anyway, thank you for letting me dig deeper into this issue.
With this, the Quran makes more sense to be the Arabic with this vast number of word choices. That is why, there are many words in the Quran the English translation of them is complete sentences. If you translate the full meaning of the Arabic Quran into English, probably it will be over 10,000 page book.
This comment gave me cancer.
If the quran goes back to uthman who was alive during prophet muhamad s.a.w then i dont know why there is still arguments
I have been reading Stephan shoemakers “creating the Quran” and it really goes into depth about the various different Qurans and fighting between communities about “the true words of the prophet”. It really was a mess And quote “the reports are a mass of confusions, contradictions and inconsistencies. By their nature, they represent the product of a lengthy process of evolution, accretion and “improvement”. They were framed in response to a wide variety of progressing needs…. The existence of such reports makes it clear that the Muslims were confused. The earliest stage of the traditions on the collection of the quran did consist in incompatible attributions of the first collection to Abu bakr, to umar, to uthman.” Page 31. Creating the Quran. John burton, Cambridge and Stephan Shoemaker, University of Oregon are in agreement.
It's so stupid to narate Quran preservation with Christian garbage bible... Schumacher released that's book before studied Sanaa manuscript clear...we have stable manuscript from 650 BC untill now...that's variant is not contradiction but variant of recitation...we are not confused because we are sceptical society from the beginning...
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 “the reports are a mass of confusions, contradictions and inconsistencies. By their nature, they represent the product of a lengthy process of evolution, accretion and “improvement”. They were framed in response to a wide variety of progressing needs…. The existence of such reports makes it clear that the Muslims were confused. The earliest stage of the traditions on the collection of the quran did consist in incompatible attributions of the first collection to Abu bakr, to umar, to uthman” John burton, Cambridge. Btw shoemaker released the book last year and had a chapter on the sanaa manuscript. Virtually all scholars have said the dating for Sanaa is post uthman. And stop liking your own comments it’s sad. Stephan shoemakers book is free to read online go check it out 👍🏽
@@Unknownmale23 Quran was not garbage bible which compile without consensus of witnesses...we have companion of the prophet still alive during Ustman standard...the consensus of witnesses tradition still preserve untill today...every Quran new publicity have to be checked by hafiz(people who memorize Quran)....and from 650 BC our Quranic text was more stable...and it's supported by Sanaa manuscript and other old manuscript
@@Unknownmale23 Schumacher just a Christian biassed Morron...lot of people more intelegent than him...he just delusional and forgetting the fact that's Muslim earlier preservation during utsman involve lots of witnesses during prophet life such as his companion..We are more sceptical society...such a compile have to be checked before publication....it's tradition still preserve untill today...but Christian garbage bible?...not even all of complete mark gospel survive during 100 years ...and during 200 years later it's publication has anonymous problem...not even Jesus diciple involve and beeing witnesses but all gone...it's only narate by church... monopoly by church it's not holy book but a corrupt book
So can you point out what the mess of Quran is @sam ??
So according to these 2 there was no gravity until 1500 or 1600 because Issac Newton didn't discovered, it doesn't mean it didn't existed before only he presented in proper way,
I am still surprissed by the high standards they try to impose into quranic text and at the same time the laxe attitude towards biblical recopilation... be objective guys...and do not forget the support of millions of moslems recitating the same text with almost no differences and certainly no one really significant... good program.
Even after dareks constant forcing again and again marjin van putin bro is sticking to his conclusions,, Quran is same as it was 1400 yrs ago,,on the other hand we don't even know who wrote gospels and gospels don't even agree with each other to the extent that its laughable,, my faith has got even more stronger after listening to this episode Hallelujahhhhhhh God is Great ❤️
You clearly didn't pay attention. The Quran is the same (minus a few scribal mistakes) in between the time period of Uthman till present. From Muhammad to Uthman is was like the Bible - lots of different versions. P.S. I'm not a Christian
The Quran is the same as hundreds of versions were burned.
Also - you have faith in a book that tells you the earth is flat? Wow
@@inquisitivemind007 Here's the problem with this narrative: Ibn Mas'ood along with the rest went to Iraq, Syria, Egypt and were teaching their Qur'an for over 10 years during Umar's tenure, before Uthman was even a Khalif. Ibn Mas'ood is the top of the chain of Hafs along with other Qira'at. It's still very close with Uthman. They differ in the order of Surah's. Islamic literature already knows this and recorded this over a 1200 years ago.
@@tacom0nsta658 yes I know Islamic literature knows this but does the public from the Islamic community know this?
Damn this comment is really sad. So much cope.
You realise that your god Allah is responsible for sending the gospels too? And just like the Quran, your god Allah's words are corruptable.
Without the bible we wouldn't have the Quran, the Quran needs the bible to explain certain things so if it's corrupted, this is a confirmation that your god has failed in delivering his message.
I hope you develop the ability to think more critically
Short answer no. Parts are before and some parts are way after
I don’t give much regard to the ability to trace text back to an author. The real question is if the text transcends the author and time period. The Quran holds what we would expect from a primitive culture. There is nothing that suggests divine inspiration.
If we take the Quran as written then we can conclude Allah is evil just as the Christian god is evil in the Bible. This Quran just adds evidence against god.
The evil Old Testament god is Yahweh the great deciever from the Southern Kingdom of Judah worshipped at Beer-sheba.
The Masoretic Text (MT) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are corrupted Yahwism nonsense.
Try reading the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) instead it's from the Northern Kingdom of Israel temple Bethel YHWH pronounced Yehowah (Jehovah in Latin). There's like 7000-ish differences between the two Torahs.
I think you’re primitive and nothing you bring to the table is good
Have you read the Quran?
It seems they have studied the history of the text and searched for differences, etc but they didn’t study what the text actually says…. The very accurate descriptions of how a baby is formed in the womb or the description of creation and the heavens and the earth which is in line with the way science now underlies it. Proving that its God speaking. Go read the book with the intention of finding guidance
@@riazmongratie4440Indeed subhanallah
@@riazmongratie4440Qur'an claims bones develop before the flesh, but we know today that they develop at the same time. The Qur'an's claim seems to track with the contemporary understanding of how babies develop
Millions of muslims memorize the quran today. This tradition of memorizing the quran had been passed down from generations to generations for 1400years since the time of the prophet. Hundreds of companions of the prophet memorized the quran during his lifetime. The quran has always been more like a living audio book that had been actively recited for 1400 years - not only kept as written dusty books in libraries. The written text have always been functioning more as the backup for the living audio Quran. This living tradition is a lot more believable and reliable than the wild speculations by unbelievers 1400 years after the event.
They’re memorizing a text that wasn’t finalized until 1936.
@@truthseeker9163 you clearly are ignorant about the quran. no wonder since you re part of revisionists speculating 1400yrs after the event. the consonant skeleton (rasm) had been standardized since Uthman's time based on quraish dialect and approved by consensus of prophet's companion. the pronunciation had always been varied without changes in meanings.
@@ykn9240then why do we find all sorts of variations in the quranic text when we examine historical manuscripts (post Uthnan)??
The way I view this is abit different. Perfection cannot be measured or seen because we are limited entities, however.. if you apply that word to the Quran when it was first revealed to him and he first repeated it, it would apply then, the subsequent aspect is not an issue because if the meaning is there but there are slight differences in recitation I have no issue. In reality there are not variant readings, when the prophet said to umar and hisham both of your recitations are correct even though they differed he said they were revealed that way, so the issue of 'variants' was included and addressed from the beginning but in reality it is one recitation which has this flexibility.
Instead of writing so many words you should just go word salad word salad word salad and be done with it
@@donaldhawkins9173 a typical response! Try an evidential and rational approach respectfully.
If muhammad was supposedly fine with differences/variations then why would uthman burn all those copies?
@@manusiabumi7673 well obviously you had huffaz dying on the battle field and the islamic empire was spreading across new regions were people were differing on how to recite because not everyone were memorizers so uthman formed a committee to standardize the Quran in the form it was revealed.
@@manusiabumi7673 not any variation is accepted . For example the words you can change into a million variants if you wanted to . ... but there are only only 7 or 10 qirat ...meaning there is a mechanism of authentic verification .
Your trying hard .
Very Interesting & with so deep analysis & knowledge about the Quran, i hope you guys revert to Islam.
No thanks😂
Islam is a mixture of judeo-christian, gnostic, pagan and zoroastrian creed.
@@allebasi66
You need to study it more. Very simple, worship only God & follow his commands.
You will find that in Islam. Peace
@@Kassalawy56789 what do you know about the Ebionites ? How can I find peace when a man can have several wives? Maybe the man can, but even Abraham could not...see Hagar.
@@allebasi66
I don't know about several wives but in Islam it's up to 4. Of course that's comes with many conditions if you can't keep it you will be judged accordingly.
But in a way, still it's much better than having 1 wife and a punch of girl friends & casual sex with anyone.
Really weird that an "expert" doesn't even know (or understand) what Christof Luxenberg is saying.
Conclusion: Uthman standardized the text because people didn’t even know what the verses even said, it was not about word changes. You have no clue or confidence if the version today is the exact words of the prophet.
bart e ' 50k biblical manuscripts no two alike '
That's what sheikh uthman ibn fibbing says
Majority of western scholarship beg to differ...If this is your conclusion then you're not understanding what is being said here by Marijn or you are not being fair with your analysis. Here is what western scholars say regarding the quran and why your conclusion falls outside what experts say:
Rom Landau, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Pacific, said that "it became the task of Muhammad's secretary, Zayd ibn-Thabit, to bring these sayings together in textual form. Abu Bakr had directed the work, and later, after a revision at the command of Uthman, the Koran took its standard and final form that has come down to us unchanged."
R. V. C. Bodley, the American orientalist, proclaimed, "Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa's master copy."
Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one of the most reputed of Dutch orientalists, avowed that
"all sects and parties have the same text of the
Qoran."
Neal Robinson, one of the leading British orientalists today and a senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the
University of Leeds, wrote, "In broad outline the Muslim tradition has met with widespread acceptance from non-Muslim scholars."
Thomas Walker Arnold, an eminent British orientalist, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, tells us that "there is a general agreement by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself."
Bosworth Smith, a Catholic historian and biographer, stated in his provocative book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, "We have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Charles Cutler Torrey, an orientalist and Semitic scholar, stated that the Qur'an "lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself li.e. Muhammad] gave it."
William Muir, a Scottish Orientalist, elected principal of Edinburgh University and president of the Royal Asiatic Society, whose books are one of the main sources of the distortion of the image of Islam and its prophet in modern Christian polemic studies, writes, "The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, we might almost say no variations at all, among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam.
Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries [11] with so pure a text."
Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, the French orientalist, said, "The Qur'ān was fixed, shortly after its revelation, with an authentic text that there is no serious reason to consider as corrupted"
1. Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon and a leading scholar of Arabic Studies in the United States, states that "Modern critics agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad produced it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran."
John Burton, professor of Arabic at the University of Edinburgh, says in the closing sentence of his magnum opus, The Collection of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an as we have it today, is "the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet [.]. What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad."
1. Theodor Nöldeke, one of the greatest German orientalists, said in his book Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is "All that was said supports the view that the Qur'an of 'Uthman was complete and loyal to the highest level that can be expected,
Hamilton A. R. Gibb, one of the leading orientalists of the twentieth century, writes, "It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form and contents of Mohammed's discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision."
@@hmansour89 nice and copy and paste, but all of these scholars were from late 19nth century to early 20th century, academia and scholarship can change a lot in almost 70 years. My original statement was in the words of marijn from the video with context with other scholars. Before uthman, there were variants and variations and people were reciting “differently not just different words”. Just watch the video man.
@@Unknownmale23 I've quoted from 19th, 20th and 21st century scholars.
Sooo many modern scholars I could quote from like Angelika Neuwirth for example, Yassin Dutton, Hythem sidky....
They all say the same thing which frustrates the skeptics so much so that they start to accuse the scholars of receiving petro dollars from Saudi Arabia just like Marijn said in this video.
He was accused to receiving money and his scholarship was attacked because he was factual and unbiased with his approach
Modern scientific historical research proves that the city of Mecca could not have existed as a large commercial caravan city in the years 600 AD
Main reasons for this fact are:
1) Mecca is not an oasis, so there is no surface water (only a well, known as zamzam which is clearly unsufficient and inappropriate for watering many caravan camels)
2) Mecca is not shown on any map at that time or even previously
3) Mecca is located down of Hidjaz plateau and could therefore not be located on the caravan route which is located more than 1000 m above on the plateau (eg the city of Taeef is located at an altitude of ca 2000 m while Mecca is at 300 m)
4) there were no archeological remains or artefacts (coins, potteries, ruins, bones etc) discovered in Mecca dating from before circa year 700
5) no agriculture whatsoever is possible in this wild rocky desert location, how could a large city survive in such hostile environment ?
Definition of contradiction:
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
Splitting of the moon does not fit that definition. Also, Thulqarnine story does not fit the definition either. This guy should know better than to cite those two examples to intimate possible contradictions in the Quran.
I’ll give you an example of contradiction from the Christian Bible.
Mark 6:8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.
Matthew 10:10
Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff; for the worker is worthy of his provisions.
Which is it did Jesus instruct his apostles: to take a staff or not? It depends on which book you read. That’s a contradiction professor.
Here are more contradictions
Btw, did the moon split yes or no?
1) The Qur'an is in pure Arabic
(12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:41,44)
It contains numerous
foreign words
(Egyptian, Acadian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, & Ethiopian)1
2) Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him(87:6-7)
Allah abrogates some verses or causes them to be forgotten (2:106), & so did Satan (6:68)
3) Allah will not mislead people (9:115)
He misleads whom he wills (11:34; 14:27)
@@mmss3199 no I have not, the verse says “And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things”
Why does allah say he will not lead people stray after what he has guided. And than say he intends to put error or stray in people?
Splitting the moon contradicts what we know about the natural world, mate.
@@Unknownmale23 month was splitting...you wanna proof...belief in Islam...that's simple....there is no contradiction about the abrogates...because that's surah itended into the believer not infidel like you...the believer in many surah were beeing thought to have positive thinking about GOD...and beeing manner toward GOD...if you wanna understand read surah Al Luqman cause it's not for believer only but infidel can understand also
we don't waste our time debating some trivial...you debating about GOD...if you can presenting GOD personaly here..all of you know about GOD just your assumption..you can't presenting me your GOD here..you debate me without basic. .read my explanation above..
Note : Abrogation was known in fiqh area...it's our flexibility in using Quran to form our law...( It's positive thinking from believer that GOD foreseen to our trouble in fiqh)
@@fajartiyarabdulmajid7807 mentions abrogation, another contradiction in the quran. its a huge theological problem.
According to muslims/islam - the quran is directly from god and is timeless.
An abrogation basically implies that god changed his mind over time. Which in turn implies he couldn't foresee what would happen, which implies god is limited and not all-powerful.
How can an all powerful, all knowing being change their mind about something ? It makes no sense.
How can a book for all time say one thing at a particular time and then change that at a later point ?
Your quran is garbage
I'm 30 mins down the line and this is interesting to me. There is one thing that you may have totally missed, which is: The meaning of Quran is exactly "it is readable from the chests/hearts"... one standard way that Quran was propagated is by oral recitation, and this is valid until this very day. You cannot be an authorized reciter of the Quran without hearing it from an authorized person who heard from an authorized person ...etc, it is called Ijaza (permittance to read the Quran), and each Ijaza is specific to one way of reading the Quran (there are 10 different ways). There are rules as well on how to read the Quran and you will not be authorized until you are mastering them (what is called Tajweed, amelioration if I can say that).
So, even if the Quran was written and canonized a bit later (which I believe differently and strongly believe that the Quran was written and gathered by the Prophet himself), the reciters of Quran were there and are still here ... Thousands upon thousands upon millions until this very day.
In Islam, if someone reads the Quran and makes a mistake (even a letter or a sound), one of the other Muslims in the same place can, and will, rectify this mistake immediately, even if he or she is 6 years old, and everyone will respect that and confirms and apologizes for the mistake. Knowing the Quran by heart by millions of people all over the decades and centuries, makes it even more marvelous piece of holy thing and you can be sure with high confidence, it is the same book that was told by the prophet.
Uncovering The Truth About Quran Preservation With Dr. Marijn van Putten
ua-cam.com/video/xkMqKB5SM1A/v-deo.html
I think you will like this video better. He covers different oral recitation, different Qur'an variation and different Islamic traditions.
One of the mistakes that you are making here is that it seems like you are implying that the text was standardized in isolation of those that knew the oral tradition well
This comment is key!!
How does the oral tradition can be defended?
Yup i agree. its not in isolation even though, personal copy already exist.
@@TingTong2568 this is done by validating the oral memorization word for word letter by letter through thousands of people who are not associated or even from the same area
@@nkamboh lol, Most-Lames can't even resolve the ahruf and qira'at issue till this day
The Quran doesn’t say stars shoot at the devil says we have adorned the heaven with lamps and we made them missiles to for the devils. Ibn Kathir explains it’s not the star itself it’s the solar flame coming from it.
Any historical aspect taken into consideration in this conversation will come to one conclusion, the prophet first had the 'revelation' enter his memory, after others started memorizing, writing down and that has carried on to present day with corrobative documented chains receding all the way back, the issue for me now is flipped.. if one is going to doubt the veracity of the Quran you have to do one of two things, provide something in opposition to what we have today that is contradictory that can be assed, or open the covers to the internal content and point out that this was definitely not part of the 'original' , I would suggest, either cannot be done.
You can do that for any ancient text including the Torah, and for most parts the Bible. It doesn’t prove god or flying donkeys
@@Unknownmale23 what has god got to do with it! The primary method of how the Quran is transmitted is alive and observable today going back to it source the others that you mentioned cannot match that.
@@elliot7205 the primary method of the Torah as demonstrated by the Dead Sea scrolls is also alive and observable. So what?
@@Unknownmale23 because the practice according to all the available evidence was instituted or began with the prophet Muhammad in the month of ramadan and today around the world muslims from the age of 3 to 75 ricite its entirety exactly how it was primary revealed. It is unparalleled.
It was memorized first women to memorize was Ayesha (RA) this was before she married prophet. She gave 2600 Hadith after the death of prophet which the companion did not know about. Since she was very close to prophet companion used to ask her about many things. She was a scholar and was one of the strong advocate of Islam till the age of 73 when she passed.
Question to your scholar has he checked if the people who memorized Quran were involved in verifying, double checking, triple checking to make sure everything is Authentic?
2600 hadiths?? Its only 35-38% of the whole quran, habibi
Sound like nobody actually memorized the whole quran at that time.
Ohhh wait.. stoning and breast feeding verses aren't counted.
@@TENGRI-101 Your claim have been debunked several times. What denomination are you?
Arabs compiled Quran from pre-islamic Arabic literature mostly derived from syro-aramaic, lectionaries, homilies, hymnals and folklores of Eastern churches in the 7th century near-east.. they also borrowed heavily from Babylonian Talmud which was also being compiled around the same time and place as Quran ie. 7th century lower Mesopotamia..
The project for Quran compilation started during the reign of Umayyad dynasty ruler Abd al-malik (685-705AD). Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Abd al-maliks governor for Iraq was the key person in this project. Hajjaj was also instrumental in introducing many diacritical marking and vowels into the Arabic alphabet to make the Quran more readable.. the final product was put together during the Abbasid period.
Such a huge coping mechanism!🤣
@@muhammadbello8756 dawah mionion spotted .here to spread ur islamic mythology
once I saw passion of the christ. and dude on cross cried out ' Allaha Allaha why have thou forsaken me ' I left church for islam. cut out the middleman
@@etzelkaplan9677 Isa ibn Maryam of Quran is not Jesus of Bible. Isa is a fictitious nephew of Hazrat Musa made to resemble Jesus by authors of Quran 🤣
Quran actually is a oral book.... means it's needed to be recited ....so during prophets lifetime there was many people who fully memorized the Quran and ofcourse prophet himself memorized the whole Qur'an i.e. there was no need for a physical book......Even today you can find millions of people who have memorized the Quran, which was encouraged by the Prophet PBUH.....!! After the death of prophet when other people i.e. Turks,Babylonian,eastern Greeks,berbers,Indians,persians started accepting Islam the need of a Quran in written down form or book form. Then only Uthman AS standardized the Qur'an because there was many Qurans floating around the Islamic world which has many impurities or corrupted form because there was many non Arab tried to write the Quran without having proper knowledge of Quranic Arabic, even today Quranic Arabic is very different from the classical Arabic that's actually a miracle of Quran that type of Arabic isn't spoken anywhere except The Prophet.....so Uthman AS really eliminated the corrupted form of the message....and make the Quran standard as it is required in order to preserve the religion.
I’m curious to know why you’re exploring academics from western sources rather than the academics of the region or historical sources from the region?
As non-believers, we seek explanation from non-believing scholars. We seek rational and evidence-based explanation.
@@kyoungd you can get that from Arab speaking scholars as well who would understand the history and nuance.
One thing that is missing in this discussion is the fact that we have an oral tradition that dates back to original sources in an unbroken chain
The manuscripts that are deviant or in other lands don’t have a chain or record, someone could have mistakenly written something that is unverified and rejected
We already have historical accounts of such activity that existed
@@nkamboh He is an Arabic speaking scholar, and he understands history and nuances. He just does not share your religious bias. And no. You do not have historical accounts. Do not mistake Islamic religious tradition with history. Historians differ from Muslim scholars when it comes to early Islamic history.
Western scholarship is only bad when it comes to the study of Islam. I never see conservative Muslims complaining about Western Egyptology or Assyriology.
@@apolloniusoftyana7049 no western scholarship is bad when it’s taken in isolation ignoring strict scholarship and sciences of the accounts from that time
It’s like someone comments on a book when it’s written and generations later a new interpretation is taken without considering the comments of that time
1:01:01 Mary's lineage could be traced back to Moses and Aaron. Thats what is mentioned there
The problem with this theory is that this is or was a patriarchal society and they did not use the mothers lineage nor did the bible use the mothers lineage. Even the biblical lineage of Jesus falls apart in the bible if you do the math and that is assuming Jesus even existed.
Current Quran is around 6200 verses. There are traditions to the effect that the original Quran was over 17000 verses. According to one tradition the verse concerning stoning of an adulterer was under Ayesha’s bed and was eaten by a goat!
17000 verses reference plz
@@malikakajee4396 I refer you to “ sohah setta” including Bokhari and Muslim who have mentioned cases that were excluded from the Quran according to Aasem as recited by Fahs. One example is the paper(s) with the Aya or Ayat concerning the stoning of adulterer written on it which was being kept in Ayesha’s room and was eaten by her goat.
@@dadbidad1322 that paper contains the ayats regarding punishment of married adulterer which recitation was left by prophet himself but its order was still in implementation and personal commentary of rules regarding fosterage like hazrat Ali has personal notes regarding zakat in cattles in the handle of his sword about which Shia create many stories. It is very painstaking to look all 6 hadith books ,that why I was asking for reference
@@malikakajee4396 the surah for stoning the adulterers and suckling were eaten by goats according the Hadiths. So from where is these stories coming from the shias when it is clearly Sunni Hadiths
@@TingTong2568 Shia stories regarding 40 paras of quran , 70000 verses of quran, goat eating 10 paras of quran , thickness of quran like leg of a camel , 30000 verses regarding Ahl e bayt, real quran missing , only imams have the real quran , only imam knows the tarteeb e nazooli at which order it was revealed verse to verse etc
Actually the answer is simple it's like asking how do we know Abraham Lincoln lived?, there was no Quran before prophet Muhammad, saw. I find questions like these really ignorant, but for the learner there are no stupid questions, so we must engage and be patient. I wonder why the host never invites Muslim scholars on his channel if he is seeking knowledge about Islam and the Quran. Consult those who live and breathe the faith.
As an ex Muslim I find this so incredibly fascinating. I always found it interesting that Umar needed to get involved to "finalise" the Quran.
The power struggle that ensued directly after Muhammad was (potentially) assassinated, show the true motives behind establishing this religion and standardizing a version of the Quran
What I see is Muhammad screwing up. First he comes up with the idea 💡 of the 7 ahruf to help his ummah. It creates arguments and then Uthman ends up banning it.
@@alonzoharris9049 lol Alonzo. Do you sleep at all or do you spend your days just seething and coping in the comments.
Can you point out my personally emotional argument?
@@alonzoharris9049 so stating that the caliphs were murdered is a fallacy? 🤔 are you telling me they all died from natural causes lol
"The standardisation is known" 😂 yea we can can see the holes buddy. If only your prophet was as effective as uthman, maybe Allah chose the wrong person for the job and it should have been uthman all along🤷🏽♂️
Oh Alonzo, I missed embaressing you.
pastor Bosworth smith after careful research ' the qutan is the only scripture preserved in its original language '
Because it's an invented "story" like all other religions.
Never thought the word PRESERVED was so heavy to say to some people...
Why does the Quran engage with Christian theology and polemics when there wasn't a Christian community in/near Medina or Mecca ?
Either the Quran borrowed from pre Islamic oral memory, which came from Christian community AROUND hejaz or it was added later on during the Muslim conquests, when the Arabs conquered territory with significant Christian population. The Quran shows the influence of Syriac Christian tradition and the Jewish Midrash from late antiquity.
Second of all, why does the Quran mention occupations, like agriculture and fishing, which were unknown to people living in the Hejaz region ?
Finally, oral memory is not reliable, esp when you don't have a written text with you to correct yourself. Before the canonization of Quran, the companions of Muhammad could only memorize bits and pieces of the Quran. Most of then were illiterate. Oral memory, individual and collective, changes with time in the absence of a written text. Even if the Quran became a fixed and stable text after thr canonization of Uthman, it happened a little too late, 20 to 25 years after the death of Muhammad.
Because it is simply a document that transformed over time and became standardized after some stuff was removed, some was added and quite frankly some of it was lost. Like any of the other abrahamic religions, we do not have a proper, nuanced and full text of supposed revelation that every non-heathenous religion claims to have.
firstly one of the shortest surah in Quran named Al ikhlas...it's easy to memorize...even me still memorize untill at this age even though I am bad on memorization.....it's surah consist of filosof about GOD...that's He was not begotten or have a child...this surah already explanation about our view on Christianity today...it's the earlier surah from Makkah...it's filosof originally from Islam not known in other religion even Judaism don't have that's statement and islam the relligion firstly directly critique Christianity
Secondly we have tradition called tadarus which recite Quran collectively and correcting if someone wrong in recitation/memorization...every hafiz school / madrasa preserve this tradition...
@@KoniTheChiwa
Do you think the Naskh Mansukh ( abroagtion) approach to Quran was developed as an aftermath of missing Quranic verses ?
Hadiths are generally not reliable, but using the criterion of embarrassment, we can learn something about early Quran.
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
Muslim scholars explain this hadith away by saying it was abrogated but l think the Quranic verse on abroagtion is itself a later product, to make sense of the contradictions in Quran and the missing parts.
You just asked if there were no Christians around, then the Qur'an borrowed from the Christians that were around? lol
@@tacom0nsta658
You need to improve your comprehension skills. Before Islam, Christianity was present in Yemen and northern Syriac region.
Either Muhammad and his early followers had access to an extensive oral+written tradition from such community or the material was borrowed after the Muslim conquests. The first option is improbable, given the familiarity of the Quran with the theological disputes of late antiquity. Muhammad could not have gained such knowledge by interacting with people as a tradesman. It would only make sense if he had some kind of access to a library, which we know he didn't.
My other point is Mecca or Medina didn't have any Christian population. So it doesn't make sense for the Quran to engage with Christian polemics. I'm not saying Christians didn't exist in the Arabian peninsula, instead, what I'm asserting is they didn't exist as a sizable population in the Hejaz region
I would recommend Stephen Shoemaker's book, Creating the Quran. He discusses all these issues in great detail
Just a clarification. Quran doesn't mention Alexander the great, that's exegesis where people say could be talking about him. Whereas most exegesis state it can't be referring to him as marijn said, he wasn't a monotheist or a righteous man
A little weed, some Mythvision and Islamic history - goes well with today’s herb, “Kosher Kush”
As a former Muslim and Christian, and a Middle Eastern Studies and religions major in previous life: this should be fun!
Alhamdulilah
Forget kosher kush and hit some of this halal herb
Whose name does Dr van Putten say at 12:43, please? Anyone? H'es talking about someone's work about the four, so-called, 'Master Copies'.
Hythem Sidky
If every book is burnt down, be it religious or science or fictions or fantasy....
The only book that can be compiled in few hours with 100% of accuracy of words, will be Quran. Cause even today, to make a copy of Quran...you dont require previous manuscript....all you need those who are authenticated as Hafiz.
I can rewrite a nursery rhymes. Everybody can. And there won't be any change.
@@Jemuanzo1
Yeah...right !! a nursery rhyme.
probably 20-30 words..
Like,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.
Not a book containing 77,430 words. and they are more prose than poetry.
Shakespeare most famous Romea and Juliet had only 24,545 words. and no one absolutely no one has ever memorized that even.
Btw, I bet you will have a rather hard time in remembering other four verses in twinkle rhyme..... and therefore they are not taught in schools.
When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.
Then the trav’ller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark,
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.
In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often thro’ my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky.
‘Tis your bright and tiny spark,
Lights the trav’ller in the dark,
Tho’ I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
👍 Goodluck
Will you be able to write down all 30+ qira'at and 7 ahruf?
Or are you only referring to the Hafs variant of the Quran?
@@aRsH-aJ you didn't say the words. Quran is no special..
@@Jemuanzo1
Lets be honest.... my very first comment stated a "book" ..... and you never gonna find a book having only 4 lines of a nursery rhyme.
Btw, have you memorized those other four verses? Nope.... Right?
It’s like asking a cow, how does a bird feel?
Scholar of Islam knows more than a beginner researcher .
And how would you expect to translate knowing that Arabic has over 12 million distinct words and according to Harvard University and Google in 2010, they estimated a total of 1,022,000 words in English .
I’ll just give one remark (because if I reply to every hypothesis he has, I would write a 10 page reply knowing that I only have dipped my toes, islamic knowledge.
The 7 (Ahrf) it means the 7 dialects (and Allah is the most knowledgeable) for example a (cats 🐈- feline).
It Doesn’t change the main point .
And another example some people can’t pronounce (j) they pronounce it (g) and (c) and to (k) ect…
Basically the meaning is retained, but the pronunciation differs buy a 1 to 3 alphabet letters .
Example, Kat - cat .
One times he said it could be the words of the prophet 10 rows back and says no 😂 what exactly did you research you couldn’t even come with an answer .
To prove something wrong is to give evidence not theories 😂
The Quran was standardized like the tradition says. Most companions were still alive during this compilation. This happened 10 to 20 years after the prophet with manuscripts of the prophets lifetime. So the Quran goes back to the prophet as he taught it to his companions.
Tradition makes different claims and different groups of Muslims believe different accounts. Your "10 to 15" years seems to be a unique claim because it fits between Abu Bakr's edit and that of Uthman. What is certain is that the Quran was authored by men and is not a revelation from god.
@@byteme9718 the Quran goes back to the prophet whether u believe he was a true prophet or not, that's another topic. And the tradition which i refer to is the tradition of the majority of all Muslims, Sunni Islam.
@@byteme9718 even the most critical scholars admit that the Quran was standardized, upto to at most 20 years after the prophet. Now compare it with the gospels for example. The Quran was completely revealed in 632.
@@byteme9718 Cook, The Koran, 2000: p.119 "the process of canonization ended under the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (r. 23/644-35/655), about twenty years after the death of Muhammad in 650 CE.
@@byteme9718 for your info: i corrected my comment👍
This gentleman must’ve missed that zulqurnain was a man of God and Alexander was not.
1 hour speaking of a medieval invention of arabia, trying to see somthing good in that bad comic coz it is an antichristian book. MVP only thinks how can use the medieval comic against xtianity.
I left church for islam/monotheism despite a dad who was a pastor in Dallas
@@etzelkaplan9677 you poor thing. You left one fairy tale and joined another
@@mmss3199 the god of Islam is responsible for Christianity 🤦🏽♂️
Without the bible, we wouldn't have the Quran
@@etzelkaplan9677 "I'm not convinced of this trinity thing, I will follow a book that literally says the earth is flat"
@@etzelkaplan9677 and how is your new crucifix? with a hen or with a cow on the cross? Your super ignorant new god has not tell you what was on the cross? Your father has a crucifix with Jesus and you have a crucifix with a hen... your father knows you are lost and you will not be with him in Heaven. Your father now says "this traitor is not my son".
not only that, I've honestly been bouncing around religions out of curiosity with respect, I had a experience where the Preacher even admitted we know it isn't in the order it was written in, I know this is about the christians bible and this is about the Quran. I just find it interesting were in a age where they can come out and admit its not written from Genesis to Deutoronomy. The next best thing with due respect is not downing others holy books and calling the Torah and the whole book TaNaKh the "old testament" but now were in a moment of politicians wanting to Ban things in a free country because of their belief system therefore. idk i know i am going off on a tangent just sometimes when i run into those people i wanna find a place that is that religion and not religion - Government separation and be like try and live here and tell me how it is with how you want it here.
Does The Glorious Quran go back all the way to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him? Answer: YES!
Nope - and nothing "glorious" about any of the Abrahamic religions…
Does it go back to him? Sure. Decades after his death.
@@DarthKaiju a few decades after, until there was a complete written version, compiled by his closest friends who heard him recite The Quran daily. The Noble Quran was memorised fully by thousands of companions and their children and wives and since then till today, it is still memorised by millions of hafiz, all of it word for word! “Al-Quran” translated into english means; “The Recitation”.
@@muslimresponse103 Can you cite a secular scholar that says this? Because Scholars dont agree with you and I need to point out your making this up
@@DarthKaiju dont agree with what exactly? you yourself said that the Quran was there a few decades after the Prophets death!
First of all vast majority of the companions had memorised the Quran in the life time of the Prophet. Secondly the first quran was compiled by the closiest companion of the prophet named Abu Bakr. Thirdly Uthman did standardize the Quran and uthman was also one of the ten people who were guaranteed paradise whilst still in this world and was one of the closet companions of the prophet.
Fourthly, there were hypocrites who wanted to corrupted the Quran like they did the bible and Torah and the Quran being standardised by the closest companions who had memorised it was a brilliant thing. Their efforts ensured the Quran remained untainted.
These guys completely ignored the Memories of the Quran. From the time of Prophete Muhammad (PBOH) to Abubakar , Umer And Usman there were thousand and thousand Hafiz who memories the Quran
The text was mistranslated from Aramaic to arabic. That was Luxenberg said.
Although the book contains an exciting premise, the works contained in the book are largely dismissed by most scholars, even those in the Revisionist School. It's an interesting hypothesis, but there isn't really enough to definitively say this is the case
Invite Nouman Ali Khan on the linguistic miracle and an academian together in one stream
The Quran is the first book - written in that language. Quraish and other clans might have talked in that language and in manifold dialects and variants. The IDEOLOGY of Mohammed - combining earthen goals of might, power and reign combined with "religion" and his "religion" might be a composite of earlier religions and cults is evident. NOTHING is developed among human beings out of nothing. People always travelled and got into contact with people of other languages, cults and traditions. So even the langugae of the first book written in Arabic must comprise the idea and factual traces of former concepts/words even sentences, quotations (maybe re-interpreted and fit in smoothly into the own agenda) of other religions using their concepts/words/ideas - revocalized maybe or altered or put into the opposite of its original meanings. The statement, that Lüling - especially Luxenberg and his researches and thesises would be on the very fringe of scholardom must be seriously rejected! Luxenberg was forced to published under an avatar name! Otherwise he wouldn´t be around us anymore. HOT stuff obviously. I bet Dr. Putten would face the same verdict if ...
I used to watch Mythvision when it featured the Great Scholar Dr. Robert Price. I watched today's show because of the intriguing Title. Unlike Jesus and Gospels, Quran and Prophet Muhammed are not Myths. I hoped to hear from Dr. Putten about the poetic beauty of the Arabic Quran.
Clearly the Quran is not a myth. It's a tangible, visible book. That doesn't mean it can't contain myths. Muhammad probably was is real man. That doesn't mean there are a lot of myths about him and what he taught. That's the difference.
Isn't Jesus/isa one of the islam's prophet?.
@@experience741 Yes Jesus is one of the prophet but Muslim believe in Him by Faith without making up Historical proof like Christianity does. Historically He is more like a myth if compared to Muhammad. They just believe in Him without obligation to follow Jesus's law bcz according to Islam narrative, He (Jesus) was meant for the Israeli not the whole mankind and it is lost already. In Summary what Muslim believe abt Jesus is :
- Jesus existed
- He sent to children of Israel only not for all mankind like the Christianity teaches
- He was a Genuine Prophet of God and nowhere to be divine Son of God as Christian claim
Thats All..
@@andanandan6061 Who are the 'children of Israel'?
There 7 Quranic dialect and all of them are taught by prophet Muhammed ( SAW).
Knowing classic Arabic, I don't find the Quran to be hard to understand as the guest says. I actually find it simple and repetitive. Listening to scholars who are fluent in Arabic, and those who link the text to Aramaic, the challenges are not the comprehension of the Arabic text, the challenges are in finding the original Aramaic words, which gives a different meaning in Arabic.
Do you think that the Quran is a inaccurate translation from Christian liturgy like Christopher Luxenberg ?
@@krisc3371 Yes. The short Suras are. I know a little Aramaic as well and can follow Luxembourg's arguments. He may have pushed the limits in some instances, but generally, he is correct.
Adnan Rashid is a muslim historian. He will answer all these questions in a much better way, no exaggeration.
What you think don't matter to me, its the matter of faith and Truth. Muhammed peace be upon him does not speak of his own desire.
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ (And he does not speak out of (his own) desire.
It is not but revelation revealed [ to him ]....53:3-4].
In the last sermon at Ghadeer, Mohammad said that I am leaving behind two heavy things the book and my progeny. So the Quran was already in the form of a book. What Umar did was to twist the tafsir and he rejected the tafsir written by Ali. Quran challenges you to write even a single verse like that. For centuries none could alter the Arabic text. The sons of Mohammad remain to guide in the true sense for centuries later. The last heir Mahdi will rise soon along with Jesus.
Weird how we don't have any reference to these caliphs like Uthman or Umar or Abu Bakr.
Why does there have to be a reference to uthman, umar and abu bakr in a sacred religious documents that talks about theology?
qiraat = ways of reading according to dialect, arabic dialects, there were many dialects on the arabian peninsular... the text are still the same.
The Quran has been preserved NOT because of the written form but by oral (recital) memorization tradition right from the Prophet's time until today. So the discussion on the Quran as a printed book is a futile exercise.
From what I've heard is Mecca may not be in the real location and it's sad how only islams are allowed to go and how it's been turned into a luxury vacation to many as around Mecca there's so many high end shops, stores and restaurants
There is an interview Derek did with Robert Hoyland on Mecca - check it out!
Saudi Gov apparently needs money, and mecca is open for all.
Time to book a ticket.
Super Chat is filled with bunch of People .. Who Never read the Quran!
Fantastic discussion