Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
« on: September 02, 2013, 02:46:11 AM »

 Brother Osama you are a very knowledgeable Muslim. You have sufficient knowledge in Arabic, Science, History and also about world politics. So, I think you should obviously write some books or magazines explaining these subjects in the light of Islam. May be then more people will come in touch with Islam. So brother, write some books or open a TV channel which will have broad discussions on the above subjects in the light of Islam. It will help us in Dawah. And people (Muslims, Christians, Jews etc) will get to know what Islam is and why it is the only religion acceptable to Allah.

 Take Care.

« on: August 24, 2013, 12:01:48 PM »

 When will Dajjal and Isa(AS) appear? During the rule of Mahdi or after the demise of Mahdi? I'm confused. I heard that Dajjal and Isa (AS) will appear during Mahdi's rule. But how it's possible because I heard there will be no disturbance or bloodsheds during Mahdi's rule. There will be peace and happiness. Yet some Sahih Hadiths say Dajjal and Isa (AS) will appear during the rule of Mahdi.

 I'm confused. Please help .

« on: August 24, 2013, 11:43:33 AM »

 Today I got to know that USA has taken a decision to attack Syria. They're claiming that they are going to support the rebels. But I think that's not the case. They're actually planning to conquer Syria and strengthen their military presence in the Middle East. Already a fleet has reached the Mediterranean sea and they're not far from Syria. This is obviously a bad news for the Muslims. But unfortunately we can't do anything. May be Muslims will again become active after the arrival of Mahdi.

 Allah knows the best

 Take Care.


« on: August 16, 2013, 09:07:33 AM »


 (The abrogation fo Qur'anic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Qur'an, wasoriginally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.

This concept invented originally by these scholars, claims that there are some verses in the Quran that have been abrogated and invalidated by other verses!

 The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).
These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.

 Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by non-Muslim writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.

Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars

Hud (The Prophet Hud)

الَر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ

11:1 A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail,- from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things):

Yunus (Jonah)

لَهُمُ الْبُشْرَى فِي الْحَياةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الآخِرَةِ لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ  (10:64)

10:64 For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.

Although God asserts that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions, yet sadly these scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.

They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:

 "Whichever Ayah We relinquish or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106

 What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret ‘Ayah’ in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran.

 However the word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:

a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:

"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayah’s (miracles)." 17:101

 b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:

"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people." 25:37

 c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:

"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an ‘Ayah’ (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10

 d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:

"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its ‘Ayat’ (verses)." 38:29

 Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran.

This is because of the following reasons:

1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran.

 How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.

 2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!

 3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense.

 The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time.

 The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

 Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :

"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48


"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"

The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:

a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.

 b- The substitution of one verse or law within a Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture

 a- The first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:

"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48

 Here, the words "superseding them." confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.

 b- The second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.

As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.

 We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.

This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.

 The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):

The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:

 "........they say, 'You made this up"
 Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him

 "You have made it up" has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran............

 What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! If this accusation is from the Jews and Christians we must then ask, are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another?

 The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book............. they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another!

However, and if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.

These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scripture.

 As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48

 As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).

 It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.)

 After reading the above article it's almost clear that the idea of abrogation is fake.


 Is there any article on this site or any other sites refuting the below article by Answering Islam? Please answer all the points in detail. Below is the article:


(There exists within the Islamic community a major deception which has been circulating amongst the public in regard to the Muslim Scripture, al-Qur'an. The deception relates to the supposed textual preservation of the Qur'anic text, and the notion that the Qur'an remains virtually intact, without additions or deletions, without any variant readings which would call into question the integrity of the Muslim text. 

This fallacious argument, unfortunately, has convinced many lay people to believe that whereas the Bible has suffered textual corruption, the Qur'an is free from such tampering. It is thus claimed that based on this fact the Qur'an is rendered superior and is a more reliable document than the Holy Bible. 

However, a close examination of the historical references regarding the compilation of the Qur'an, demonstrates that the weight of the evidence does not support the Muslim claims. On the contrary, the evidence tends to support the fact that the Qur'an has suffered much in the way of transmission.


Let's examine the REAL TRUTH of the transmission of the QUR'AN

The majority of our references will be taken directly from Islamic scholars and writings, in order to avoid the Muslim accusations of Western scholarly bias. Such accusations are often promoted in an attempt to sidetrack the obvious implications on Muslim claims. And even when we do quote non-Muslim authorities the citations from such authors either cite or include references to Islamic scholars and works.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is the claim that a complete Qur'anic Codex existed during the time of Muhammad. This claim finds no support, since the first complete text was compiled during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, after Muhammad’s death:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari:

who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an MAY BE LOST, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something WHICH ALLAH’S APOSTLE HAS NOT DONE?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking me. "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript)." By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing WHICH THE PROPHET HAS NOT DONE?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba WHICH I HAD NOT FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE, (and they were):--

"Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)" (9.128)

The manuscript on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201)

The number of memorizers that died was 450:

“During the battle of Yamama, 450 reciters of the Qur'an were killed.” (The True Guidance - An Introduction To Qur'anic Studies, published by Light of Life, P.O. BOX 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria, part 4, p. 47– citing Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, chapter on Battle of Yamama)

According to another source, when these men died they took with them portions of the Qur'an that they alone had memorized:

Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for "fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr", I propose to read: "wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr", to follow: "lam yuktab".) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, Kitab al-Masahif’, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23; bold emphasis ours)

From these sources we realize that:

1. No text had been compiled during Muhammad’s time. This is further solidified by the following traditions:

[Zaid b. Thabit said:] “The Prophet died and the Qur’an had not been assembled into a single place.” (Ahmad b. Ali b. Muhammad al ’Asqalani, ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari [13 vol., Cairo 1939], vol. 9, p. 9; italic emphasis ours)

It is reported… from Ali who said: “May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was THE FIRST to collect (the text) between (two) covers”. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text A Comprehensive Study of the Original Collection of the Qur'an Text and the Early Surviving Qur'an Manuscripts, [MERCSA, P.O. Box 342 Mondeor, 2110 Republic of South Africa, 1989], Chapter 1. The Initial Collection of the Qur'an Text, p. 27 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 5; bold emphasis ours)

However, there are other narrations which contradict this since they claim that Abu Bakr wasn’t the first to collect the Qur'an:

It is reported… from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a mushaf (codex) was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (Ibid., citing as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 135; bold emphasis ours)   

Interestingly, Salim is one of the four men that Muhammad recommended learning the Qur'an from: 

Narrated Masriq:
 Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)

He also happened to be one of the Qurra (reciters) killed at the Battle of Yamama. It is evident that Salim’s compilation precedes that of Abu Bakr’s since the latter only collected the Qur'an after the death of the Qurra at Yamama.

2. A great majority of the Qur'anic reciters had been killed at al-Yamama, forever taking with them portions of the Qur'an that only they knew.

3. Zaid Bin Thabit collected the Qur'an from palm leaves, stones and from the memories of men.

Zaid was not the only person who had compiled the Qur'an in book form. Others such as Ubayy Bin Kab and Abdallah ibn Masud also compiled Qur'ans of their very own. In fact, both Ubayy and Ibn Masud had been singled out by Muhammad himself as two of the top four Qur'anic reciters:

Masruq reported: We used to go to Abdullah Bin Amr and talk to him. Ibn Numair said: One day we made a mention of Abdullah Bin Masud, whereupon he said: you have made mention of a person whom I love more than anything else. I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Learn Qur'an from four persons: Ibn Umm Abd (i.e., Abdullah Bin Masud - he started from him - then Muadh bin Jabal and Ubayy bin Kab, then Salim the ally of Ali Hudhaifa. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6024)

Another tradition confirms that besides Ibn Masud, Ubayy and Zaid ibn Thabit, there were at least two others who had also collected the Qur'an:

Anas is reported to have said: Four persons collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger and all of them were Ansar: Muadh Bin Jabal, Ubayy Bin Kab, Zaid Bin Thabit, Abu Zaid. Qatada said: Anas, who was Abu Zaid? He said: He was one of my uncles. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6029)

Despite the fact that this tradition contradicts Zaid’s own testimony that no Qur'anic text had been compiled in Muhammad’s time it does confirm, however, that other Qur'ans were in circulation at the time of Zaid’s codex. Owing to this fact, controversy evolved among the Muslims as they began accusing each other of tampering with the Book of Allah, which eventually led to the third Caliph Uthman taking drastic measures.

'Hudaifa b. al Yeman came to `Uthman direct from the Aderbaijan and Armenian frontier where, uniting the forces from Iraq and those from Syria, he had had an opportunity to observe regional differences over the Qur'an. "Commander of the faithful," he advised, "take this umma in hand before they differ about the Book like Christians and Jews." `Uthman sent asking Hafsa to lend him the sheets [inherited by her father, `Umar, from Abu Bakr, and now in her possession] "so that we can copy them into other volumes and then return them." She sent her suhuf to `Uthman who summon Zaid, Sa`id b. al `As, `Abdul Rahman b. al Harith b. Hisham and `Abdullah b. al Zubair and commanded them to copy the sheets into several volumes. Addressing the group from Quraish, he added, "Wherever you differ from Zaid, write the word in the dialect of Quraish for it was revealed in that tongue."

When they had copied the sheets, `Uthman sent a copy to each of the main centers of the empire with the command that all other Qur'an materials, whether in single sheet form, or in whole volumes, WERE TO BE BURNED…' (Burton, pp. 141-142- citing Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 18; bold and capital emphasis ours)


Hudaifa said, 'The Kufans say, "the text of `Abdullah"; the Basrans say, "the text of Abu Musa". By God! if I reach the Commander of the faithful, I WILL RECOMMEND THAT HE DROWN THESE READINGS." (var. Masahif) `Abdullah said, 'Do and God will drown you, but not in water!' (Burton, pp. 146-147- citing Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hudhaifa figures in a second Hadith series which reports textual differences, not only between the Muslims in Iraq and Syria, but also between rival groups of Iraqi Muslims.

We were sitting in the mosque and `Abdullah was reciting the Qur'an when Hudaifa came in and said, 'The reading of ibn Umm `Abd! [ie. `Abdullah] The reading of Abu Musa! By God! if I am spared to reach the Commander of the Faithful, I will recommend THAT HE IMPOSE A SINGLE QUR’AN READING!'

‘Abdullah became very angry and spoke sharply to Hudaifa who fell silent. (Burton, p. 142, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13; bold and capital emphasis ours)

'Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba, sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out, 'Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah's reading, go the corner nearest `Abdullah's house.' Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree. One group read, 'Perform the pilgrimage TO GOD' The others read it 'Perform the pilgrimage TO THE KA’BAH.' Hudaifa became very angry, his eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed, 'Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself? This is what happened in the previous dispensations.' He came over and sat down, saying, 'God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward, fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God's oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will replace all other religions.' (Burton, p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11; bold and capital emphasis ours)

It becomes obvious from these traditions that, contrary to popular Islamic teaching, contradictions and variant readings existed between the different codices. It is interesting to note that these variances gave rise to charges of corruption and textual perversion amongst the Muslim Umma, causing Uthman to burn texts written by eye and ear witnesses of Muhammad.

Uthman then proceeded to make Zaid’s codex the official text, forcing others to accept his decision. This decision wasn’t based on the wisdom of God but on one man’s choice. The question that begs to be asked is who gave Uthman the right to burn Qur'ans, standardizing Zaid’s text, when there were others who had more authority for receiving official standardization of their respective texts, such as Ibn Masud and Ubayy?

Both Ubayy and Ibn Masud were respected for their ability to memorize, with Ubayy being referred to as “the Master of the Qur'anic Reciters” and Masud reciting 70 surahs without error:

Abdullah (bin Masud) reported that (he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur'an) and further said: He who conceals anything shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and they said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger more than seventy chapters of the Qur'an and the companions of Allah’s Messenger know that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the companions of Muhammad but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6022)

Other traditions confirm Ibn Masud’s surpassing knowledge of the Quran and that Muhammad had even personally taught him the recitation as he had received it from Gabriel for the final time:

Hashim Ibn al-Qasim informed us; (he said): al-Mas'udi informed us on the authority of Qasim, i.e., 'Abd al-Rahman; he said: Gabriel used to descend before the Apostle of Allah and he recited the Qur'an before him once every year [P. 4] in Ramadan, till the year when the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, died; when Gabriel made him recite the Qur'an twice. ‘Abd Allah said: I recited the Qur'an as I have it from the mouth of the Apostle of Allah that year. If I had known any one more well versed... in the Book of Allah than me and camels had borne me to him, surely I would have gone to him; but by Allah! I DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH PERSON. (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi- 110 002 India], Volume 2, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Yahya Ibn Khulayf Ibn ‘Uqbah al-Basri informed us; (second chain) ‘Abd al-Wahhab Ibn ‘Ata informed us; he said: Ibn ‘Awn informed us on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sirin; he said: Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an before our Prophet, may Allah bless him, once every year in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he recited it twice before him. Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading ... conforms to the last recitation by Gabriel. (Ibid., p. 243; bold emphasis ours)

Abu Mu’awiyah al-Darir informed us; (he said): al-A’mash informed us on the authority of Abu Zabyan, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, he asked: Which of the two readings (of the Qur'an) do you prefer? He (Abu Zabyan) said: We replied: The reading of ‘Abd Allah. Thereupon he said: Verily the Qur'an was recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, once in every Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or altered.

Yahya Ibn ‘isaal-Ramli informed us on authority of Sufyan, he on the authority of al-A’mash, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of Masruq; he said: ‘Abd Allah said: No surah was revealed but I know about what it was revealed. If I had known any one knowing more of the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels or other riding beasts had carried me there, I must have gone to him ...

Wahb Ibn Jarir Ibn Hazm informed us: (he said): Shu’bah informed us on the authority of Ibrahim Ibn Muhajir, he on the authority of Ibrahim, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; (second chain) Abu Nua’ym al-Fadl Ibn Dukayn informed us; (he said): Abu al-Ahwas informed us on the authority of Sa’id Ibn Masruq, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; he said: The Apostle of Allah said to me: Recite (the Qur'an) before me. Thereupon I said: How can I repeat before you and it has been revealed on you. He said: I like it. Wahb said in his version: I desire to hear it from others. He (‘Abd Allah) said: I recited the surah of al-Nisa before him, till I reached the verse: But how (will it be with them) when We bring of every people and We bring thee (O Muhammad) a witness against them. Abu Nua’ym said in his version: Thereupon he said: It is enough. Both of them said: Then I saw him that the eyes of the Prophet were filled tears, and he said: Whoever seeks pleasure in reciting the Qur'an according to its fresh reading he should recite after the reading of Ibn Umm 'Abd. (Ibid., pp. 441-442; bold emphasis ours)

Waki ‘Ibn al-al-Jarrah informed us on the authority of Isma’il Ibn Khalid, he on the authority of Abu ‘Amr al-Shaybani; he said: Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said: Do not put questions to me as long as this learned man, that is Ibn Mas’ud, is among you. (Ibid., p. 443; bold emphasis ours)

Ma’an Ibn ‘Isa informed us; (he said): Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Asad Ibn Wada'ah: Verily ‘Umar mentioned Ibn Mas’ud and said: (He is) a box full of knowledge for which I honoured the people of al-Qadisiyah. (Ibid., p. 444; bold emphasis ours)

When informed that Zaid’s text was to receive official status, Ibn Masud reacted indifferently:

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, p. 66 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

Ibn Masud during a religious sermon (khutba) declared:

“'Affan Ibn Muslim informed us; (he said): 'Abd al-Wahid Ibn Ziyad informed us; (he said): Sulayman al-A'mash informed us on the authority of Shaqiq Ibn Salamah; he said: 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud delivered a sermon to us when the order concerning uniform reading of the Qur'an was issued, as it was indeed. He (Shaqiq) said: He mentioned ABOUT DECEIT and said: Who so deceived, will bring his deceit on the Day of Resurrection. The people have been guilty OF DECEIT IN THE READING OF THE Qur'an. I like it to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth. Then he said: By Him besides Whom there is no other god! If I know any one to be more conversant with the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels could carry me to him, I shall surely go to him. Then ‘Abd Allah went away. Shaqiq said: Subsequently I sat in the circles of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah and others BUT NONE contradicted his statement.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat, Volume 2, p. 444; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Here Ibn Masud accuses Muslims of introducing deceit or deception into the reading of the Quran! Ibn Masud even warned his followers against copying and reciting Zaid’s version of the Quran:

(19). 3104.Az-Zuhri narrated from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman, at the time when the people of Ash-Sham and the people of Al-‘Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminiyah and Adharbijan. Hudhaifah saw their (the people of Ash-Sham and Al-‘Iraq) different forms of recitation of the Qur’an. So he said to ‘Uthman: ‘O Commander of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book as the Jews and Christians did before them.’ So he (‘Uthman) sent a message to Hafsah (saying): ‘Send us the manuscripts so that we may copy them in the Musahif then we shall return it to you.’ So Hafsah sent the manuscripts to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan. ‘Uthman then sent order for Zaid bin Thabit, Sa‘eed bin Al-‘As, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair to copy the manuscripts in the Musahif. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraish men: In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the (recitation dialect of the) Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish for it was revealed in their tongue.’ So when they had copied the manuscripts in the Musahif, ‘Uthman sent one Mushaf from those Musahif that they had copied to every province.”

Az-Zuhri said: “Kharijah bin Zaid [bin Thabit] narrated to me that Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘I missed an Ayah of Surat Al-Ahzab that I heard the Messenger of Allah reciting: Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them, some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of them are still waiting. – so I searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah bin Thabit, or Abu Khuzaimah, so I put it in its Surah.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “They differed then with At-Tabut and At-Tabuh. The Quraish said: At-Tabut while Zaid said: At-Tabuh. Their disagreement was brought to ‘Uthman, so he said: ‘Write it as At-Tabut, for it was revealed in the tongue of the Quraish.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi: Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, 44. The Chapters On The Tafsir Of The Qur’an From The Messenger of Allah, Chapter 9., pp. 412-414; underline emphasis ours)

Interestingly, the Muslim community at Iraq refused to receive Uthman’s text, preferring Ibn Masud’s instead. This led to a confrontation between Hudhaifah and Ibn Masud:

`Abdullah, Hudaifa and Abu Musa were on the roof of Abu Musa's house. `Abdullah said, 'I hear you say such-and-such.' Hudaifa said, 'Yes, I deplore folk talking about this one's reading and that one's reading. They are differing like non-Muslims.' Hudaifa continued, '`Abdullah b. Qais, you were sent to the Basrans as governor and teacher. THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR TEXT.'

To b. Mas`ud he said, 'You were sent to the Kufans as their teacher and THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR READING.'

'In that case,' retorted b. Mas`ud, 'I have not misled them. There is no verse in the Book of God but that I know where and in what connection it was revealed. Did I know of anyone more learned than myself on the subject I should go to him.' (Burton, p. 147, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14; bold emphasis ours)

The matter becomes worse when we realize that Uthman’s text omitted chapters and verses that the other texts included:

According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab [33] had 200 verses in Muhammad’s time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses. This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay b. Kabb. (True Guidance, p. 61– citing Al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan fii ulum al-Qur'an on nasikh wa mansukh and Darwaza’s al-Qur'an Al-Majid)

A verse on the stoning of men and women had been expunged from the Uthmanic text. It reads as follows:

“As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in.” Umar al-Khattab stated, “But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning.” (Ibid., p. 61)

Aisha mentioned an additional clause in her reading of the Quran which is not part of the Muslim scripture we now possess:

(29) 2982.Abu Yunus, the freed slave of Aishah, said: “Aisha ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: ‘When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat [1].’ So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: ‘Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.’ She said: ‘I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.’” (Sahih)

[1] Al-Baqarah 2:238. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, Chapter 2. Regarding Surat Al-Baqarah, pp. 302-303)

A tradition in Sahih Muslim indicates that there are at least two surahs which are missing:

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ashan sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah, which resembled in length and severity to (surah) Bara`at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: ‘If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.’ And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: ‘O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice’ and ‘that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection.’ (Book 005, Number 2286)

Confirmation of the legitimacy of the verse on the son of Adam comes from Anas b. Malik:

Anas reported Allah’s messenger as saying: If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches, he would long for the third one, and the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him to repent. (Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2282)

Anas goes on to say, “I heard the messenger of Allah as saying this, but I do not know whether this thing was revealed to him or not, but he said so.”(Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2283; cf. 2284, 2285)

Yet according to al-Aswad it was revealed as part of a surah which no longer exists.

According to Hamida bint Abi Yunus:

“When my father was eighty years of age, he recited the following verse from the codex of Aisha: ‘Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet. O ye who believe, pray for him and earnestly desire peace for him and for those who pray in the front rows.’”

She adds:

“This verse had been there before the codices underwent change at the hands of Uthman.” (True Guidance, pp. 61-62 – citing al-Suyut’s al-Itqan on nasikh wa mansukh [abrogating and the abrogated])

According to Hudhaifa, Muslims read “only a quarter of Sura al-Tawba (9) i.e., meaning a great number of its verses are missing (Ibid., p. 64; citing al-Mustadrak).

Ubayy b. Kab included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal (the Separation) that were not included in the Uthmanic text. These surahs were also included in the texts of Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, pp. 74-75; citing al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan, pp. 152-153).

Ibn Masud refused to include surahs 1, 113 and 114, stating that these chapters were revealed as prayers and incantations to ward off evil. This fact is confirmed by al-Razi, al-Tabari and Ibn Hajar (True Guidance, p. 58 – citing Ibn Hajar, al-Tabari, al-Suyuti’s Itqan, chapter on compilation). As Gilchrist notes:

“Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas’ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni [surahs 113-114] are part of the Qur’an are embarrassing in their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said ‘It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur’an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur’an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw)... and he had not heard that it had been so commanded’. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186).

“... Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound, quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Mas’ud would not include the two ‘charm’ surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge, only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces. He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas’ud accepted the Fatiha and ‘charm’ surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them in his written text.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, p. 68; bold emphasis and comments within brackets ours)

According to al-Hajjaj, “a sura as long as al-Tawba was revealed, and then it was lifted up,” i.e., lost. (Ibid., pp. 62-63 - citing Bukhari, Riqaq 10; Zuhd 27; al-Tirmidi, al-Darimi Riqaq 62; and Ahmad Bin Hanbal, 111, 122, 176; iv. 368; v. 117; vi. 55)

Aisha relates that, “Ten verses were revealed concerning a foster relationship. These were annulled and replaced by another five verses.” Yet both the abrogated and abrogating verses are nowhere to be found. She also stated: “The verses of stoning and fostering were revealed, and the sheet of paper on which they were written was under my pillow. But then the Prophet died. Overwhelmed with grief, a beast came in and ate the sheet of paper.” (Ibid., p. 112- citing Muslim Hudud 15 and also No.3421; Ibn Maja Hudud 9; italic emphasis ours)

This process of burning eyewitness writings on the part of Uthman did not go well with Muslims in general as they declared that he had “obliterated the Book of Allah” because “The Qur'an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 2. The Uthmanic Recension of the Qur’an, pp. 51, 58 – citing Abi Dawud Kitab al-Masahif, p.36, and al-Tabari, Bk.1, chpt. 6, 2952)

The late great Egyptian Professor Dr. Taha Hussein summarizes the atrocity of Uthman’s actions:

The Prophet Muhammad said: “The Koran was revealed in seven dialects, all of them are right and perfect.” When Uthman banned whichever he banned from the Koran, and burned whichever he burned, he banned passages Allah has revealed and burned parts of the Koran which were given to the Muslims by the Messenger of Allah. He appointed a small group of Sahaba (close friends of Muhammad) to rewrite the Koran and left out those who heard the Prophet and memorized what he said. This is why Ibn Massoud was angry, because he was one of the best men who memorized the Koran. He said that he took from the mouth of the Prophet seventy suras of the Koran while Zaid Ibn Sabit was yet a young lad. When Ibn Massoud objected to the burning of the other codices of the Koran, Uthman took him out of the mosque with violence, and struck him to the ground, and broke one of his ribs. (Hussein, A-Fitnato Al-Kobra [The Great Sedition], pp. 160-161, 181-182; italic emphasis ours)

As does Islamic scholar Alphonse Mingana:

“Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses." (Mingana, “Three Ancient Korans”, The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Mingana records the Muslim reaction to Uthman b. Affan's burning and wholesale destruction of primary, competing Quranic codices:

"The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of 'Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory was defective, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in a different way. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to scandalize the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by 'Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If 'Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him ‘THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS’ and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: 'He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK’?…” (Ibn Warraq, p. 84-85; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Mingana, in his article The Transmission of the Koran, cites Muslim historian al-Tabari:

“… ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and ‘Uthman b. Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka'b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.' He informs us, too, that the people said to 'Uthman: ‘The Koran was in many books, and thou discreditedst them all but one’; and after the Prophet's death, ‘People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God- and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan WHO… TORE UP THE BOOK.’” (Ibn Warraq, p. 102; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In the same article Mingana sources another ancient writer regarding the compilation of the Quran. The author, a Christian apologist named Abd al-Masih al-Kindi, wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun circa A.D. 830, approximately forty years before al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices that circulated shortly after Muhammad's death:

“… Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of 'Ali, which they follow to the present day; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention; one party read according to the text of ibn Mas'ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka'b. When 'Uthman came to power, and people everywhere differed in their reading, 'Ali sought grounds of accusation against him. One man would read verse one way, and another man another way; and there was change and interpolation, some copies having more and some less. When this was represented to 'Uthman, and the danger urged of division, strife, and apostasy, he thereupon caused to be collected together all the leaves and scraps that he could, together with the copy that was written out at the first. But they did not interfere with that which was in the hands of 'Ali, or of those who followed his reading. Ubai was dead by this time, as for Ibn Mas'ud, they demanded his exemplar, but he refused to give it up. Then they commanded Zaid ibn Thabit, and with him 'Abdallah ibn 'Abbas, to revise and correct the text, eliminating all that was corrupt; they were instructed, when they differed on any reading, word, or name, or to follow the dialect of the Quraish.

"When the recension was completed, four exemplars were written out in large text; one was sent to Mecca, and another to Medina; the third was dispatched to Syria, and is to this day at Malatya; the fourth was deposited in Kufa. People say that this last copy is still extant at Kufa, but this is not case, for it was lost in the insurrection of Mukhtar (A.H. 67). The copy of Mecca remained there till the city was stormed by Abu Sarayah (A.H. 200); he did not carry it away; but it is supposed to have been burned in the conflagration. The Medina exemplar was lost in the reign of terror, that is, in the days of Yazid b. Mu'awiah (A.H. 60-64).

“After what we have related above, 'Uthman called in all the former leaves and copies, and destroyed them, threatening those held any portion back; and so only some scattered remains, concealed here and there, survived. Ibn Mas'ud, however, retained his exemplar in his own hands, and it was inherited by his posterity, as it is this day; and likewise the collection of 'Ali has descended in his family.

“Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of the Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of 'Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as 'Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between 'Ali and Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman is well known; how each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity?" (Ibn Warraq, pp. 108-109; bold emphasis ours)

Mingana concludes:

“Then al-Kindi, addressing his Muslim friend, says: ‘All that I have said is drawn from your own authorities, and no single argument has been advanced but what is based on evidence accepted by yourselves; in proof thereof, we have the Kur'an itself, which is a confused heap, with neither system nor order.’” (Ibn Warraq, pp. 109-110; bold emphasis ours)

The problem does not end just yet. The traditions record that the governor of Medina, Marwan, confiscated Zaid’s text, which had been in Hafsah’s possession until her death, and proceeded to destroy it. In Kitab Al-Masahif, Ibn Abi Dawud quotes Salim bin Abdullah as saying:

“When Hafsah died and we returned from her funeral, Marwan sent with firm intention to Abdullah Ben Omar (Hafsah’s brother) that he must send him those pages, and Abdullah Ben Omar sent them to him, and Marwan ordered it and they were TORN UP and he said. I did this because whatever was in it was surely written and preserved in the (official) volume and I was afraid that after a time people will be suspicious of this copy or they will say there is something in it that wasn’t written.” (Dr. William F. Campbell, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science [Middle East Resources 1992, ISBN 1-881085-00-7], SECTION THREE. The Bible and the Qur'an: Effects of Criticism and Similarities in Their Development, III. Historical Development of the Qur'an and the Gospel Compared, B. The Final Collection of the Qur'an and the Gospel, p. 120; bold and capital emphasis ours)

We must ask who gave Marwan the authority to dare destroy an official, original copy of the Book of Allah, a copy written under the authority of Abu Bakr Siddiq, Muhammad’s personal friend and father-in-law? Further, if there was nothing missing in the transmission of the text then why was he afraid that the people would be suspicious of it?

On top of this great atrocity, the Qur'an underwent further revisions under Iraq’s governor al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (A.D. 660-714). Abi Dawud notes:

“Altogether al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text... In al-Baqarah (Surah 2:259) it originally read Lam yatasannah waandhur, but it was altered to lam yatasannah… In al-Maj. (sura 5:48) it read shari ya’aten wa minhaajan but it was altered to shir ‘atawwa minhaajan.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 5. Sab’at-I-Ahruf in the Hadith Literature, p.109 – citing Ibn Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p.117)

It appears that Muslims felt free in adding and subtracting from the Qur'an as they saw fit, irrespective of whether it was God’s word or not. This fact is made clearer by Arthur Jeffrey’s conclusion on Hajjaj’s revisions. According to Arthur Jeffrey:

“That the practice of pointing came generally accepted and consistently carried through the whole of the Codex is said to be due to activity of the famous official al-Hajjaj b. Yusif, who was perhaps the most remarkable figure in Islam during the Caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik. When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjaj in this matter, however, we discover to our surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely the text of the Qur`an by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new revision of the Qur`an, having copies of this new text sent to the great metropolitan centers, and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as Uthman had done earlier.” (The Qur'an as Scripture [New York: Books for Libraries, 1980], p.99; italic emphasis ours)

Another issue which the Muslims had to deal with was variant readings. When the Qur'an was originally written, there were no vowel marks or diacritical points to differentiate the meanings of words. To help illustrate the kind of problems this style of writing can create in a text, we will write a sentence without vowels:

h gv hm bd

This sentence could be read in several possible ways depending on the context. For instance, it might mean “he gave him a bid” if he were a contractor, or “he gave him a bud” if he were in a florist’s shop, or “he gave him a bed” if in a furniture store. This textual style gave rise to thousands of variants between the codices which were available at that time.

Other variant readings stem from clauses that were either added or omitted from the text. A comparison of the texts of Uthman and Ibn Masud will illustrate this point:

S. 2:275 in Uthman’s copy begins with Allathiina yaq kuluunar - ribaa laa yaquumuuna - “those who devour usury will not stand.” Ibn Masud’s codex began in the same fashion but added “yawmal qiyamati,” The Day of Resurrection - i.e., “those who devour usury will not stand on the Day of Resurrection.”

S. 5:91 in Uthman’s text reads Fusiyaamu thaalaythati ayyammin - “Fast for three days.” Ibn Masud included after the last word the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning “successive days.”

S. 6:153 begins Wa anna haatha siraatii - “Verily this is my path.” Yet Ibn Masud’s version reads Wa haatha siraatu rabbakum - “This is the path of your Lord.”

S. 33:6, in regard to Muhammad’s wives, states, Wa azwaajuhu ummahaatuhuu - “and his wives are their (the believers’) mothers.” Yet Ibn Masud adds Wa huwa abuu laahum - “and he (Muhammad) is their father.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, pp. 69-70 – citing Arthur Jeffrey Materials; Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif)

It should be noted that in the four preceding examples, Ubayy b. Kab, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Abi Dawud were in agreement with Ibn Masud’s reading. In fact, the clause in S. 33:6 is multiply attested according to the late Muslim scholar and translator Muhammad Asad,

Thus, connecting with the preceding mention of voluntary, elective relationships (as con­trasted with those by blood), this verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: "None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind" (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them - e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) - hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation, "seeing that he is [as] a father to them"; and many of the tabi’in - including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) - did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. (However, see also verse 40 of this surah and the corresponding note.) As regards the status of the Prophet's wives as the "mothers of the believers", this arises primarily from the fact of their having shared the life of God's Apostle in its most intimate aspect. Consequently, they could not remarry after his death (see verse 53 below), since all the believers were, spiritually, their “children”. (Source; bold emphasis ours)

This explains why he inserted this into his own translation, albeit within brackets:

The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves, [seeing that he is as a father to them] and his wives are their mothers:

The fact is that this passage is multiply attested further mitigates against Uthman's (per)version being the most accurate and authentic.

Other places where Ibn Masud’s reading found support with the other reciters include:

S. 3:127, the standard version read Wa saari’uu (“be quick”), whereas both Ibn Masud and Ubayy’s readings were Wa saabiquu (“be ahead”)

Ibn Masud and Ubayy both read Yusrifullaahu - “averted by Allah” - in replacement of Uthman’s Yusraf - “averted.” (S. 6:16) (Gilchrist, Chapter 3, p. 71 – citing Maki’s Kitab al-Kasf and Arthur Jeffrey’s Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an)

This makes the case against the Uthmanic text receiving official status even stronger, since the evidence points to Ibn Masud’s codex as being vastly superior.

To present a brief summary of our findings we noted that:
1.The Qur'an was not compiled perfectly.
2. Much of the Qur'an’s contents are missing.
3.More than one Qur'an was in circulation.
4.Primary eyewitness codices were burned.
5.On the authority of one man an official text of the Qur'an was approved.
6.Even this official codex was eventually destroyed and eleven revisions were made of it.
7.Thousands of variants existed between these competing texts as documented by Arthur Jeffrey’s book, which in turn cites Abi Dawud’s own work.

Before concluding, two fallacies need to be addressed. There are those within the Islamic community, such as Dr. Jamal Badawi of Halifax, Nova Scotia, that claim that the memorization of the Qur'an insured its preservation and authority. It is claimed by these men that hundreds of individuals were alive that learned the Qur'an directly from Muhammad and had committed it to memory. This insured the proper enunciation and preservation of the contents of the Qur'an. This logic is fallacious for two reasons:
1.The claim that memorization preserved the Qur'an is false due to the fact that a great number of the reciters (hafiz) were slain at the battle of al-Yamama, taking those parts of the Qur'an that they alone had memorized to the grave with them, never to be recited again.
2.It was these same reciters i.e., Ibn Masud, Ubayy etc., who were writing down codices from memory which led to contradictions, additions, omissions and to thousands of variant readings among the competing texts. This demonstrates the faulty memories of the reciters.

Interestingly, we are told that even Muhammad himself forgot certain verses:

'The Messenger of God heard a man recite by night and said, "May God have mercy on that man! He has just reminded me of a verse so-and-so and I had forgotten from sura such-and-such."' (Burton, p. 129, Bukhari, "K. Fad'il al Qur'an", bab nisyan al Qur'an)

The Prophet recited the Qur'an and omitted an aya. When he had finished the prayer, he asked, 'Is Ubayy in the mosque?' 'Here I am, Messenger of God.' 

'Then why didn't you prompt me?'

'I thought the aya had been withdrawn.'

'It hasn't been withdrawn, I forgot it.' (Ibid., pp. 65-66, `Abdul Rahman al Tha`alibi, "al Jawahir al Hisan fi tafsir al Qur'an", 2 vols., Algiers, 1905, vol. 1, p. 95)

The second fallacy is that these variants were simply dialectal differences that existed between the different Arab tribes. It is further claimed that these dialectal differences do not affect the text, since Muhammad was allowed up to seven dialectal readings (Sab’at-l-Ahruf). On the contrary, the evidence points to much more than simple dialectal variation, but to gross omissions of entire surahs, verses and lengths of chapters. Those who expound this theory are basing it upon purely wishful thinking with no solid evidence to back up such assertions.

In fact, the seven ahruf compound the problem for the Muslims. The following Muslim response is an indication why:

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

The BEST of the scholarly OPINIONS concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.


Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is FAR-FETCHED, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?

The scholars mentioned NEARLY FORTY DIFFERENT OPINIONS concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.


It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: "It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’)."


With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.


When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.


Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) …

Islam Q&A ( (Question #5142: The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven styles (ahruf, sing. harf); bold and capital emphasis ours)

In light of the preceding considerations, we have no other choice but to conclude that memorization failed to preserve the Qur'an. This is perhaps why Muslims were forced to admit that the Qur'an is an incomplete record:

`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE [d h b]. Let him say instead, I HAVE GOT WHAT HAS SURVIVED."' (Burton. p. 117, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Some of us met to exchange hadith reports. One fellow said, 'Enough of this! Refer to the Book of God.' Imran b. Husain said, 'You're a fool! Do you find in the Book of God the prayers explained in detail? Or the Fast? The Qur'an refers to them in general terms only. It is the Sunna which supplies the detailed explanation.' (Ibid., p. 21, al Hamdani, "I`tibar", pp. 24-5)

No madhab permits unbeliever-believer inheritance; slave-free man inheritance; homicide-victim inheritance. All madahib accept the testimony of two male witnesses in homicide cases. These and many other agreed principles and procedures are unmentioned in the Qur'an. (Ibid., p. 23)




Unlike the Holy Bible which has over 25,000 manuscripts with copies dating over two thousand years (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls), the Qur'an’s manuscript (MS) evidence pales in comparison. Moreover, no two Quranic manuscripts (MSS) are identical (which is rather amusing in light of the repeated Muslim attack on the NT textual tradition and their claim that no two Greek NT MSS are identical!). As one medieval Muslim author wrote in relation to the extant Quranic MSS, all of which were based on Ibn Masud’s version not Uthman’s:

Thus saith Muhammad ibn Ishaq [al-Nadim]: I have seen a number of Quranic manuscripts, which the transcribers recorded as manuscripts from Ibn Mas‘ud. NO TWO QUR'ANIC COPIES WERE IN AGREEMENT and most of them were on badly effaced parchment. (Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq Al-Nadim, The Fihrist - A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge [Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., Columbia University Press, 1970], p. 57; bold and capital emphasis ours)

It wasn't just the MSS of Ibn Masud's Quran which were not uniform according to al-Nadim:

Books Composed About Discrepancies of the [Qur'anic] Manuscripts. The Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of the people of al-Madina, al-Kufa, and al-Basrah, according to al-Kisai; book of Khalaf, Discrepancies of the manuscripts; Discrepancies of the People of al-Kufa, al-Basrah and Syria concerning the Manuscripts, by al-Farra'; Discrepancies between the Manuscripts, Abu Da'ud al-Sijistani; book of al-Mada'ini about the discrepancies between the manuscripts and the compiling of the Qur'an; Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of Syria, al-Hijaz, and al-Iraq, by Ibn Amir al-Yahsubi; book of Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Rahman al-Isbahani about discrepancies of the manuscripts. (Ibid., p. 79; bold emphasis ours)

In view of all these considerations and facts, we are inclined to conclude


 I really condemn what's happening in Egypt. This is not fair. Zionist security guards killed more than 300 of our Muslim brothers today.

 First Syria and now Egypt!!!! What's happening in the Muslim world? Really sad. I don't know much about Muhammad Morsi . I don't know whether he is a pro or anti Zionist supporter but whatever is happening must stop. Egypt is a very significant Muslim country in the Muslim world just after Saudi Arabia. So the ongoing bloodshed in Egypt must stop. A war in Egypt like Syria is totally unacceptable.

 May Allah save us from the clutches of the evil. Ameen.

« on: August 12, 2013, 04:23:33 PM »

 We know, Quran accurately talks about Big Bang Theory, Embryology, Black Holes, Pulsar stars, Geology etc. My question is, when the verses relating to these subjects were revealed, didn't any Muslim question about them? Didn't they ask Muhammad(S.A.W) to explain them? Didn't these verses confuse them?

 It's not possible to understand these verses specially the verses referring to the Big Bang theory and Embryology without technology. So how did the early Muslims understand these verse? Didn't these verses create any confusions among the Muslims? How did they accept these verses?

Please help. Please answer all the Questions.

« on: August 11, 2013, 11:10:51 AM »

 Happy Eid Mubarak to everyone.

 We know that, Ramadan is the month of peace. But unfortunately for last few years we are seeing that even in the month of Ramadan Muslims are getting killed all across the globe in huge number. Just compare the Ramadan of last 10 years with that of previous ten years. You'll find the difference.

 5 to 10 years back I used to think that Ramadan is the only month when we Muslims can find peace. But now the situation is changing. We are seeing bloodsheds and unrest even in the month of Ramadan.

 Recently, red alert issued by the USA scared me more. I think again the Zionists are plotting a conspiracy against the Muslims in order to trap us and brand us as terrorist. Whatever you people say, I think something fishy is going on. We must remain alert.

 Again frankly speaking, I couldn't find peace in this year's Ramadan. According to me last year's(2012)  Ramadan was much better. Global situation may become more tensed in the coming years giving a rise to bloodsheds and unrests. Bad days are knocking at the door.

 May Allah The Most High save us from the evils and grant us Hidayat.

 Take Care.


 Brothers, there're some ignorant people who claim themselves to be Muslims but don't abide by the Islamic principles. When they are asked to pray 5 times a day, to fast and follow Islamic Shariah, they say it's not necessary as Muhammad (S.A.W) said Allah will forgive everyone who says ''LA ILAHA ILLALLAHU MUHAMMADURRASULULLAH" only once and let them enter Paradise. And they also claim Allah will pardon them at the request of Muhammad (S.A.W) or they might also be pardoned because of their beautiful Islamic names. How should we answer these fools????? According to them every Muslims will enter paradise.

« on: August 11, 2013, 05:52:34 AM »

 Eid Mubarak brothers and sisters . I'm back after long 8 days tour safe and sound by the grace of Allah.

 I think Quran addresses Iblis as angel at one place and as jinn at other place. I can't remember the verses. Okay, how can Iblis be an angel because angels can't disobey Allah, but he did, He disobeyed Allah's order, when all angels were asked to bow down before Adam(AS).  It's the nature of the angels to do whatever Allah orders them to do. So I'm bit confused. How can Iblis be an angel? And what is he actually?

« on: August 02, 2013, 10:05:32 AM »

 Advance Eid Mubarak to brother Osama, mclinkin, zulfiqar, Egyptian, Tanveer, Sama, Ali, Abdullah, Black Muslim, ThatMuslimguy and all brothers and sisters on this forum.

 I'm going out today and may return some days after the Eid if Allah wills. So as I won't be able to wish you brothers Eid Mubarak on the Eid day, I'm wishing you brothers now.

 May Allah The Most High grant you brothers success at every aspect of your life and may Allah shower His unending blessings upon the entire Muslim Ummah. Ameen.

« on: August 01, 2013, 01:59:17 AM »


 I read some articles where they say, if we don't apply Tajweed while reciting the Quran, the meaning will be changed. Again some articles say it won't change the meaning. So, it seems like there's a confusion.

Can anyone who knows Arabic help me with this issue?

 I know it's not a serious issue. But I just want to know the correct answer. So that if anyone asks me this, I can answer him or her.

Brother I read some articles where it is said that, Tajweed was a part of classical Arabic in which the early Muslims used to speak. So they didn't need to memorize them. But now as classical Arabic is not spoken by the Muslims, we need to know or memorize Tajweed.

« on: July 29, 2013, 03:03:15 AM »

 Brothers, Allah revealed some verses then after some time they got abrogated according to many Sahih Hadith. But Allah said in the Quran:

‘no change there can be in the words of God’ (10:64) and, ‘there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God’ (6:34).

 So, how come those verses got abrogated? Because Allah said in the Quran, He doesn't change His words neither alters it. 

The Shocking Truth
By: Khadija Watson
Former Mary Sue Malvar

 Professor, Theologian, Missionary, Pastor, Church Planter, Licensed Ordained Minister, fundamentalist Christian, not a likely candidate for Islam. Yet, 6 years ago, after being raised in the Christian church all my life, (first as a Roman Catholic and then as a Born-Again, Spirit-Filled Christian) and having completed a Standard Ministerial Diploma, Bachelor of Theology and a Master of Divinity, I embraced Islam! What was it that brought about such a radical change?

I started to question Christian beliefs while I was studying for my Master's degree. As was my habit, I read through the Bible once every year for 12 years. I had done this along with multiple readings in connection with my preaching, teaching and studies. It was during these readings that I started to notice certain contradictions.
For instance, we teach the doctrine of Original Sin from Genesis 3 but it is contradicted in Ezekiel 18:1-22. If this basic doctrine is not true, the whole foundation of all Christianity falls. I saw these things as I read, and always stopped to ponder them, but never had time to research them because of my studies, etc. Yes, during my 8 years of study, we read through the Bible book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter and verse-by-verse; however, we never did a cross study, so any contradictions that are apparent were never addressed. Also, this was the first time we studied Church History by actual history and not from the Bible.
It was at this point that I began to question Christian Doctrines that were not in existence during the time of Jesus; rather, they began 325 years later starting with the Doctrine of the Trinity. The word "trinity" is not found in any Bible in the world, neither is it in the original Greek and Hebrew languages [these were the original languages that the Bible was written in]. This Doctrine [of Trinity] was introduced at the first of 4 councils that determine Christianity today, but because the Catholics at that time would not accept it-it had to be reintroduced 68 years later, at the 2nd council of Nicaea. Through the Doctrine of Incarnation, which makes Jesus both God and man, to the Doctrine of Propitiation, or perfect sacrifice, the formulation of all of these doctrines took more than 100 years.
I always had a hunger in my heart to know more of God. One day, I went to my professor and stated, "There has to be more to Christianity than what we teach. We tell the people they must be "Born Again" (meaning you have made a personal statement and commitment to asking Jesus Christ to come into your heart and forgive your sins and make you a new person), or you must be "Filled with the Holy Spirit"-in addition to being "Born Again" (in which the person will have an in-filling of the Holy Spirit, experienced by glossolalia or speaking in tongues). I had both of these experiences, although they are not recognized as necessary by all Christian churches or denominations. There is a lot of in-fighting and theological differences between denominations. Protestants do not recognize Catholics as even being Christian because they worship Mary, the mother of Jesus [peace be upon him] along with various saints. Baptists do not have "fellowship" with non-Baptists. In addition, there are Methodist, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Congregational, Pentecostal churches and a thousand independent churches that do not belong to any denomination. They all differ on points of doctrine or interpretation of the Bible. I felt that if what we were teaching were genuine, there would be no need for denominations. There should be an apparent change in society around us. Instead, society is in a decline and in worse condition than it was even 50 years ago! The [so called] Christian countries are among the worst. My professor was lost for words and couldn't respond.
I went ahead and graduated with my Masters of Divinity (a degree in Theology) in 1993. A month after graduating, I decided to study German. One of my classmates was a medical doctor who had spent six years in Dubai . We became friends and I noticed he was always asking me questions concerning the Old Testament. I was, also, always asking him questions concerning culture in the Middle East . (I was never interested in Islam, although my major throughout my studies was in missions. We had studies in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism and Catholicism along with cults. My interest was in Animism, or tribal worship.) When we were together, I noticed he was different. He always wanted to pray, but in a Christian context. When we were out, he was always giving money to the beggars. He even had a plastic bag full of coins in the car for this purpose. One day I mentioned to him that if I hadn't known better, I would have thought he were Muslim. He confessed to me that when he was in Dubai , he had embraced Islam, but had never told his family. When he returned to the Philippines , he apostatized and was no longer praying or practicing Islam. His family were devoted Catholics, although he was no longer affiliated with the Catholic Church, rather the Protestant church.
It was within this same time frame that I met a lady who had embraced Islam while working in Saudi Arabia . I was living in Manila at the time, and although there are Muslims there, it's not like I was out looking for them. I thought this was rather strange that I should meet two people who were Muslims within such a short time. Knowing how God works in my life through ordinary circumstances, I jokingly said, "Okay, God, what are you trying to tell me?"
I asked her about Islam, and the first thing I asked concerned how women were treated. It is well known (as we are taught in the west and hear through the media) that Muslim women are second-class citizens with no rights. She must hide herself in an abaya/purdah or covering because her husband or father does not want anyone to see her. She must stay in the house, she is uneducated and along with this the husband has a right to beat her!
I was stunned by her answer. She said the wife and mother are highly respected in Islam.
When the companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) asked who after Allah should we respect (not worship)? He said, ?Your mothers!? When asked again he repeated the same thing and when asked a third time, he said, ?Your mothers then your fathers.? Imagine, after Allah-God, you are commanded to respect your mother. Even in Prophet Muhammad's last sermon, he admonished men to respect woman and give them their rights!! The first person to embrace Islam was a woman, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the first martyr in Islam was a woman. Why wouldn't women be respected?
When I asked her about the covering that women have to ware, she explained that women are covered because it is the command of Allah for the protection of women. In the United States today every 90 seconds a woman is raped!! When a woman is raped it is because of the clothing (or lack of it) that she is wearing. Men are aroused by what they see. When prisoners convicted for rape were asked what they look for in a victim, they all said accessibility.

She also went on to explain that spousal abuse is not a part of Islam. Every 4 minutes in the United States a woman is molested or abused. These are the ones reported because they end up in hospitals or the police have been called. What about those who are too ashamed?
As far as education, Prophet Muhammad said to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave? Muslim women are in every segment of society, as doctors, nurses, teachers, television reports, anchor women, engineers and politicians. This is not just in western countries but Islamic countries as well. The media has done a great injustice itself in portraying Muslim women as ignorant and uneducated. We are shown only pictures of countries that have a high rate of illiteracy among the populist to start with. As a matter of fact the women in the United States who are embracing Islam have more Bachelors, Master's and PhD's then the men who are embracing Islam!!

I was so sure that what I had been taught was right and I was ready to give all of my sympathy to these poor deprived Muslim women. Upon being told the truth, as opposed to the fallacy I had been taught, I proceeded to ask her other questions: Who is Allah, and who is Muhammad (peace be upon him) in relation to the Muslims? At that time, I was teaching in the colleges, so my questions were quite deep. She admitted to being somewhat of a new Muslim and that although she could not answer all questions, she would accompany me to the Islamic Center where someone could.

Right away I blurted out YES , I will go with you. You can't imagine how shocked I was to hear myself saying yes, as I had all intensions of saying NO! It was like suddenly my ears heard my mouth saying yes! She was so excited and I didn't want to hurt her feelings, so I went home and prayed "Lord, (meaning Jesus at that time), if this is Satanic or Demonic (as Christians are taught that Islam is) then show me. I will not go even one time." After all, I wasn't about to open myself to some demonic spirit. After that prayer I didn't feel any hesitation, so I went with her [rather cautiously].

I was quite surprised by their approach. I taught Church Evangelism. I know that there are many strategies and methods to be used when calling for someone to follow your religion. They didn't use any of them! There was no psychological manipulation, no subliminal influence, no harassment, none of this "let's have a Quranic study in your house" as opposed to Christians using a Bible study, and no telephone calls. They were straightforward and honest. They gave me some books and said that if I had any questions they would be happy to answer them. I went home that night and read all of the books they had given me. I was fascinated and surprised. This was the first time I was actually reading a book about Islam written by a Muslim! All the books we had ever read during my 8 years of studies on Islam had been written by Christians. These books reflected what they think Islam is. But what they think Islam is and what Islam really is are two entirely different perspectives. The Christians are sincere, but sincerely wrong.

I went back the next day and discussed for three hours what I had read. They gave me some more books and I went home that night and read all of those books. I went back the next day and we had another three-hour discussion. This went on for a week. At the end of that time, I had read 12 books and had spent more than 15 hours in discussion. I studied eight years in formal Christian theological studies. At the end of that week, I knew cognitively (head knowledge) that Islam is true. Did I embrace Islam then? No, because even then I wasn't a hypocrite. It wasn't in my heart.
Among the first questions I asked that week was the question: Who is Allah? We had been taught the God of the Muslims is a pagan god (somewhat like the a Hindu god, but his name is Allah and this is the one the Muslims worship). I was surprised to find out that Allah is The Omniscient (All-Knowing), Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and Omnipresent (All-Present) God. He is the Creator, Sustainer and Provider. This certainly did not correspond with my studies in paganism, and I realized "certainly, this is not a pagan god". There are neither rituals of secrecy nor any mediator. He is The One and Only God, without partners . This is opposed to the Doctrine of the Trinity where God is three beings: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal. We would like to ask our Christian friends who Jesus was when he was supposed to be dying on the cross and he said "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachtani? (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)" (Matthew 27: 46) Was he talking to himself? Perhaps you will say, "No, that was the human part of Jesus" (Doctrine of the Incarnation where Jesus was made both God and man) Man, you will say, to relate to human suffering. But if you say this, then Jesus was not the perfect Sacrifice (Doctrine of Propitiation) because according to Christian Doctrine, all men are born with original sin (This is the sin placed upon mankind because of Adam and Eve.) If he were born without this sin, he would be less than man, and could not relate to temptation and suffering.

The second question I asked was: Who is Muhammad (peace be upon him) in relation to the Muslims? I was surprised to learn that the Muslims do not pray to Muhammad (peach be upon him) as the Christians pray to Jesus (peace be upon him). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not a mediator. Muslims ask Allah to bless him and his descendants as we likewise ask Allah to bless the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) and his descendents at the end of our prayers. He came with the same message that all of the Prophets (peace be upon them all) brought, including Jesus. This message is to worship The One True God-Allah. Moses spoke to the people of Israel , " Hear O Israel ! The Lord your God is ONE GOD and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus (peace be upon him) also delivered the exact same message, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One God and you shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, all your mind, with all your strength." (Mark 12:29 , 30)

Note: Jesus said ONE GOD, not three in one! Jesus, himself, (peace be upon him) never claimed to be Son of God, which is what other people said of him. He always referred to himself as son of man. Each Prophet came with the same message, but there was a distinction in the deliverance of their messages. The message of Moses (peace be upon him) was delivered during the Plagues on Egypt . The distinction of Jesus (peace be upon him) is the casting out of demons and raising the dead, all by the power of Allah. The distinction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is that the Holy Quran was revealed to a Prophet who could neither read nor write. The message of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) was sent to a specific people, the Jews. In the Bible, the words "Hear O Israel, Hear O Israel" are repeated over and over by the Prophets, including Jesus. The Holy Quran was not sent to a specific people although the Prophet (peace be upon him) was Arab and the language is Arabic. Allah says in the Holy Quran [more than 20 times] that Islam was sent to ALL MANKIND!

The third question asked was: What are the words of the prayer? Of course we have all seen pictures of Muslims praying toward the Kabah in Makkah. We used to think that the Muslims believe that the black cubical is their god or they think their god is in there. This again shows the ignorance that many non-Muslims and Christians in particular, have about the understanding of Islam. Since prayer and sanctification (holiness) had always been of utmost importance to me as a Christian, I was very interested to know the way and the words of the prayer.

They replied "first of all the approach to prayer is in cleanliness-both physical and spiritual. Allah, The Creator of man is the only one who has the right to say how we should come before Him in prayer. Before, as a Catholic, I genuflected and made the sign of the cross. Later, as a Protestant, we raised our hands singing, clapping, shouting, dancing and crying. In our ignorance, we thought that this was the right way to approach God. He tells us in the Holy Quran the exact way we are to approach Him (chapter 5 verse 6). We are to wash our hands, face, forearms, wipe over our heads and wash our feet. By doing so, the minor sins we committed from those parts of our body are washed away. We, then, assume a standing position while facing Makkah (the focal point of our prayer), and raise our hands saying, "God is the Greatest". After that, we say the first Surah (chapter) of the Holy Quran: "Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world, The Most Merciful, The Most Compassionate, Master of the Day of Judgment. It is Thee we worship and Thy aid we seek. Show us the straight way. The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray. (Surah 1 Ayahs 1-7) Then again we raise our hands to our shoulders and say "God is the Greatest" This is followed by bowing and placing the hands on the knees while saying "Praise be to our Glorious Lord" three times or more. When rising to a standing position, we say: "Allah hears who praises Him. Our Lord, for you is all praise." Again the words, "God is the Greatest". Now the worshipper will prostrate before Allah on the ground while saying, "Glory to the Lord, the Great" three times or more. After that, he reclines to a sitting position on his feet while asking Allah to forgive him his sins and assumes again the prostrating position while repeating again "Glory to the Lord, the Great" three times or more. I was so stunned at hearing the words of this prayer that I blurted out "There is nothing objectionable about this prayer! It is a prayer of praise to God!!!" The words of the prayer and the execution are by direction of Allah as shown to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Angel Gabriel (peace be upon him). This is the way the Angels in heaven pray before the throne of God. Imagine! The Muslims are the only people in the world who pray like the Angels in heaven pray! Along with this, when one stops to think, the Muslims are instructed to pray at stated times which corresponds with the position of the sun. This means that with the rotation of the earth only the Muslims are in continuous prayer before the ONE AND ONLY MOST HIGH GOD-ALLAH 24 HOURS A DAY!

The last question I had concerned the authenticity of the Holy Quran. The Bible is made up of 66 books (the Catholic Bible has more) and is compiled by over 40 different authors. For some books the author is either unknown or not stated, for instance, the book of Ruth in the Old Testament and Hebrews in the New Testament. Although Hebrews is attributed to Paul, his signature does not appear on it, and in the middle of Hebrews, the style of writing changes. Of course, the average Christian is not aware of this and unless you are studying for a theological degree, you will not ordinarily find this out just by reading the Bible. In the Bible, you are also dealing with two languages: Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament. Neither of these languages is to be confused with the colloquial or spoken languages of today. I have also never heard that Jesus spoke Greek! I had to study both languages in course of my studies. I was impressed to find out that the Holy Quran had only one author, that being Allah-God Himself! At the beginning of every chapter, except for one, it boldly states, IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE MOST MERCIFUL, unlike the Bible which states in the Old Testament: The Book of . . ., or in the New Testament which states: the Gospel according to . . . [Matthew, Mark, Luke or John]. By the way, according to Biblical scholars, Matthew, Mark and Luke were not the disciples of Jesus. They were disciples of Peter and Paul. Mark is the first gospel written around 68 AD. Many Biblical scholars feel that Matthew plagiarized from Mark and that Mark had gotten some of his information from another source called Q. Luke states in both his gospel and the book of Acts that his accounts are only second hand. John's gospel was written about 100 AD. Like I said, unless you are studying theology, you don't find these things out.

Another thing that impressed me is the fact that the Holy Quran has remained unchanged in 1427 years!! What is read today is exactly verbatim as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those who are reading translations of the Holy Quran will usually find the Arabic next to it. It must be remembered: a translation is not a transliteration. (In every language, there will be variations in grammatical style and structure, as well as phrases that cannot be translated exactly. Therefore, translation is accomplished through finding the meaning of what is said as well as the exact words that are used. This is why every Muslim is encouraged to learn the Arabic of the Quran.) Not only are our prayers said in the original language, but this also means that Muslims are the only people on earth who are drawn together by a common language. For instance, if a Chinese Muslim came to the United States and could not speak English and the American Muslim could not speak Chinese; they could communicate by using the Arabic of the Quran.

Although, I did not embrace Islam that week, I started to attend the Islamic lectures. Again, I sat there stunned by what I was learning. Everything I had learned about Islam while studying for my Master's degree was refuted in these classes. As a Christian we never knew that the Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. We didn't even think that they believed in Jesus at all! But if a Muslim does not to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, he/she is not a Muslim . I was also surprised to know that Muslims believe that Jesus was taken into heaven and will come again! Mary, the mother of Jesus, has a whole chapter of Quran in the Holy Quran named after her, yet the Muslims don't worship her or pray to her as the Catholics do! The Catholic and Protestant Bibles have only a small paragraph devoted to her, "The Magnificent". Surah Maryam is the name of the chapter called after her, the mother of Jesus (peace be upon him).

People have also asked me how I can believe that an angel delivered the message to Prophet Muhammad. Angel Gabriel whom Allah chose to deliver the message to Prophet Muhammad is the same Angel Gabriel who delivered the message to Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. He was not speaking his own words but that which he was commanded to speak from Allah.

I would go home from these classes and meditate, contemplating what I was learning. Christianity had raised a lot of questions in my mind, yet Islam was giving me the answers! Everyday I attended the lectures and every night I read the Bible and every night I prayed, "God, show me if this (Islam) is true." Somewhere along the line I had stopped saying Jesus, stopped saying Holy Spirit and stopped saying "father". I was just saying God [whoever you are] show me if this is true. When you ask the Omniscient God to show you the truth, will He play a joke on you? It is not easy to change your religion. I didn't want to lose my salvation, but what if there was no salvation to lose? One night about two months from the first time I had gone to the Islamic center, I had prayed this prayer as I had been doing and went to bed. Somewhere between the state of awake and asleep I physically felt something come into my heart. Immediately being fully conscience, I sat up in bed and spoke out loud, " Allah, I believe that you are ONE GOD AND ONE GOD ONLY." This was the first time I had used the name of Allah. Although I heard others use it, I never allowed myself to say this name until that time. After I had said that, there immediately descended upon me a peace that, Alhumdulillah (Praise be to God) has never left me to this day.

My decision was not to be without repercussion. The Christians who profess the love of Jesus and who so readily accuse others of persecuting people for becoming Christian were the very ones to perpetrate persecution on me. Of course, the first thing to go was my job. I would no longer be able to teach in the Christian Colleges . You can have a Christian teach about Islam, but you can't have a Muslim teach about Christianity. I had already been a widow for seven years at the time I embraced Islam. That meant I must support myself. I still had three children I was financially responsible for out of nine.

The second thing to occur was that my husband's family disowned me. My husband came from a very prominent family. His grandfather is in the history books as a recognized hero, and his father had at one time been governor. Although all three of them were dead, I had a close relationship with his family, so much so that I was actually closer to them than to my own family. After becoming a Muslim, I was told (in no uncertain terms) that I was no longer a part of the family and not to join in any of the family gatherings. There are members of the family still in politics, and it was certainly not to their advantage to have a Muslim in the family. I felt very hurt by this; as for many years I had a close relationship with them. It was not on the basis of my being a Christian, but because I was part of the family. When my husband died, it was his family that I counted on for help raising my children, only now to be turned away. I cried for many days, but whenever I made Salah (obligatory prayer) I had the peace of knowing I had made the right decision.

My own children were to be another source of contention. At this point, all of my children, except for one son who was with me, were in the United States . As I was attending the Islamic Center, I was sharing with them through letters what I was learning. After I embraced Islam, my oldest daughter (who happens to work for the headquarters of the church in which I was affiliated for 18 years) wrote me letter and said, "Don't you know that Islam is one of the most Satanic religions?" I responded by sending her some booklets and she wrote back and said, "DON'T TRY TO CONVERT ME!" I explained to her that it was forbidden for us by Allah to force our religion on anyone, but that I had thought she might like to read them to see what it is I believed.

As a parent, when you are experiencing some difficulty with one of your wayward children, you usually call a meeting of the close relatives [grandmother, aunt, cousin] who might have some influence over the situation. Well, I found out later that my children had a meeting about me! Mother is the problem and Islam is the culprit! Like most big families, there is a dividing line among sets of children. The three oldest are the bosses, the three middle ones are the fighters and the younger ones have no say. While the discussion was in hot pursuit, the oldest ones were vehemently opposed to the whole situation, the middle ones said, "This is our mother and it is her decision. She is not forcing it on us. We want to continue to be close to her and we want her also to be close to her grandchildren." When I finally went to the States, the older ones wanted to argue and had put up a wall that prevented any discussion. On the other hand, the middle ones were open and full of questions. Our conversations were just that-meaningful conversations-that took place in the course of natural conversation. One daughter even made a statement that I was nicer as a Muslim than when I was a Christian! This surprised me because, as a Christian, I had always tried to exemplify what I believed.

When I am in the States, I still wear abaya and hijab. This same daughter made another startling statement. She said she could tell when a Muslim man was looking at me! I was curious as to how she came to this conclusion, since I am not looking at men to begin with, and most Muslim men in the States are not wearing any distinguishing dress (most not even a beard). So I asked her how she could tell. She told me, "When they look at you, it is different. They look at you with respect." After 6 years, the older ones have finally accepted that I am a Muslim and, by the will of Allah, will not change back to Christianity. They accept, not approve. The others said that they see Islam is a way of life unlike Christianity where you go to church, then go ahead and do anything you like. In other words, it calls for a change of lifestyle.

My son, who had been living with me when I embraced Islam, was not interested in religion (Christianity or Islam) at the time. He was 18 and religion was not in his lifestyle. Sometime after I had lost my teaching position, I was asked to start and manage a women's section at the Islamic center. Every week, I would bring home books and neatly put them on the dining room table and every day they were still there. Periodically, I would change them, hoping that he would read them and ask me some questions. He never did. Several times that year, I had some of the brothers from the Islamic center come and talk to him. He was always polite, but uninterested. One day someone talked to him and there was a spirit of conviction on his face. He asked me, "Why didn't you tell me this?" I was stunned and mentioned that I had left the books there, hoping he would read them and ask me questions. He then told me that when I would leave the house, he and his friends would read them and then put them back! Also, I had an Adhan (call for prayer) clock and he said when I was out of the house and he was alone, he would play it over and over! His name is now Omar. He left his old lifestyle and friends and is also working in Saudi Arabia .

He has been more successful than me in talking to his older sisters about Islam. As of yet, no one else in the family has embraced Islam, but we continue to make dua (supplications) for them. Insha'Allah, I will live to see at least some of my children and grandchildren become Muslim's. I have never regretted becoming a Muslim and pray that Allah will give me the Iman (faith) of the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet, [peace be upon him).

Say: Indeed my Lord has guided me to a straight path-a correct religion-the way of Abraham, inclining toward truth. And he was not among those who associated others with Allah. Say: Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds. No partner has He. And this I have been commanded and I am the first [among you] of the Muslims.

Holy Quran : Surah Al-An'am : 161-163.



 Brothers, We know that fighting is going on between NATO and Taliban Fighters in Afghanistan for decades. And we know them(Taliban) as terrorists. But is it true? Can we call them terrorists without even judging them? They're just trying to fight NATO and liberate their country from their hands. And NATO is the one who started this fight.

 If some Zionists attacks your country just because your country is a Islamic country and you are trying to establish Islamic Shariah, will you sit idle and watch? No. You'll resist them. The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan I think are doing the same thing. And also the Palestanians.

 And who knows maybe the so called suicide attacks in Afghanistan are actually carried out by the Zionists. And our media is broadcasting them as Taliban attacks. Same thing is going on in Palestine and Iraq. And we should not forget Israeli Zionists are expert at making up stories.

 So, I thing we should analyze these points deeply to figure out if Taliban Fighters are really terrorists or not.

 Brothers what's your opinion regarding this fact?

 Take Care.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube