Uncovering The Truth About Quran Preservation With Dr. Marijn van Putten

[@aliataie101]

20:63 is not a canonized "grammatical error." It is a variant reading that makes perfect grammatical sense both ways. 1. in hāḏani... 2. inna hāḏayni... Both are grammatically correct. The first is a conditional sentence while the second is an emphatic statement. 1. "These two are nothing but sorcerers." 2. "Indeed, these two are sorcerers." Variant reading, yes; but not grammatically incorrect.

[@inquisitivemind007]

Pick up Shady Nasser's two books 📚 and read it

[@faisalwho]

Dr Ali Ataie sir, you are my proverbial man-date. I have so much to ask and learn from you!

[@faisalwho]

@@inquisitivemind007 you have no idea who Dr. Ali Ataie is do you. This man will run circles around nasser in his sleep.

[@kamomaru1]

my teacher my mentor even if im older that you i respect you brother

[@ef4768]

@@inquisitivemind007 Dont disrespect The Dr like that 😂 you have no idea. Blind to the truth.

[@elfenomeno5498]

Nice Interview. I am a Muslim and I have no problem with what he said. Please more scholars who are objective as he was.

[@danma3548]

So you have no priblem with him saying that Muslims can't know wether they have the Quran of Muhammed? All he did was say that Muslims have the Quran of Uthman. Of course you do, it's the only Quran in town 😂 Also, Van Putten is sure the Quran was not preserved: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4HVfXqKqdWWeMU

[@he110w0rld8]

@@danma3548 There are some problems with his epistemic framework, but he's clearly an intelligent and well-intentioned scholar, unlike the lying, deceiving and deranged Christian missionaries that talk about the matter, - which is a shame because I expect better from Christians!

[@yousefazzabi7169]

@@danma3548 If Christens had a Gospel of one of his disciples do you think they will abandon it so why when Muslims have the Quran of Prophet Muhamed's disciple (Uthman) we should abandon it?

[@shaunshaikh8617]

@@danma3548 Some people will react to academic discourse like pearls thrown to swine. Be sure that your polemics mean very little to most of us. But peace.

[@danma3548]

@@shaunshaikh8617 the conclusions of academic discourse should mean a lot to you. We don't even need academics, your own hadiths destroy everything you believe in. Your quran is missing the verses of stoning that that was sent down to muhammed as quran

[@xingyimaster1987]

As a muslim i saw nothing problematic here. If anything its an affirmation of what muslims believe The Quran is preserved amd variants exist as per the hadith of the 7 ahruf. Much respect to u both for the interview.

[@inquisitivemind007]

No it is not preserved as there are about 40 scribal errors that have been passed down. Also what about the canonical readers like that junk reading of Hamzah Zayyat that Ahmad ibn Hanbal couldn't stomach kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXvbonZrlraLnck

[@xingyimaster1987]

@@inquisitivemind007. It has been preserved. U heard him say it in this very interview. Preservation is not affected by an extra waw or a kasrah instead of a fathah here and there. All the so called differences are easily reconcilable amd give a richer meaning of the text. Even the examples in this video were very easy to explain.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@xingyimaster1987 richer meaning? Of course you're going to say that. No one apologists is going to admit these scribal errors, no matter how small they are, have entered into the Quran. What about how to read it like Hamzah Zayyat who Ahmad ibn Hanbal couldn't stomach and others say he has poor grammar. How the hell did his reading within 100 years end up being from Allah?

[@xingyimaster1987]

@@inquisitivemind007 if he said poor grammar, all that means is he had unfamiliarity with that use of grammar. Heres a challenge show me one direct contradiction between two variants that cant be reconciled and show me a grammatical error in the Quran. U wont be able to. Dont send me your videos. Type one of each here.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@xingyimaster1987 unfamiliarity? You mean Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Tabari, Ibn Mujahid etc Quran teacher forgot to them then that hey you may be unfamiliar with Hamzah’s dialect but it's from Allah do don't talk bad about it or pick holes in it? Explain the contradiction of Lots wife as explained in Tafsir al-Jalalayn kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpbNdWCnd7Kbe5I

[@extraTime836]

Thank you to Derek and Dr. van Putten! Listening from 6:50 to 10:04, non-muslims scholars (in this case Dr. van Putten) confirm that Quran is preserved from around 650 (shortly after prophet Muhammad pbuh. death) up until now, 2023! Thank you very much for your effort in research!

[@obaidulhaque7687]

But , What dr van putten failed mention or brought into research , where is Our Prophet Moh copy of Quran , It was someone hand ,,,,, Nope Utamaan is not the Person who compile it ( Quran)

[@OksintasObones]

It was first written in Syriac and Aramaic then translated gathered in one book and called it Qur'an .. fabricated a new religion based on many previous ones .. mohamed never existed

[@Mohammad_Qunbos]

It's an understatement to say that Quran was precisely preserved as a text. Quran is a recorded sound that no writing system can accurately reflect. Try to learn Quran Tilawah and you will understand how super precise it is in recording the lengths, weights, heights and widths of sounds. It even employs a tunic system that doesn't exist in Arabic or in any language in the whole region. For example. The word (faqasat) which means: "then it became hard" needs a rise in the voice after the end of the sound "fa". otherwise it will change the meaning and become: Then it hatched". The recording process rules are so precise to the point where you say: AAAA or AA or AAAAAA. The Ra sound is always heavy. Make a single mistake and you will immediately be corrected.

[@ryojs4286]

11:00 Man what a snake, he says in the decade between the Prophet SAW dying and it being standardized it could've been changed when literally the ENTIRE ARABIAN PENNINUSALA of MUSLIMS MEMORIZED IT AND BECAME HAFIZ YOU DON'T GET MISTAKES WITHOUT SOMEONE POINT IT OUT.

[@TheOneLogic69]

Not precisely preserved. Disagree.

[@Mohammad_Qunbos]

@@TheOneLogic69 Prove it!

[@TheOneLogic69]

@@Mohammad_Qunbos What does Quran mean to you?

[@Mohammad_Qunbos]

@@TheOneLogic69 The message from our creator

[@Wise__guy]

﴿ إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ﴾ (Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.)

[@adamsulaiman639]

who are the 'WE?' the 'hafidz?'

[@abood_176]

​@@adamsulaiman639 In this verse God almighty refers to himself by saying "WE" as a respect or glorification It is common in Arabic language and many other languages Even a human king use the same "WE" when declaring a new roles for example. I hope you understand now brother 😁

[@adamsulaiman639]

@@abood_176 Quran 70:40 is the human king confused? Peace

[@abood_176]

@@adamsulaiman639 what do you mean "is the human king confused"? The last comment I told you that one person can refer to himself as "WE". I didn't say God is a human king. The verse 70:40 "So I swear by the Lord of [all] risings and settings that indeed We are able" What is confusing about it 🤔

[@adamsulaiman639]

@@abood_176 Quote: 'WE as a respect or glorification' in indospeak = penasaran. is that how you 'see' THEM ?

[@hassanb5912]

Was it me or did Marijn debunk everything that Derek threw at him with those super heavy loaded questions. It was like Derek was trying to sway another point of view or narrative but Marijn brought it back to the traditional stance. Good interview. I would love to see you now ask the same loaded questions to someone like Dr Ali Atai who has credibility in all the semetic languages also so the audience can get a fair and balanced opinion from both views.

[@MCXM111]

What else do you expect from Derek who says that Apuss is his friend and teacher of Islam? 🤦🏻‍♂️🤣

[@omarfaruque3932]

My brother Derek! Thanks so much for doing this great interview. I learned a lot and enjoyed it!

[@halim3682]

the answer to 52:44 “Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one's utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self - the struggle to purify one's heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. so you can call the prayers and zakat Jihad too.

[@umair.a]

Jihad means struggle in the way of Allah. Prayer and Zakat (charity) is part of Jihad. May Allah guide you for this incredible research 🙏

[@khunza2009]

Indeed struggle against self (the ego) to bow down in prayer and give zakat (charity)...thats the REAL Jihad

[@mohammadshuayb3944]

Huge respect for keeping this open to access here on You tube. Thanks.

[@aliataie101]

The Qur'an is indeed, at times, engaging intertextually with non-canonical gospels. The author of the Qur'an is not mandated to conform to Athanasius' 39th festal letter. Just as the Qur'an confirms and repudiates Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it also confirms certain things in other gospels. The Qur'an does not care if highly Hellenized proto-orthodox ante-Nicene Christian fathers considered certain other Christian writings to be heresy. The author of the Quran is bound by no one. Even the gospel of John says: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

[@elijahrhodes5234]

The Quran fails to even account for most of the theological paradigms and discourse of the gospels and Old Testament to which it so heavily relies upon. And the proposed corruption is ad hoc, and there is no actual evidence in the history and tradition contra academic delusions of mass fabrication or internal contradiction and textual unreliability. The real question is an examination of how the Quran lines of to biblical theological and soteriological motifs as opposed to fallacious arguments of truth hood

[@QuranicIslam]

The problem of the initial question is that it is wrong "was the Qur'an preserved dot for dot?" ... well, there were no dots! So you can't say yes or no.

[@inquisitivemind007]

There were minimal dots on early manuscripts not none.

[@QuranicIslam]

@@inquisitivemind007 You get the point. Besides ... there were on _some_ early manuscripts which had those very minimal dots. And that doesn't mean there were any in how they were written down by the Prophet's scribes. The point still stands; the question is wrong.

[@OriginalAndroidPhone]

There was no divine SKELETAL text either. The text is there to capture what was spoken to Prophet. So whether that spoken word such as colour is spelt with an English or American spelling doesn't alter the preservation of the oral speech.

[@QuranicIslam]

@@OriginalAndroidPhone Sorry but it has been proven that all manuscripts (except one) descend from the Uthmanic Archetype. So call that text-type archetype what you will. I call what was even before Uthman, what the Prophet had *his* scribes write down, the Prophetic rasm. And no, I think the rasm is important and part of the revelation.

[@nazhasan428]

Original quran was verbal, then became textual without dot and finally textual with dots. Obviously quran have changed at least in this aspect.

[@lastprophet8338]

Still the standard narrative of the Qurans has giant holes in it.

[@lastprophet8338]

@@TT-hx9nj What evidence again??

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@TT-hx9nj yes there is like your fraudulent canonical reader Ibn Amir kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6jKlKh5jtahqbc

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 why are you showing a link to a video that doesn't address the fraudulent single chain of transmission of Ibn Amir's reading?

[@Stardust475]

What an interview will need to re listen! Thank you Derek, can't believe you got him to come on. Great work

[@j2shoes288]

Abdullah ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Gabriel, upon him be peace, taught me to recite the Quran in one reading and I requested another. I continued to ask for more until he stopped at seven readings.”

[@Antikalifen]

Its really wonderful that you interview neutral critical scolars and not those biased Christian apologists or those activists who demonizing Islam making it look like something completely different in history of religions

[@natalikronwald6177]

So true! As an ex-convert to Islam who has studied both Islamic studies (secular) and Islamic divinity/theology (religious) (two seperate study subjects at university in the country I’m living) I really appreciate critical scholarship and I’m so thrilled that Derek gives actual scholars a platform. I’ve been so frustrated lately to see either Christian or Muslim apologists mostly occupying the field. Their fights always remind me of the Spider man memes where two spider mans are pointing their fingers at each other lol

[@natalikronwald6177]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 how often do you want to keep spamming that @ me still ? lol (I don’t mean to be an ass but I just wondered)

[@natalikronwald6177]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 no worries! I’m sure you meant well.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

This scholar is very isl am biased and not very useful for truthful learning.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 Please go and listen to the best scholars on the field - Dr. Shady Nasser for example

[@51RainArmy]

Based on my limited understanding, this is the closest historical research and scholarship comes to highlighting the care our forebears took to preserve and transmit the Quran to future generations. I am sure many Muslims learned as much from this discussion as I did. Thank you both and Jazak Allah Khair.

[@musamusashi]

Very interesting, just found your channel and i really dig your work. On the specific issue, we should always keep in mind that the Qur'an is an oral tradition before it is a written one. Keep them coming.

[@thenun1846]

Excellent content yet again Derek! We.....are.......MYTHVISION

[@sojernon8689]

Case in point, the Quran is not perfectly preserved, there is no miracle

[@Logia1978]

@@sojernon8689 Have you even heard what he said?

[@sojernon8689]

@@Logia1978 yes, since the canonization the text is well preserved but not the 100% miraculous preservation Muslims claim. Also note he distinguishes the original Quran prior to the canonization and what came about after it. There is no certainty about how well it reflects what Muhammad originally said.

[@Logia1978]

@@sojernon8689 The canonisation of the text is 100% preserved.... Every single word of the modern quran can be traced back to first century manuscripts.... The issue is not the text but the reading... The faith part is that the othmanic text represent what Muhammad taught. We can not confirm or dismiss.... After that the othmanic codex is the same and is preserved til today....

[@sojernon8689]

@@Logia1978 I think what you’re trying to say is that the skeletal structure is preserved since the canonization? But the skeletal structure is not the same as the words, that’s why we have contradicting qirat.

[@rg6310]

Any other documents or tradition that had this much hard dedication to preserve as close to the original as Islam has for centuries? I really want to know

[@inquisitivemind007]

Give credit where credit is due. No doubt out of all the religious books in the world 🌎 the Quran is no 1 when it comes to being as it was written 1400 years ago.

[@snf321gotti6]

@@inquisitivemind007 fair play . But you hate it tho.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@snf321gotti6 the contents of it isn't great. If I get into which part then this debate will go on forever so I'll leave going down that route.

[@snf321gotti6]

@@inquisitivemind007 ok. Just know that we have views and opinions on those aspects that don't necessarily mean what the outside world attributes to it. .

[@adamnasser2995]

Great interview! One key thing to understand is that when Marijn talks about the text being preserved from Uthman onwards he means the rasm, which was a skeleton that had no marks for short vowels and hardly any dots to distinguish the many consonants that look alike. That's where the oral recitations come in though these have thousands of variants. Besides the canonical 2000ish and companion 2000ish there were many thousands more read by non canonical readers after Uthman. These are all collected in an academic work called Mu'jam al qira'at by Abd al-Latif al-Khitab. It has about ten volumes coming to 6000 pages total listing variants and their reciters (about 5 variants per page).

[@inquisitivemind007]

To add that the regional scribal errors he mentioned are hereditary and have been passed down into today's Quran.

[@alanbishopman]

This is a clear mis-representation of the state of the canonical Qira'at. The first characteristic which ought to be mentioned and emphasized is the overwhelming (even nearly invincible) agreement among them. This is the statistically accurate way to discuss the Qira'at, lest lay people come away with the impression that there are overwhelming differences among the canonical Qira'at, which is false. As Van Putten himself conceded in a tweet from Feb. 10th of this year: @ PhDniX: "And while I agree with Nasser that not all of the canonical readings are completely mutawātirah, this does not mean that *nothing* of it is mutawātirah. The canonical readers agree on variants that have effect on the meaning at least 98% of the time." Any additional variation variation among non-canonical readings would only be relevant from a purely abstract historical perspective, since they pose no theological problem for Muslims (precisely because they're non-canonical). To be clear, I'm not a Muslim, and therefore I'm not trying to trivialize the differences which do exist among the canonical Qira'at. But, if we're going to criticize Islam, we need to be honest. And discussing these Qira'at in a way that minimizes or obscures the fact that they have a 98% level of agreement is dishonest.

[@adamnasser2995]

I'm doing no such thing trying to obscure the level of agreement. Van Putten says in the video itself that the roughly 2000 are out if c. 70,000 words and so the differences are less than 1% (sic). I assume the readers of my comment will have watched the video. My point rather is to add that there were thousands more disagreements recorded of dozens of non canonical reciters besides the ones he mentioned. That is to be expected when there are so many other reciters and did not all comply with the rasm unlike the canonical ones. It gives a more complete picture of the oral landscape in which variants may have arisen. The scale of variety is relevant to the question of whether variants were ever innovated.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@alanbishopman you clearly don't know anything about your own religion like your so called reading from Allah called Hamzah Zayat whose reading was seen as a piece of junk kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXvbonZrlraLnck now all of a sudden is from Allah now is it?

[@snf321gotti6]

At 1.38 .00 seconds he asked the question on scribe error becoming part of the cannon. Interesting answer .

[@alanbishopman]

I'm not a Muslim, so I won't defend the preservation or divinity of the Quran. But, I do know BS when I see it, and Van Putten's reasoning (in many cases) is patently circular. Without delving into the finer details of the Arabic Qira'at, just a few examples will suffice: 1. The differences in the readings of Q 5 : 6 (wipe vs. wash the feet) reflect "sectarian" differences. Van Putten says that if the written text was originally ambiguous, then it must have been open to interpretation by different sects. And if different sects uphold different interpretations of the text (which they do), then that must mean that these are nothing more than different interpretations of what was undoubtedly an originally ambiguous text. 2. The differences in the vocalization of Q 21 : 112 and Q 43 : 24 (say vs. said) reflect the trivial choices of the eponymous readers. Van Putten says that the eponymous readers (Hafs etc.) were working from an originally ambiguous text, and they had to apply their own individual guesswork to make sense of it. And if the Qira'at differ from one another in seemingly trivial ways (and they do), then that must mean that the original text was susceptible to multiple, independent, and ultimately trivial readings (i.e. the text itself was originally ambiguous). In short, Van Putten sees the state of the Qira'at (as we know it today) as evidence of the ambiguity of the original text, but that very same ambiguity is the primary, unproven assumption underlying Van Putten's analysis of the state of the Qira'at, in the first place. Again, since I'm not a Muslim, I won't say that this automatically vindicates the traditional Islamic understanding of these issues. Far from it. But, let's be honest: if anyone else had made this argument (i.e. anyone without a PhD) he would have been laughed out of the room immediately.

[@rg6310]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 the Quran was preserved through people’s hard dedication and devotion not a magical unexplainable miracle but still very impressive

[@lordsneed9418]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 that academic said that the quran is not 100% preserved. He agrees that human errors , variations and corruptions were introduced after muhammad's time. this is obviously difficult for muslims who think that islam is true because quran 15:9 says that allah will preserve/protect the quran, and if a supposedly perfectly infallible being is saying he will preserve something, you'd expect it to be preserved perfectly and infallibly. You would not expect the text to be preserved fallibly and almost perfectly , like how humans would preserve/protect a text.

[@lordsneed9418]

@@ahmarshaikh7427 If you believe that the quran has been perfectly preserved then you should be able to answer this question . When the quran 17:102 quotes what moses said to pharoah, did moses say "you have already known that none has sent down these signs except the lord of the heavens and the earth " or did moses say " I have already known that none has sent down these signs except the lord of the heavens and the earth" according to the "canonical" reading of al-Kisāʾī , moses said "I have already known", but the other "canonical" readings say that moses said "you have already known". Which is it? Either one thing could have been said on that occasion by moses or another, not both. Whichever quote is correct, the other must be wrong because he only could have said one of them on that occasion. There are at least 14 other examples in the quran of different "canonical" readings directly contradicting each other by quoting characters saying different things on the same occasion. You can't do the normal cope of claiming that it's all just like malik/maalik because these are quotes in the quran of what characters said on particular occasions , so only one version of what he said could be true and match what that character actually said on that occasion.

[@snf321gotti6]

@@lordsneed9418 yes this is a good point . Both readings are seen as true and that causes a some what lost in translation effect . In the original Arabic it's not an issue as both words are same but when read can be read or understood differently so some ambiguity is inherent but this has no theological problem . The question is did he say it I know or you know ...still stands and that's a matter of interpretation and translation .

[@alanbishopman]

@@lordsneed9418 al-Kisa'i's reading in Q 17 : 102 is not a contradiction. Just think about it logically. The Quran is (according to the traditional theological definition) the verbatim speech of God only - not the verbatim speech of anyone else. In other words, the Quran does not purport to be the verbatim speech of Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus etc. Indeed, this should be obvious to anyone who reads the Quran, if for no other reason than that the Quran is in Arabic, and none of these individuals (by the Muslims' own admission) spoke Arabic during their lifetimes! The Quran's claim is simply that God speaks and that God tells the story. Ostensibly, we can trust God to re-tell the story accurately, but it's important to note that (whether or not you're a Muslim) God isn't under any obligation to report these stories in a comprehensive, "courtroom transcript-style" fashion. Such a requirement would certainly clash with the Islamic doctrine of the eloquence of the Quran (i.e. how could Pharoah, for example, be as eloquent as God? Is God forced to constrain his own eloquence in order to produce a wooden, literal, word-for-word translation of exactly what Pharoah said?) No. The Quran, from the Muslim perspective at least, is beyond human speech (or as Seyyed Hosein Nasr once put it "the ippsissima vox of God, in the Quran, shattered the Arabic language, and transformed it..."). Thus, precisely how this should be resolved is unimportant to me, since I'm not a Muslim. But I can at least recognize that, for a Muslim, the Quran may encompass any number of specific solutions (e.g. obviously one could say that God intended to express the meaning of both, without actually attributing either one to Moses. Or we might apply modal logic, such that there is a possible world where Moses said "I know" and a possible world in which he said "you know"). The point is: if we read the Quran the way it's meant to be read, then there is no contradiction.

[@AJansenNL]

Oooooh, I was hoping you would get him on! Wonderful!

[@thetruthseeker5448]

Yes, this is so wonderful. Opened a big can of worms on the historicity of the Quran, which claimed to be a MIRACLE! But not a miracle as it seems. Remember he used the term STANDARDISED Uthman Quran, and there should NOT be any form of standardisation if it is a miracle and true words of God/Allah. Yes the ''Utman's Standardised Version of Quran'' is well preserved. But what and where were the other texts used to *standardise* the Quran? Sanna Manuscripts are a classic example. Even though the meanings of the two different texts [standard vs Sanaa] seems to be similar in context, an authentic, miraculous, divine, well preserved text should not have such differences or written-overs at all as it is a miracle with divine origins. This is history repeating itself, nothing but!

[@snf321gotti6]

@@thetruthseeker5448 hmmm the can of worms is not so bad then.???

[@kml9434]

Othman Can't change it, because hundreds and thousands memorized it at that time.

[@murielpucoe9213]

And the memories were lost with the guys whovdied at war 5:17

[@FrankSantangelo-z4z]

False statement

[@da-bloon-master3308]

​@@murielpucoe9213islamic wars were one of the most outnumbering wins in history almost no muslim men died in war and the people who didnt go in war ie woman survived and had their memory as well as the men who survived which had their men

[@dubseason717]

@@da-bloon-master3308 wrong, whole reason for the standardization was cause many of the hafiz died in battles

[@HHH78709]

Its recited everyday 5 times.

[@karakan1578]

Awesome interview, great interviewing skills… You prevented Dr van Putten to go down the academic rabbit hole, which he often does, based on the interviews of him that I watched

[@mashfiquehaque3150]

It felt like Derek had very tiny moments of 'joy' in this session.

[@faiqrahim289]

😂😂😂 wallahi i too was looking at his face how dumb he gets when he hears what he didn't want to.

[@Kuuzie1]

At first i underrated mythvision but now the quality of experts brought on board is commendable. No room for apologetics, polemics 😅.

[@mohammedshakeel7668]

Jihad literally means to strive in the way of Allah. For ex, if a man wants to sleep with a woman but stops himself for the sake of Allah, that is jihad. To pray & give charity is also jihad. Contrary to western beliefs the word jihad has nothing to do with holy war, there is a completely different term for that which is only mentioned once in the Quran if Im not mistaken

[@rijadhadzic3396]

1:00:15 no its not a sectarian difference. In sunni islam we have both washing the feet, and wiping over the socks. This is a fiqh issue so as we see here the qiraat only add meaning to the deen of Allah while preserving maximum eloquence in its recitation.

[@osamaanees8406]

Two things can be true at the same time. 1:03:00. If you speak in another language you can translate a sentence into English but it wont convey the same meaning. e.g I can speak Urdu and say "Wo Udr hai". If I translate it into English it would be "He is there" or "She is there" or "It is there". The "Wo" is gender neutral. All of them can be true. Hazrat Musa (PBUH) did not speak Arabic. He might have spoken in a way where it meant both things. So put two and two together.

[@adralia23]

Conclusion: YES Quran is very well preserved. All the minor differences give no significant alteration at all to the teachings of Islam.

[@theastronomer5800]

Very true about the book prices! There are a number on early Islam and the Quran that I can't afford but would love to have. This is purely out of interest, my field of study was astrophysics.

[@Wotasheeep]

Well, start by reading the quran I guess. A lot of people are giving them away for free. How can we read book reviews without reading and experiencing the book firsthand, am I right? XD

[@theastronomer5800]

@@Wotasheeep Are you assuming that I have not read the Quran? Why would you assume that? I have read the Quran more than once (I have three translations at home, one English-Arabic with commentary by well-known scholar), I have the 9-vol English-Arabic set of Sahih al-Bukhari and have read countless other hadiths online, I have read countless tafsirs by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, al-Jalalayn, Maududi and others, the commentaries by al-Tabari, and I have and read a couple of Sharia books. However, one does not need to read the Quran if one is only interested in things like textual variants or the origin of the stories found in the Quran and would like to find out what scholars have to say on the topic.

[@Wotasheeep]

@@theastronomer5800 I am terribly sorry if I offend you, I was just pointing out that you can get the quran for free, because you were talking about book prices. That's all. My additional comment was supposed to be a bit of a joke, hence the smiley face :) But hey, that's good if you've read the quran, even all of those other essential stuff. It can be a reflection for myself as well. Even though I was born and raised az a muslim, in a country with muslim as the major population, I can't even be sure that I know more than you regarding my own religion. Thank you. That is a problem of muslims nowadays. I believe it wasn't a problem back then, during the golden age of islam. I hope we always strive to know the truth and never be misguided. Have a nice day random stranger :)

[@theastronomer5800]

@@Wotasheeep No offence taken! As for your historical comment, I would disagree. I think it's only now that many Muslims are actually finding out about Islam, thanks to all the sources being available online in more and more languages (many writings of Islamic scholars were for example not translated into English until recently) and also to the fact that they can read. This is likely the main reason that so many are leaving the religion. The same was true for Christianity until just a couple of centuries ago. Muslims have also done VERY little textual and source criticism on the Quran, unlike Christians on their Bible, and most of the work in these fields is being done by Western scholars (with strong opposition by Muslims, because they don't like any facts which contradicts their beliefs, as Christians didn't about their Bible). Keep in mind that during the ancient time and Middle Ages most people could not read and write. At best, it is estimated that ~5% of people could read and fewer write (it's the more difficult skill to learn). Also, Islamic sources were not translated into other languages so the people only knew "cultural Islam" and what they were told to do/believe. I'm from Poland myself and for centuries the Christian mass in Poland was in Latin! Which person from a small town, a farmer (most of the population...) could afford to spend many years in school to learn to read their own language, and after that start on another one like Latin or Greek?! So, people had no idea what the Christian texts or scholars said until these were translated into different languages and the average person went to school. As for the Golden Age that you mention, remember that most of the famous people (scholars) from that time were NOT what you would consider devout Muslims. There were highly educated people and hence had many issues with the religious ideas and many were declared heretics, their works censored, and some were in prison. Here is just a short list: Ibn Sina - rejected the Hereafter, accused of being a kafir and an atheist by scholars Al Maarri - rejected the idea that Islam had a monopoly on truth, thought it was simply a matter of geographical accident what faith people adopted, regarded by historians as one of the three foremost atheists in Islamic history Al Razi - heretic, was told that he should be executed for his ideas on religion and prophecy, he was censored for his opinions Al Kindi - disagreed with the Quran, his library (know to all Baghdad) was confiscated and he got 50 lashes, fell into depression Ibn Al Haytham - "father of optics", leader of heretical branch of Shiism, pretended to be insane to avoid execution, was under house arrest for 10 years Al Farabi - argued against prophets, went against teaching of imams, shows that since all religions can present the same types of argument, one cannot tell which religion is right, which are wrong, or even if any are right Thabit Ibn Qurra - Sabian, kafir, studied magic Ibn Rushd - accused of heresy whose books were burn Jabir Ibn Hayyan - was accused of being a magician Ibn Battuata - accused of slandering religious leaders, had at least 6 marriages, lovers and fathered several children on his travels Ibn Bajjah - many Muslim biographers consider him to have been an atheist Al Khatib - a fatwas was issued in which his work on Sufism and philosophy were branded heretical, jailed and died in prison Al Jahiz - a heretic who was told that he should be executed

[@budding4708]

You seem to be a well read person.I am seventy years old and have gone through the atheistic and agnostic and historical/factual grind.You can never get to the Quran through this route. Quran is an emotion The text speaks to you.I advice you to read the footnotes of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Asad translations.My sincere advice...

[@virtualvessel0]

Unchanged text, because scribes think is actual direct-word of a god written and copied by devout scribes, there would not be differences...means nothing.

[@مرادالتعليم]

The period of the Messenger and the Companions is an unknown period to us (except for what came in the Qur’an) because during the time of the Messenger there was no historian to record and we did not obtain an inscription or document from the same time...All our information (which is fictitious) came a century or two after the death of the Messenger. Marijn van Putten's ignorance and the likes want the Qur’an to be in line with the tradition, therefore he was confused and couldn't think properly and this is because the effect of the tradition on his mind. We do not know anything about the people of the Messenger and his companions except what the Qur’an mentioned only. Don’t you know that God is the one who preserves the Qur’an and not the people. 75:17 "Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation." Note the word (Us). 15:9 "Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [the Qur’ān], and indeed, We will be its guardian." Note the word (We). 41:42 "Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy." A divine law that conquers and prevents every creature from distorting. 18:27 "And recite, [O Muḥammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words" Divine law forbids distortion. 80:11 "No! Indeed, they [these verses] are a reminder;" 80:12 "So whoever wills may remember it." 80:13 "[It is recorded] in honored sheets," 80:14 "Exalted and purified," 80:15 "[Carried] by the hands of messenger-angels," 80:16 "Noble and dutiful." 56:77 "Indeed, it is a noble Qur’ān." 56:78 "In a Register well-protected;" 56:79 "None touch it except the purified [the angels]." 56:80 "[It is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds." Clear texts that the Qur’an can't be reached and can't be receive distortion. The Qur'an has nothing to do with humans. The Qur’an is preserved by God, and there is no income for anyone but God.

[@danma3548]

What do you think about the Sunnah that prove that verses and even chapters are missing?

[@centi50s]

@@danma3548 the sunnah is corrupted. The same way the way the Torah was corrupted by mishna is the same way hadiths corrupted Islam

[@danma3548]

@@centi50s Oh interesting. Quran only or shiite?

[@centi50s]

@@danma3548 I am just plain Muslim 😊

[@BenM61]

Asma Hilali thinks the Sanaa Palimpsest is actually the work of a student learning to write the Quran. Which means the work is not written by a professional scribe but by a novice who was writing from memory and not copying from a text in front of him. In one instance there is a note that says ‘do not say bismillah’ at the beginning of surah 9. All Muslims know every surah in the Quran starts with bismillah except surah 9. It seems the teacher was correcting the student not to write bismillah at the beginning of that surah. That’s a telltale sign it was not written by a professional scribe.

[@afifkhaja]

This is awesome! Please interview Ahmad Jallad, Shady Nasser, and Asma Hilali as well. I think you already have a talk with Sean Anthony which I will watch next

[@thenun1846]

He already had a discussion with Shady Nasser. But agreed with your other options too!

[@merlinx8703]

@@inquisitivemind007 Aww she doesnt agree with your conclusions

[@merlinx8703]

@@inquisitivemind007 kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4SmdnaInbZ7jZI Hythem sidky agrees wih her

[@merlinx8703]

@@inquisitivemind007 48 : 51

[@merlinx8703]

@@inquisitivemind007 iam talking about haythem sidky and this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4SmdnaInbZ7jZI He mentions Asma Hillali as one of the 3 major works on the Sanaa manuscript He does not say Asma Hillali is wrong and also he agrees with the opinion that the Sanaa reading is a companion reading

[@hassanmuhammad2799]

So, an UNEDUCATED (unlettered/couldn't read) Arab dictated a book that MILLIONS memorize to this date THAT NO OTHER HUMAN BEING HAS BEEN ABLE TO DUPLICATE? Not HARVARD. Not YALE. No prestigious University has DUPLICATED the process. Did i say the man was UNLEARNED? O Allah! We get the message. Forgive the Ummah of Muhammad (PBUH) and save us from the trials in the grave and the torment of the fire.

[@kyoungd]

What do you mean by "verse like it"? If I write a chapter that average Muslims cannot distinguish from the Qur'an, does that meet the criteria? If I write a book with better morals or more scientific knowledge, does that meet the criteria? I have yet to hear any answer to this simple question.

[@TroopsWhoReciteIstighfarAlways]

Istighfar (Astaghfirullah) is the road to happiness and relief. Start chanting it whenever you are distressed, and it will, insha Allah, lift you out of your anxiety, place you in a tranquil position

[@dark_attack7896]

Thankyou for Your Reaction, Peace and Happy Always. INDONESIA LOVE YOU.

[@doghun4416]

Salam / Peace. In the third example for lower text and modern text comparison (example from surah tawba), jihad means struggle in the way of Allah swt. It's a wide concept. You can consider fighting, praying, giving alms, fighting against evil temptations as parts of the Jihad concept. So praying and giving zakat can be considered under the concept of Jihad. When you look at the second example (surah munafiqun) where you see "they increased their disbelief", this expression is actually mentioned in somewhere else in the Quran in a similar way (3:90 and 4:137). So, I guess at that point the scribe of Sana'a manuscript was probably confused so that he mixed up the order of verses in a sense. Lastly, when you guys talk about the preservation you mentioned that Quran says "it will be preserved" and so muslims are doing their best to memorize it and protect it and because this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.... well actually it's not self-fulfilling when you understand how Allah swt do things from the Islamic point of view. Without his "permission" or "approval" or "confirmation" nothing actually "happens". If we succeed in doing something, it is actually because He let us do that. Allah (swt) knows best.

[@allahisthegreatest6302]

Derek i watched your video about 6 years ago. Really helped me with the music in the backround was a very touching video

[@thomaschapple4749]

Interesting stuff but in direct contradiction to the material the likes of Jay Smith is producing. Smith is an evangelical christian I know and has an agenda, but his contention that the written material is very late (a couple of centuries after Mohammed) is presented as academic research... i

[@hmansour89]

Like you said , Smith is coming with an agenda. His views are absent from peer reviewed journals and the consensus of scholars of authority

[@thomaschapple4749]

But his basic contention about the late date for a written source should be easily refuted if so..

[@zeustn9525]

@@thomaschapple4749 it has been refuted but people choose selectively what suits their agenda. In the 70s maybe he could have gone unchallenged but nowadays with all the early manuscripts that have been carbon dated, those extreme revisionist theses are untenable

[@thomaschapple4749]

@@zeustn9525 I look forward to hearing about these reputations fromn academics not Believers

[@zeustn9525]

@@thomaschapple4749 well you just heard one of them. The manuscripts that have been dated lately leave little doubts about the date of the canonisation of the codex. But there are also some very clever studies on the text itself that show there was an archetype then 4 copies from which all the other manuscripts descend... which is exactly what the Islamic tradition reports.

[@skrm5311]

Quran doesn't only say, it's in the tongue of Arabs and clear to understand. Quran also says, "It has clear verse and unambiguous verse, and only the wicked minded will go to unambiguous verse to reject truth". So, unknown and ambiguous words doesn't mean lost pronunciation. Different word other than known dialect certainly doesn't mean lost word for sole reason of all word needs to be in known vocabulary.

[@tulpas93]

And that's why there's only one sect in Islam! That's why there's only one fiqh and Islamic scholars never disagree on the interpretation of even one ayat! Do you hear how stupid your claim sounds?

[@skrm5311]

@@tulpas93 what are you blubbering about?

[@chamwow4075]

Derek it looked like you were overjoyed when you thought that your guest was going to say something negative about the preservation of the Quran, however, he flips it around, reaffirming preservation, then you realize that in your mind you were making a mountain out of a mohill. Very funny the look of disappointment on your face…. haha. La elaha ella Allah, Mohammad rasoul Allah.

[@kml9434]

😂 totally true

[@dubseason717]

you didn't understand the video lmao

[@ydmali864]

With all due respect, anyone says there's a grammatical mistake in the Quran, it's nonsense It's just nonsense because the pagans (enemies of Islam) were masters in the language, and they could have reported it immediately. If there is a deference in one or two places of what you usually know, it's because you don't know it's valid in another perspective of the language.. and all Companions knew it, but that clearly mean it's a revelation from God, not from a man who could insure to avoid such confusings... What a great religion, with a great book and authentic legacy! By the way, many claims from the gust need to be corrected... Already refuted by Muslim scholars, he needs to ask the right persons for clarification.. or needs to search more!

[@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951]

Religion is a control mechanism, be it an ancient one or a current one (e.g. climate or covid scare). All are based on fear and submission.

[@Ufb10]

@@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951 Well of course we need to be controlled in a way or else there would be no rules regulations literally hell on earth. Look at some of our biggest cities it’s disgusting. In LA you can steal up to $450 worth of stuff and the police can’t say anything. Wtf is that all about. Liberalism is also a control mechanism through your lens.

[@kyoungd]

Are you talking about Proposition 47? You misunderstood. Stealing any amount is misdemeanor.

[@timeones]

It seems like the host was looking for big mistakes and contradictions like he's used to finding in Christianity. I think this just proves Muslims right that they're text has been preserved.

[@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951]

It just proves tighter control over the text by the government. More tight than in the case of the earlier versions of these abrahamitic religions.

[@timeones]

@@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951 hence it's preserved. No matter why it is preserved, every attempt to prove it hasn't been preserved has failed.

[@MaiGodi]

@@timeonesproves it failed because Uthman’s had 114 verses, Ibn Kaab 116 and Ibn Masoud 111. And Mohammed wasn’t there to settle the dispute

[@timeones]

@@MaiGodi 😂😂😂 ok. Keep using Christian websites to get ur information

[@Contagious93812]

text being preserved doesn't mean the text is true, learn logic 101

[@emptythrone75]

You should note that Al-Qur'an means literally the recited one, the main way of preserving it is through memory not writing and manuscripts, in Hijaz province in west Arabia where Makkah and Medina are located and where the Quran was sent down, there was only 17 individuals who can read and write, the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was illiterate himself, but Arabs were known for their strong memory and they could memorize thousands of lines of poetry, and even today there's about 100 million people who memorized the whole Quran. It's only after Islam come that people started to learn how to read and write. The Quran was sent down on 7 dialects which are the main dialects of Arabia because Arabs where never united before Islam, and despite the speak the same language but it's slightly different in pronunciation in some words, but when the Islamic empire expanded to Persia, Egypt, North Africa and other regions, non Arabic speakers who embraced Islam started to get confused how some words are pronounced, that's why the third caliph Othman standardized the pronunciation to the dialect of the tribe of Quraish that the prophet peace be upon him comes from, but we still have the 7 ways of reading till today, and they're only different from one another in some words in pronunciation but they mean the same thing.

[@Thesummerismagic12]

It’s a miracle having so many quality shows

[@morophil]

Your channel is amazing Derek, thanks for the enlightenment. Cheers from Morocco

[@sisi-qw9xs]

Readings existed at the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace

[@saeedhamam8297]

One more thing what the "scholar" forgot to mention is why such variations existed in the first place? the simple fact that was narrated by the tradition (hadith) was to accommodate dialects of different tribes, though the traditional view (opinion not hadith) was that Arabic is a static language with different dialects from the dawn of history, modern historians found that modern Arabic came into existence a mere century before the prophet peace and blessing of God upon him (actually Quran created and unified Arabic grammar), this meant that at the time of the prophet the difference between tribes scattered of more than 3 million km² was more than a mere dialect, so the Quran had to accommodate this because of two reasons the first is the dissemination of Quran among the tribes, the second is the reluctance of these tribes to use Quraish's ( the prophet tribe) "dialect" out of tribal pride. What Othman had codified was Quraish "dialect" and that was clearly mentioned, all of that was missed by the "scholar".

[@AJansenNL]

Did you watch the whole video? Because he clearly mentioned all those things.

[@saeedhamam8297]

@@AJansenNL I watched until the supposed contradiction of "they said two magics" vs. "they said two magicians" ignoring the simple fact that a multitude of people do say multiple things at the same time, refusing this simple fact of life gave me indication I should be watching something less biased.

[@saeedhamam8297]

@@AJansenNL Did he mentioned modern historians' opinions on the state of the Arabic language at the revelation time, he did not, while it is the only reason keraat existed in the first place, this is one thing he missed.

[@inquisitivemind007]

Whatever you know he knows and he knows a lot more that you don't.

[@saeedhamam8297]

@@inquisitivemind007 Of course he knows and that is my problem with him he does not convey that knowledge to the audience, he is telling half truths, and in some cases he pretends to miss basic logic when that is convenient for him, that is my problem with him.

[@whootoo1117]

1- I'm watching almost 30 minutes now and he didn't mention the oral preservation of the quran. 2- He didn't tell that quran is the primary source of islam, while hadith is secondary and all of quran is mutawatir or with the process of multiple different people who narrated or taught the same thing in 100% level. Both Derek and the guy Marijn seem to try hard to get a point to criticize the preservation but they failed. Quran is different than bible and right now, there are at least 20 million people who know orally by heart. These people are called Hufaz in plural and Hafiz in singular and they even live in your city and pray in your local mosque. Text and writing preservation in quran is secondary to this type of oral preservation. If you produce a new wrong text and call it quran, no one will take you serious, because most of the people know by hear and mistakes will be apparent when read. An extraordinary book.

[@inquisitivemind007]

All the Quran is mutawatir 😆 is that why you don't know is basmalah is verse no 1 of Surah Fatiha or not kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6epfYGNfLN3rqc

[@tacom0nsta658]

He's a historian, he's not interested in tradition, and not interested in our claims. That's fine though.

[@HHH78709]

​@tacom0nsta658 It's not a tradition, it's a factual claim of the text they are analyzing. 😂 Quran claims to be a linguistic miracle, one of the outcomes of that was - memorization through recitation (btw recitation is the meaning of Quran). There is no other religious text that is attributed to have this key feature.

[@Antikalifen]

This one, Sean Anthony and Shady Nasser are the best. Serious scholars. But the ex-muslims are also important

[@snf321gotti6]

@@inquisitivemind007 watch blogging theology ..recently had him on talking this topic

[@Stardust475]

Felt Shady Nasser was evasive on sources of Quran, tried to be flippant about age of Aisha, apparently he's not heard of women having issues with child marriage and the Prophet's conduct. Putten has been the best so far. Would like to see Robert Hoyland on or another revisionist academic who can really challenge SIN. Sean Anthony didn't do that.

[@snf321gotti6]

@@Stardust475 well yes ask him questions about what he does not about what you want to talk about . As the other guy said ask the right questions this host was trying hard to squeeze out some points.

[@redsox7897]

Exposing Harvard Professor Shady Hekmat Nasser kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYPZlGmPdretiLs

[@theastronomer5800]

The preservation is different because of the very different ways in which the religions developed. Christianity for a long time was a fringe religion, while Islam conquered and expanded very quickly.

[@sojernon8689]

Case in point, the Quran is not perfectly preserved, there is no miracle

[@PixelogistFacts]

@@sojernon8689 Not according to the academic research from professor Marijn Van Putten. Unlike you, he doing a proper research on the Quran. While you graduate from Whatsapp University.

[@ridhuan2335]

True, usually religion develop slowly with ketchup added here and there like christianity. Theres one god at the start, then after some multiple meeting, it become 3 fully god person. Islam is an exception. its still strong and doesnt seems to die out.

[@theastronomer5800]

@@ridhuan2335 You are forgetting that fact that Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and the Jewish religion emerged from a polytheistic world of the region, with Yahweh being one of the gods worshiped and eventually became the only god worshiped by the Israelites (the Bible speaks of not worshiping those "other" gods). Also, you speak of 3 persons in Christianity, but one of them is the holy spirit which the Quran also speaks of. As for Islam dying out, that goes against the evidence. If you look at many Islamic countries the people are fed up with this backwards ideology. In Iran, a 99% Muslim country, only about 40% of people believe in a god (less for the younger population). As people become more educated about their sources, history, science, etc, they tend to leave these ancient superstitions behind.

[@theawesomeman2316]

​@@theastronomer5800You take Iran as an example 😂😂😂. Iran is a majority Shia country and Shia people go against many teachings of Islam. There is a reason why there is a clear distinction between Shia and Sunni Muslims because Shia people have a lot of different beliefs than Sunni's. You can't look at one country failing due to politics and say that Islam as a religion is dying. Iran is such a small percentage of "muslims" that their downfall is of no significance to Islam as a whole.

[@mogbaba]

07:25 What's the documentation for believing that the current Quran is actually the Uthman version? Documenting s dialuge after 200 years is difficult, or impossible if you have not recorded by modern devices. but documenting a book is fairly easy. I know for a fact that none of the Uthmanic Qurans are found. So what is the documentation for an academic researcher?

[@yourpapa6641]

There are codicies that carbon date to that period. If we hold your bar of documentation, the entire Bible would be false as we don't have the originals of any of the 4 gospels nor the copies of the original as stated by Dr. Ehrman.

[@conspirisi]

I'm quite a way in to this, but isn't the traditional Muslim explanation reasonable, in that there were variants that were fringe or unusual emerging, so the Uthamani codex endeavour was initiated to address the issue? From the scholarly perspective is there undue attention on dismantling an entirely reasonable explanation that, in and of itself, didn't appeal to any supernatural cause. Forgive me if you've already dealt with this in this discussion.

[@Phyziacom]

Excellent and Genuine academic work! far from far-fetching or bias. I love it

[@thetruthseeker5448]

Amazing! Enjoyed every second of this as much as with other Islamic scholars. Not or never to Islamic apologist 'scholars' yet more to ex Muslims as to why they left Islam, for us to know their personal stories, wisdoms, and argument. Cheers Derek I cant wait you reach 5OK sub, wonder why this channel is so underrated

[@reyazahmadnaik9159]

In quran One word is used more than 700 times. Jala, ج ع ل Meaning to make but physical material not involved Example To make any policey

[@scurvy77777]

Can you "literally make a mistake accidentally"? Isn't a mistake by definition an accident? Can you make a mistake on purpose? So many questions.

[@AkramSaheb]

That's not the question the question is did they do those mystics.. but if u look at it it's less than 1% 5-10 lines of the Quran.....

[@ConservativeArabNet]

The biggest worry; Muslim intellectuals run away from any meaningful discussion

[@brendandmcmunniii269]

If it was preserved, why did it take from the time of writing in the mid 8th century to the 1920s for a final version to win approval ?

[@snf321gotti6]

Go back to j Smith and show him this interview . Please .

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@snf321gotti6 😆

[@hmansour89]

@@snf321gotti6 Lol, Well said. It's baffling how some people don't apply any critical thinking on the source of information they get from. Most people just look for confirmation bias

[@snf321gotti6]

@@hmansour89 👍

[@stevenv6463]

What was standardized in 1920s is having a specific verse on a specific page on a specific position.

[@sqorpy86]

Halfway through the interview, as usual beautiful scholarship, a question I would’ve liked to explore more, as I think I know that Arabic was written without dots which can make huge difference in meaning of words, and then dots came at a later date, and the issue of “dotting” the written Arabic language is a debate and sometimes used as an argument against the transition between oral tradition of reciting and the written codex

[@sqorpy86]

One more thing, grammar, Arabic grammar was set into tangible rules in a proper text later on, how could that have affected the codex since Arabic has many vowels and ways of writing certain words especially in reference to plurals, males and females suffix and even the “mothanah “ when u refer to dual nouns

[@TheAslauga]

The stutter and the difficulties of both speakers to say the truth is sooo obvious..hahaha..just say it dude..it is very very perfectly PRESERVE! Caught it by suprise ehh?

[@marshalsmarketinggrid4158]

Finally someone agrees

[@dubseason717]

nope not even close to perfect preservation

[@kudihyang8785]

54:22 There is no drastic Mission change in this verse. You have to look at the context of the contents of the Attaubah chapter as a whole, don't cut it into pieces (and don't insert prejudice either). Both versions of this verse are related contextually to the entire contents of the Chapter.

[@feliksj.kwiatkowski2935]

On what basis does the interviewee assert there was a complete Koran in existence at about 650 AD? Where is there any complete manuscript from that era?

[@adamnasser2995]

He said we have basically the complete Quran (or to be specific, the rasm which didn't have vowels and sparse dotting to tell various consonants apart though it could be easily guessed usually) when you put all the 1st century fragments together. Much or most verses are covered by more than one 1st century fragment. Some "fragments" cover multiple surahs. But bare in mind the rasm isn't enough to preserve they meaning on its own and the readings of it did have disagreements.

[@tomasmatias4109]

@@adamnasser2995 then you don't have the complete Quran in the first century.

[@iliasalmaudi8365]

@@tomasmatias4109 we absolutely do. The entirety of thr Quran is found in 1st century manuscripts with a few holes in some folios it leads scholars to say around 95-99% but those are natural deteriorations that are easily supplemented with other manuscripts close in age. Refer to Dr Hythem Sidky's interview on blogging theology.

[@tomasmatias4109]

@@iliasalmaudi8365 suit yourself. If that is what you believe, that is what you believe.

[@inquisitivemind007]

Here is an analogy. If you have a human body where one arm is in one museum, another is in another museum and the body in the 3rd. Do we have a complete body? Answer is yes. Are they in one place? Answer is no they are spread out.

[@sisi-qw9xs]

‏‪1:10:35‬‏ The Quraish tribe was visited by the tribes to perform Hajj and recite poetry, so the Quraish tribe owns all shades of Arabic dialects

[@tulpas93]

Owns?

[@bowrudder899]

The host says he thinks it is hypocritical of Christians to challenge the claim that the Quran has been "perfectly preserved". But it is not, and here is why: Christians do not claim the Bible has been perfectly preserved. We have the smoking gun -- the manuscripts -- to show that it is not. On the other hand, Muslims DO make that claim. So it is fair to challenge them on it. It is fair to challenge the claim.

[@yousef3375]

How can you believe in a religion that failed to preserve its holy book?

[@bowrudder899]

@@yousef3375 For the same reason that you believe in a religion that failed to preserve its holy book

[@yousef3375]

@@bowrudder899 did you not watch the video? We have a book that has been carbon dated to be written 12 years after the prophets death while also having the sannaa being older than that and might have been written during the prophet time when he was alive. The uthamnic codix has no variation except for the 7 different Quraat that our prophet told us about in the Hadith. I feel really bad for you

[@bowrudder899]

I did watch it, @@yousef3375, and don't feel bad for me. It is the Muslim narrative that "has holes" in it, as Yasir Qadhi famously admitted. For example, you mention carbon dating. If you are talking about the Birmingham folia, unfortunately the few pages date to BEFORE Mohammed's time. They could have been written BEFORE Mohammed. That's embarrassing. And if you are talking about the Sanaa Palimpsest, again, unfortunately, it records two different Qurans. But your own hadiths say the Quran was not written in Mohammed's lifetime. Your own hadiths say Zaid bin Thabit was doing something new, something that had never been done. And again, you mention the Uthmanic codex, but you do not have Uthman's Quran. None of them survived. And the 7 different qirat were destroyed by Uthman. According to your hadith, Uthman gathered all copies of the Quran and burned them. Then he issued a new, standardized Quran. I feel sorry for you, that you imams do not tell you these things.

[@yousef3375]

@@bowrudder899 yeah I am done here it’s like talking to a flat earthers no point

[@asbjrnbergh7172]

Another interesting side of this is what happened in the process, when the Quran was written. You can find about a thousand of documentable texts that have been the sources of the Quran, but there is hardly any quotes. Did that mean that those who wrote /compiled the Quran did not have access to written sources? Did they change it by will to fit an Islamic version , or did they just wrote down what they had heard through oral memory?

[@zeinedine_G]

it is named "Quran" because it is _read_ , hence *orally transmitted* written sources follow the process

[@asbjrnbergh7172]

@@zeinedine_G , maybe it was just oral in the beginning, there were about 40 different recitations, around the time the rasm was written down, the archetype that all Qurans of today stem from.

[@asbjrnbergh7172]

@@zeinedine_G Professor Gabriel S. Reynolds: "After all the Qur'an does not encounter the Bible (which was not translated into Arabic at the dawn of Islam) but rather the oral Biblical traditions of late antiquity. This is why references to Jesus' bringing a bird to life are next to his healing the blind and the leper."

[@deen6008]

@@asbjrnbergh7172 Liberals and Atheists go into it thinking "Someone lied". They dont believe in Miracles or these kinds of things. They dont know...that we Muslims trust the 1st...3 generations of Muslims. Those are the best generations ever. Muhmmad pbuh said that the Angels were shy of Uthman. Thats what kind of guy he was. These people were righteous people. They dont lie. But if your liberal like these guys or if your an atheists. You take that out your brain lol. Thats the issue.

[@asbjrnbergh7172]

@@deen6008 , I build my arguments on an article by professor David Cook, so I don't take this out of my brain. I don't think you will find many scholars on Western universities, that support the idea that the Quran is just based on divine revelations. It clearly shows traces of human influence.

[@BashirAdebauo-fc3ln]

Derek need to apologize about his view and what he said in the past about Quran prior to this interview Before this interview , he said he was of the view that Quran is like Bible

[@rehenabegum9732]

I dont know anything ab his past views but if he said its just like the bible in the sense that they have similar stories then he doesnt have to apologise unless he meant it in a diff way?

[@rinaprindiana8933]

The Sanaa version is a personal copy. Someone memorized it and then for his wrote it down for his personal copy

[@trinitymatrix9719]

Please also go and have an interview with Dr. Shady Nasser who also is an expert on the topic.

[@adamnasser2995]

Check out Derek's recent videos and you'll have a nice surprise :)

[@trinitymatrix9719]

@@Bricklore_25 allah was nowhere near to preserve anything as he clearly promised us and challenged us in the qran, unfortunately kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGnPaHqLYtmpodk

[@trinitymatrix9719]

@@Bricklore_25 allah said - we easily busted 😂 🤦‍♂

[@trinitymatrix9719]

@@Bricklore_25 Even if quran was preserved, it would be preserved with countless of contradictions, errors and scientific failures. So ur argument is pretty much pointless. Did u know there are 30+ different arabic versions of q0ran? Allah lost count on how many different qurans he have 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣 kzbin.info/www/bejne/poimhH-jnLSbmqc

[@redsox7897]

Exposing Harvard Professor Shady Hekmat Nasser kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYPZlGmPdretiLs

[@dreamflier]

Great interview amd conversations here. Derek is a great host with the right interjections here and there.

[@potkinazarmehr]

Its not even certain that Osman existed. The canonised version of Quran we have today was in fact produced by Abdul Malik. Even if Osman existed he didn’t have the means to canonise the Quran and send it to other places.

[@elliot7205]

Something is missing here. You will note when uthman heard of differences he and the committee went back to the source and made a comparison with the source instead of keeping the source aside and making a comparison of the two that are differing.

[@sdscipio]

Mythvision brings the best Religious content on KZbin. Congratulations for taking on Islam

[@gondala]

The Question is simple: according to history, zayd ibn thabit wrote the usmani quran using one ahruf, then why we still have different ahruf in existing quran? Who wrote those qurans? and among different qurans with different ahruf, which one is actually what we call as "uthmani quran"?

[@mukhlimkurowo]

all quran in the world

[@syedahmedshaheer117]

Zaids write up didn't have vowelization or dotting as such it's text could incorporate multiple ahrufs. It's only if the text couldn't allow for difference he was asked to prefer Qurayshi dialect as that's what prophet (saw) spoke. Also there was a rich tradition of oral culture where in every Ramadan publicly they finished the Quran in their prayers. So other ahrufs can survive

[@trinitymatrix9719]

We all know that the preservation of q0ran has just as much truth in it as a the latest harry potter book. 30+ different original versions of arabic qurans and over 90000 variations and changes have been detected. The only preserved are the holes in it. Just ask Yasir Qadhi 😂

[@snf321gotti6]

Salt lake city .

[@hmansour89]

Hahahahha. If you are right then can you substantiate your claim be providing a peer reviewed journal that agree with what you said? You won’t find any, what you’re saying is laughable among scholars of authority

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@hmansour89 you will find the academic work you are looking for in Shady Nasser's 1st and 2nd book.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@Constantine Mithras have you been through his 2 books 📚? As I have them and yes Shady does.

[@inquisitivemind007]

@Constantine Mithras there are not 30 different but 4 different: Uthmanic Basran, Kufan, Syrian and Medinan - all 4 are different.

[@maherhaobsh1975]

Very scientific and helpful even to the rational religious Muslim . Thank you for the chance to enjoy rare objective dealing with Islam .

[@2012stvn]

so which koran was revealed to mohamed and how do muslims know?

[@merlinx8703]

He says that all the variants go back to a parent varient And muslims do believe that 7 recitations were revealed

[@2012stvn]

@@merlinx8703 so which one is with alla?

[@merlinx8703]

@@2012stvn Muslim believe in an Umm Kitab all revelation stems from there from there came the Torah, the Psalms, the Ingeel and the Quran and that would include the different readings All of them are included in the Umm Kitab

[@2012stvn]

@@merlinx8703 so the Umm Kitab, is on the eternal tablets ?

[@merlinx8703]

@@2012stvn I am not sure The Umm Kitab may be part of the Tablet or it may be the tablet By tablet you mean Loh e Mahfooz?

[@lifeisatrip4057]

Here is an example of a contradictory readings. in Surah 10:16 , “if Allah had willed I should not have recited it to you nor would He have made it known to you.” wa laa adrakum is the reading of most Readers, which negate knowing. Ibn Katheer reading is “wa la adrakum” by not pronouncing the alef after the lam, the meaning be comes affirmative . “He would have made it known to you.” Dereck. I would love to be on your podcast.

[@demokrasi1234]

you have😅 to cite directly from Quran not from its translation and lets discuss. so thats why arabic text is the legitimate source for moslem

[@PBAmygdala2021]

Derek: I hope you'll keep doing more crossovers, such as with Andrew from Religion for Breakfast.

[@MRC-MR]

٦ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْ O you who believe! When you rise to pray, wash your faces and your hands and arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads, and your feet to the ankles. Infact in the chapter 5;6 if we go word to word Arabic meaning it says "Oamsau rasaukum owa arzulakum" the word Oamsau means Wipe and Rasukum mean Head and continues to Arzulakum means Feet till ankle. So it it does not mean someone must wash his feet..

[@adralia23]

Uthman was one of 4 Prophet's bestfriends and successors (khalifahs). He spent 22-23 years together with the Prophet. He was one of the early muslims and was even his son in law. And he has memorized the ENTIRE Quran along side him (prophethood was for 23 years). It's absolutely not like Paul, who has never met Jesus in real life. And writing a lot of the things he NEVER learned directly from Jesus himself.

[@kyoungd]

Question. If Uthman memorized the ENTIRE Qur'an, why would he need someone else to collect and write it down for him?

[@BenM61]

The so called miracle of the Quran is actually what is called in Arabic بلاغة القرءان or eloquence and rhetoric of the Quran. And you wouldn’t know that until you delve into the Arabic language and its intricate grammar and vocabulary. Take the following example of this verse: 11:44 وَقِیلَ یَـٰۤأَرۡضُ ٱبۡلَعِی مَاۤءَكِ وَیَـٰسَمَاۤءُ أَقۡلِعِی وَغِیضَ ٱلۡمَاۤءُ وَقُضِیَ ٱلۡأَمۡرُ وَٱسۡتَوَتۡ عَلَى ٱلۡجُودِیِّۖ وَقِیلَ بُعۡدࣰا لِّلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِینَ 11:44 Then the word went forth: "O earth! swallow up thy water, and O sky! Withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated, and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and the word went forth: "Away with those who do wrong!" Scholars wrote treaties just about that verse and you wouldn’t understand that until you dive deep into the Arabic language. Van Putten hasn’t mentioned that side of the Quran and it could be for a good reason: he has only basic knowledge of the Arabic language. He specializes in single words and high school knowledge of the Arabic language.

[@thetruthseeker5448]

I have a question, why on earth many Quranic materials were destroyed [which is a historical fact] to make way to ''create'' Uthman's Quran to be the foundation of the standardised version less than a century between Mohamed's preaching and creation of Utman's Quran. *What were the destroyed material and why* Furthermore an existence of a book called Quran or similar does not qualify to claim it is the words God. On the same note what qualifies Mohamed or any other to be ''a'' prophet of God.

[@omarelkadi2297]

Considering the prophet part, I am a born Muslim, so I am pretty much lucky not needing to ask this question. However, recently I started trying to take the others points of view, and I have an opinion in this if you are believing in an Abrahamic religion (Christianity and Judaism), which could be a good start. To be the prophet of god, your delivered message should have at least the core messages of GOD, and luckily there is a clear statement of what it is in the TORAH, especially for non-jews (Gentiles). To be a righteous gentile and have place in the kingdom to come, according to the Jews and TORAH, you have to follow to the 7 laws of Noah, which to a great extent only Muslims (in addition to the Jews) are following the 7 laws, which if you asked any knowledgeable Jew or rabbi (such as Tovia Singer) of the Islamic laws, he will definitely tell you that Muslims are righteous Gentiles (in comparison he will arise very strong doubts against Christians, just to show that it is not that easy this to occur in coincidence even in the type of Religions "Abrahim Religions I mean"). By the way, almost all Muslims do not know the 7 laws of Noah (at least from Islam) but they are following them as they are among the laws of Islam. So because of Mohamed, 1.8 billion are currently righteous gentiles (according to Judaism) i.e. Mohamed is not just a messenger of God, but probably a successful Messenger. I hope this is a good start for you (The argument validity is only limited to those already believing in Abrahamic Religion). Good Luck in finding the truth

[@omarelkadi2297]

Considering the other point, I will just copy a response to other commenter that might be helpful "good luck and I hope you find the truth, and a better knowledgeable replier than me :D": Their is a difference between Koran and Mus'haf; I believe you mean the Mus'haf. According to Islam (at least my understanding about it) Koran by its nature is an oral book of gods word transmitted by the angel Gebril to Mohamed who taught it to his early followers, where all Muslims have to memorize parts of it as it is used in as part of their daily prayers (not specific parts; thus, not all use the same part of the Quran in their prayers) and many of the early companions memorize it a word by word (and this tradition still exists till now, many Muslims actually memorize it all word to word by the age of 10), which is the main form of its preservation (it is almost impossible for so many Muslims to forget or replace the same word; unless it is by a divine well) ; So, by definition it doesn't make sense asking about a physical evidence of an oral book. However, the Mus'haf, which is the written book, has been written early after the death of Mohamed after many of the companions died in an early wars based on the collections the memorization of the companions and also written documents as some of the companions were will educated and can write; the Mus'haf and Quran are different entities for Muslims. We might even not have a Mus'haf (a written document) if these wars never occurred. As Muslims expanded and other non-arab (or arab with other dilactate) joined Islam some written copies of the Mus'haf has been created with some mistakes (probably similar to those discovered in Sanaa manuscript), which although non-significant to non-muslims, is very important to Muslims, and probably Usman feared that the Quran (the oral book) might be affected by such variants similar to what happened to the Torah, so he burnt these variants of the Mus'haf, and kept a single copy will revised based on the oral book. I think parts of manuscript containing the written words of the Quran and books referring to the wording of Qurans exist till now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%27haf#:~:text=The%20word%20mu%E1%B9%A3%E1%B8%A5af%20is%20meant,or%20book%2C%20in%20many%20verses

[@thetruthseeker5448]

@@omarelkadi2297 Whether you are a Muslim or there are more than 1.8 billion people believing in Islam does not make Quran is true. To bring Judaism and Christianity to make a comparison and to claim Islam is better also does not make Quran is the truth either. You are contradicting yourself, Christianity / Bible has the BIGGEST following amongst the humanity for millennia to this day. And that does not make Bible is the truth.

[@thetruthseeker5448]

@@omarelkadi2297 And again your explanation on the text does not hold any water at all. As I mentioned in my comment what you are following is Uthman's *STANDARDISED* version of the Quran, The STANDARDISED version was created by *destroying* other written texts and it is a historical FACT! And this happened in a very short period of time, and that itself create more confusion. How could a divine miracle, the purest, the best could and the most truthful divine revaluation [Quran] could have so many texts within a very short period of time [I am not talking about recitations but only written texts] Did God/Allah failed miserably to make it clear that there would be only ONE written text from the beginning than creating confusions amongst mankind for nearly 2 millennia. Finally who is Uthman to create and standardise the Quran, Mohamed supposed to be the messenger. Didn't God/Allah know Mohamed could not write, and leave it to another person/s. How could they be divine miracles.

[@omarelkadi2297]

@@thetruthseeker5448 I am sorry if my argument is not clear and allow me to further elaborate: this argument is addressed towards the your question "what qualifies Mohamed or any other to be ''a'' prophet of God", and it is NOT "that there is too many Muslims; then it is probably the right religion". My argument is that because of Mohamed, 1.8 billion Muslims become qualified as a righteous gentiles and has a chance in the world to come based on the Jewish faith by following a very specified laws written thousands of year before Mohamed and I added Christians are not qualified according to the same faith (which is very surprising as Jesus was a Jew and preached mainly to the Jews) as a comparison just to elaborate that it is less likely to be by chance (there larger number actually intended to support the argument). I hope the argument is more clear now, of course it is not the argument that will cause a paradigm shit, but I hope it can be a start to your path in searching for the right religion.

[@vid4u007]

We all know that the Quran is the word of Allah.!!! but we also know that Allah told these to Mohammad via Gabriel and then it was written and compiled by others after his death......Now it is clear that word what is written in Quran was the interpretation of the massage from Allah by the various people of that time.....which implies that , there can be some mistakes or error while compilations. Now I have seen that Muslim become very emotional when we request to update few verses of Quran which are inhuman..... Because I am 100% sure that original msg from Allah must be sacred and has the well-being for entire humanity......whatever error we see, is the misinterpretation of the people of that time who compiled the Quran. 🌷Quran is not the word of Allah, but Quran is the msg of Allah compiled by various people of the time as per their interpretation.🌷 So, with this reasoning all Muslim should agree to update the Quran verses which are against the humanity.....And I am sure that this will be one of the greatest service to 🌟Allah🌟...🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️

[@kyoungd]

Your thinking is rational. That dogma (The Qur'an is the unchanged literal word of God) is a stupid idea. You have Muslims defending all kind of dumb ideas, twisting verses to fit. Your idea gets around that problem nicely. And I agree. It will do great service to Allah (if he is real) and definitely to mankind.

[@mohammedabdulla4028]

This is a discussion of history and facts that can be respected by all Muslims. This discussion bear no resemblance to the hate speech and Islamophobia. Most of what the professor is saying is well understood by many educated Muslims. However, it is refreshing yo hear this discussion among Westerners instead of the traditional fear mongering against Islam.

[@luisaah5707]

Hamad abdel Samad is great as well. If you could invite him to the show that would be great.

[@ahmedamir4240]

Do you compare a distinguisged scholar in Leiden to an ignorant and no scholar !!!!!

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@ahmedamir4240 🤣 I agree with you on that.

[@takiyaazrin7562]

@@ahmedamir4240 Ignorant Sheikhs wanted to kill Hamed

[@ahmedamir4240]

@@takiyaazrin7562 You said ignorant, so they can be no sheiks people like this guy his arguments shall be refuted and if he is Murtad or renegade God only has the authority to punish him in the hereafter unless he did not launch a war or violent actions against believers

[@MuhammadAli-qv7ot]

He talks about self fulfilling prophecy and how it may not be a miracle but if that's the case then why is it that the hebrew and catholic bible changed multiple times but quran didnt. This is further evidence that if 1 book csn keep its authentication for 1400 years.... its truly insanely impressive.

[@Sixtra]

Derek you are the man! Don’t mean it as some sort of ass kissing 😂 but you really manage to bring all of the major academics to your channel. Great stuff dude 🤓👌

[@kennethwhite8045]

I would like to know if the Doctor could produce a chapter like the Quran. Secondly, the Quran is that which is orally recited, not that which is written in a book. For example, I can recite my ABC's perfectly, but I might make a mistake in writing it down.

[@siaboonleong]

Conclusion is that the Qur'an is not perfectly preserved according to normal definition

[@amanpalestina9664]

What is YOUR Definition of *PERFECTLY PRESERVED* then, to CONCLUDE

[@siaboonleong]

@@amanpalestina9664 I guess it will be what they claim word for word letter for letter ? Basically it is the same as it was originally spoken. But that will be hard to prove .

[@amanpalestina9664]

@@siaboonleong : Ya its true. Chinese Paper Technology wasn't available yet until the 8th Century. Scrolls and Parchment wont be able to carry through the Semitic Lingua-Pranka as advance as the Chinese Civilization, at large. Abjad (Semitic Alphabet) were at its infancy burdened with NO VOWEL in any Semitic Writing, Hebrew, Aramaic, Hijazi etc. Most importantly Muhammad himself is The Unlettered Prophet. The ONLY logical way is through the *Verbal Transmission* which is guarded by the 7-Hafs, 10-Qiraat, Wash and Tajweed etc. Only during the Caliph Uthman time the Writing System were developed properly with the introduction of the Indian Numerical System. This video explained it well and DR Marijn van Putten expressed it (Al-Quran) as *THE MOST STABLE* There is NO such thing any available Perfectly Preserved original. Guesses has to be made on the Egyptian Heliograph and Babylonian Writing and NOBODY knows how it sounds like. Nobody knows what language Moses 1,200+BCE speak and the earliest Septuagint is in the 1st Century and it was in Greek. Nobody knows how earliest Bible ended up in Greek Kone too and there is none in Aramaic available. The oldest Yalur Vedas is 2nd BCE and nobody knows the earliest BOB.

[@tulpas93]

"Perfect" means that it uses both sweet and dry vermouth.

[@yourpapa6641]

@@siaboonleong He did mention that it was reported to be revealed in 7 recitation styles...

[@imranbasit8276]

May God bless you for such an academic podcast, Ameen.❤

[@takiyaazrin7562]

He did not talk about the goat that ate the quran

[@ahmedamir4240]

so you like shoddy narrative this man is a scholar work according evidence not biased by dogma !!!

[@hmansour89]

A very popular point that polemics tend to use. However, it holds no weight in a scholarly realm. Let me explain, suppose you have a book today and your dog eats a page of that book. Does that mean that the page is forever lost. The answer is no since your book is not the only copy. Same thing applied on the story with quran and the goat. At the time the quran was already widespread in the islamic community and there were already other qurans written. Thats why you dont see neutral scholars use such a story, because it holds no value. I've mostly seen people with an agenda use this point.

[@ahmedamir4240]

@@hmansour89 Did you check the authenticity of this hadith of thre chicken ???? these are baseless narratives even contradict the historical material evidence? why shall resort to things outside the text itself !!

[@reyazahmadnaik9159]

Haroof Related to layers of understanding Quran is preserved as meaning is not in text But layers of understanding Quran is not reffering physical Non physical Whole quran related to evolution of Cautions

[@tulpas93]

Ah! So the supernatural parts of the book are supernaturally preserved - that makes more sense! You don't need evidence for the supernatural, and that makes it easier to defend!

[@robertherring9277]

Great show!

[@8redbeat4]

I want to add an angle to this, maybe people will have an understand. The Arabic language had a problem with the recitation and that was purely due to the fact Arabic letters had no "dots" to differentiate them or tell them apart. For example 'ش' and 'س' were written as 'س'. You need to have really good Arabic to understand which is which. So when people from different areas started joining Islam it created an issue with them wrongly pronouncing these texts which is not allowed. So Muslims added the dots to the letters so nobody can make a mistake while learning the Quran. So the very reference he mentioned it alters the Quran, that is absolutely true. The first time these dots were added to arabic letters it was during the Umiad Caliph time to preserve the meaning and reading of Quran.

[@misswarda78]

Woop Woop 🙌 You have nailed it. 🎉

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

Nailing is a different religion.

[@juadwhite1391]

@Vicky Wells May you give me your take on this interview Vicky?, do you think that this scholar supports your theory regarding Qur'an having glaring preservation issues? (With my infinite respect to you).😊

[@misswarda78]

@@juadwhite1391 Hi Juad. Marijn makes it very clear that the Uthman Quran IS well preserved however the BIG issue (that Marijn conceded) is that we have ZERO source materials from the first 70 years of Islam (before the creation of Uthman Quran) and this interrupts our knowledge of what was ‘preserved’ before this. We know lots of Islamic material was burned and destroyed to create the Uthman Quran and so this is for me the ‘glaring problem’ in our ability to be confident in the Quran. (Although the Quran is also supported by the oral transmission which creates additional issues)

[@zeustn9525]

@@misswarda78 just to clarify, if the canon is fixed in 650 then the "missing" documents period covers 40 years from the start of the prophetic ministry or 20 from the prophet's death. Also, we do not "know" that the alternative codices have been all burned. One tradition claims so but the Sanaa palimpsest clears contradicts it. And in anyway it's impossible to prove it because it implies the absence of documents to prove it!!

[@thetruthseeker5448]

I also beg the question, why on earth many Quranic materials were destroyed [which is a historical fact] to make way to ''create'' Uthman's Quran to be the foundation of the standardised version less than a century between Mohamed's preaching and creation of Utman's Quran. What were the destroyed material and why? Furthermore an existence of a book called Quran does not qualify to claim it is the words God. On the same note what qualifies Mohamed or any other to be ''a'' prophet of God.