You are on page 1of 53

1

ACriticalAnalysis:
JaySmithsClaimsAbouttheQuran

Br.IjazAhmad

Trinidad&Tobago
WestIndies

12.11.14CE
18.01.1436AH

Foreword

PolemicsagainstIslamhavereachedawholenewlevelinrecenttimes.Muslimapologistsareno
morefacedonlywithargumentslikethosebroughtforwardbyoldschoolorientalists.Thisis
especiallytrueinrelationtoQuranicpreservationandcompilation.Muslimscouldeasilyanswerthe
argumentsaroundnarrationspreservedinclassicalworksbecauseitwasallinthetraditionalfieldsof
sciencesofnarrationandinterpretationwhereMuslimsscholarshavealwaysprovedformidable.In
recenttimes,however,inspiredbythecriticalstudiesontheBiblethemanuscriptsoftheQuranhave
alsobeenasubjectofacademicinterest.Luckily,theissuehasbeenattendedtoandsomeMuslim
scholarsalongwithcertainorientalistshavecomeforwardtocarryoutobjectivestudyontheearliest
Quranicmanuscriptsandtopresenttheirfindingstotheworldofacademia.Thisdocumentpresents
acogentoverviewofsomesuchstudies.

TheadventoftheWWWparadigmpresentedMuslimswithanotherchallenge.Itexposedthelaymen
toallsortsofcriticismonIslamwhiletheyhadlittletonoknowledgeofhowtoresponddespitetheir
firmbeliefthattheIslamicscriptureisimpeccable.ButsinceGodraisesaDavidagainsteveryGoliath,
someyoungMuslimscameforwardtofillinthegap.Theytriedtobecomeabridgebetweenthe
Muslimknowledgebanksandthosewhoturnuptosearchenginesseekinganswerstowhatperturbs
them.Thoughmanymorearestillneeded,theseyoungMuslimsrespondedwithconfidenceandfilled
cyberspace,frompurposebuiltwebsitestodiscussionforums,videos,andchatrooms.BrotherIjaz
Ahmadisperhapstheyoungestofthelotanddespitesomehealthissuesthathecontinuestoface,he
hasbravedagainsttheseprofessionalcriticsofIslam.

ThisdocumentisapointwiseresponsetotheclaimsmadebyJaySmithinhisdebatewithDr.Shabir
Allyonthesubject,WhichistheWordofGod:TheBibleortheQuranheldonSeptember27th,
2014inCanada.AsIjazhasshownJaymadeglaringmistakesandboldclaimswithoutdue
deliberation.Infactsomeinstancesshowthathewasclearlyfabricatingideastowinbrowniepoints.
However,IjazhasputJayspresentationunderahighqualitymicroscope.Ijazsresponseisnotjust
anexposofacertaincriticsfrustratedarguments,itisanunveilingofawholemindsetbuiltonthe
objectivitybereavedattitudetowardstheIslamicscripture.Thepaperisarrangedintheformofpoint
bypointresponsestoJaysmistakes,thistakesthereaderalonghelpinghimbuildacompletepicture
ofthedifferentaspectsofthesubject.Withtheusefulsummaryaddedinthebeginningany
intelligent,evenanuninitiatedreadercanfollowtheauthorinhisexpositionandmakeperfectsense
ofit.IamhopefulthisdocumentwillproveasignificantworkinMuslimapologeticliteraturehelping
MuslimdebatersagainstthewouldbecommentatorsonQuranicmanuscripts.Itgoeswithoutsaying
thatgeneralreaderswillfinditasamoreaccessiblesourceforthegistofimportantfindingsof
Quranicmanuscriptstudies.

AssomeoneinvolvedwithapologeticsIamcertainthispresentationwillproveamajorachievement
intheIjazscareer.Onthisachievementhetrulydeservesourfelicitations.MayAllahpreservehim
andblesshimwithsoundhealth.Ameen!

WaqarAkbarCheema
Lahore,Pakistan.
1436AH.

DefinitionofTerms

Word:

Meaning:

ahruf

modesorstylesoftheQuran
(arabic)

alif

consonantalArabicletter
(arabic)

Allah

islamicnameforGod
(arabic)

codex

collectionofmanuscripts

extant

inexistence,stillexisting

folio

amanuscriptalt:leaf

majuscule

largeletteredwritingwithnospacingofwords

manuscript

handwrittendocument

mushaf

collectionofmanuscripts
(arabic)

orientalist

specialistinAsianhistory

orthography

howlettersareusedinthespellingofwords

paleography

studyofancientwritingstyles

palimpsest

amanuscriptwhichhasbeenrubbed,washedor
erasedtoremovepreviouswriting

qiraat

recitationsoftheQuran
(arabic)

quran

islamicholyscripture
(arabic)

scribe

professionalcopyistofmanuscripts

scriptioinferior

thetextwrittenoverunderlyingtext

scriptiocontinua

continuousscript

scriptiosuperior

thefirstortopmosttextinamanuscript

Contents

Summary
Introduction
StructureofthePaper
AnalysisofJaySmithsAllegationsAbouttheQuran
Mistake#1:
Mistake#2:
Mistake#3:
Mistake#4:
Mistakes#5&#6:
Mistakes#7&#8:
Mistake#9:
Mistake#10:
Mistake#11:
Mistake#12:
Mistake#13:
Mistake#14:
Mistake#15:
Mistake#16:
Mistake#17:
Mistake#18:
Mistake#19:
Mistake#20:
Mistake#21:
Mistake#22:
Mistake#23:
Mistake#24:
Mistake#25:
Mistakes#26,#27&#28:
Mistake#29:
Mistake#30:
Mistakes#31,#32,#33&#34:
Mistakes#35,#36,#37&#38:
Mistake#39:
Conclusion
AppendixA
AppendixB

Summary

ThepoorstateoftheNewTestamentmanuscriptrecordhas,inourtimeledtheJudaeoChristian
worldtohavegreatdoubtintheveracityandauthenticityoftheNewTestamentasascripture.Asa
consequenceofthis,Muslimpreachershavetakentheinitiativeinusingthisimportantinformation
toconfirmtheQuranicclaimofcorruptionregardingthescripturesoftheJewsandChristiansin
Surah2,Verse79.Christianapologistsinresponsetothisweakeningoftheirscripture,arenow
attemptingtoweakenthestatureoftheQuranspreservation.Muslimsforcenturies,sincethe
QuransrevelationhaveheldstronglytothebeliefthatitisGodwhowouldguardthetransmission
andpreservationoftheQuranasismentionedexplicitlyinSurah15,Verse9.Wehavebeenaccused
ofnotcriticallystudyingtheQuranusingthemethodologyofTextualCriticism,thereasonbeingthat
weMuslimsimplicitlyknowthatGodhasnotprotectedtheQuranthusprovingitisafalsehood.
ChristianapologistshavechallengedtheMuslimworldtoapplytheirmethodologyofTextual
CriticismtotheQuran,sothatwemayestablishthatthedismalstateoftheNewTestament
manuscriptrecordisonparwiththeQurans.

Unbeknownsttothem,MuslimshavebeenpractisingstringentcriticalstudiesoftheQurans
manuscripttraditionsinceitsrevelation.ForcenturiesbeforethedevelopmentofNewTestament
TextualCriticismasitisknowntoday,Muslimshavebeenutilisingthescienceof
UloomalQuran
(thesciencesoftheQuran).Onesuchfieldwithin
UloomalQuran
is
IlmalRasmalMushaf
,orthe
ScienceoftheWritingoftheCopiesoftheQuran.Mostimportantly,theidentityofourcopyistsand
scribesoftheQuranhavebeenknowntousforcenturiesaswehaveemployedthesciencesof
Rijalal
Hadith
,
MustalahalHadith
(thesciencesofevaluatingthecharactersofscribesandtransmitters)
and
JarhwaTadeel
.Duetothis,wecanlisttheidentitiesofasignificantnumberofQuranicscribes
duringtheProphetslifetime.ChristiancriticismoftheQuranicmanuscriptshasbeenappalling
tosaytheveryleast.OnesuchmajorcondemnationisthecontrolofmanuscriptcopyingbytheCaliph
Uthman(),theyhavepositedthathisactofstandardizingthecopyingoftheQuran
negativelyimpactedtheQuranspreservation.Suchacriticismisunfoundedgiventhattheyhave
laterimitatedsuchamethodologyofcontrollingtheirscripturestransmissionintheformofthePope
sanctioningtheVulgate,theuseanddisseminationoftheTextusReceptusandoftodaysGreek
CriticalTextswhicharecontrolledbytheirforemostscholarsinthefieldofTextualCriticism.Theydo
notallowandtheywhollyrejectanyrandomandunknownindividualstoproducecriticaleditionsof
theNewTestament,thusfollowinginthemethodologyandfootstepsofUthman()
himself.

InapplyingthemethodologyofNewTestamentTextualCriticismtotheQuran,wehavecometo
knowthattheQuranhasindeedbeenwellpreserved.Themanuscriptrecorddoesshowchanges.
Howeverthesechangesinthemanuscriptsaregenerallyoftwotypes.Orthographicchangesand
scribalmistakes.Orthographyasdefined,istherepresentationofalanguageinatextualgraphical
form.Asthelanguagedevelopedtextually,themanuscriptrecordsdemonstratethattheQuran
remainedconsistentinitscontentswhereaschangesbeingmadewerethoseoftherepresentationof
itsletters,vowelsandpunctuationmarks.Inthecaseofscribalerrors,thesedidnotmanifest
themselvesintotheQuranictraditionandassuchremainedastheoddanomalyhereandtherewhich
scribeslatercorrected,butwhichneverfoundthemselvestobeseenaspartoftheQuranscanon.
ThisisatoddswiththeNewTestamenttextualtraditionwhichshowschangesmanifesting
themselvesasinclusiveoftheofficialChurchacceptedscripturaltradition.Twosuchinfamouscases
aretheinclusionofseveralkeydoctrinalversesinMark16:920and1John5:7.Thereisnothingin
theQuranictextualtraditionwhichdemonstratessuchalevelofcorruption.Therefore,when
missionariesattempttocriticizetheQuranstextualtradition,theyhaveencounteredgreatdifficulty.
Consequently,aswewillsoonread,theyhavebeenforcedtoinventclaims,manufacturestudiesand
tomanipulatetheirmethodologythroughdishonestandirrationalmeans.

TheQuranstextualtraditionandtheNewTestamentstextualtraditionareindeednotequal.While
missionariesmayattempttoequatethem,theevidencespresentedwithinthisdocumentwholly
demonstratethatthisisnotthecase.Theydonotstandonequalfooting.WhereastheQurans
preservationhasbeenconsistentwithSurah15Verse9,thesamecannotbesaidoftheNew
Testament.MuslimshavebeenmeticulousintheirconveyingoftheQuransinceitsrevelation,
preservingitvia
mutawatir
transmission.Inthestudyofstemmatics,thisisreferredtoasmultiple
andsimultaneousindependentchainsoftransmissiononagrandscale.Thisdocumentexaminesthe
studiesofthelatestresearchintotheQuranstextualtradition,asprovidedbyMuslims,Christian
apologistsandOrientalists.Theinformationcontainedherein,providestheMuslimwiththe
resourcestheyneedtounderstandwhattheQuranicmanuscripttraditionwitnessesoftheQurans
preservation.

Introduction

ThebeliefsrelatingtotheinerrancyofscripturewithinthemilieuoftheAbrahamicfaithtraditions
persiststobeacontentious,confusingandhotlydebatedtopicofdiscourse.Thedisparityinthe
understandingofthedefinition,andoriginsof
scripture
betweentheIslamicfaithandthe
GraecoRomanJewishSyncreticfaithofChristianityhasbeenthefocalpointofmuchpolemicaland
apologeticalwrangling.ThetraditionalIslamicviewinsiststhatscriptureisthedictatedwordofGod(
),conveyedverbatimthroughaMessenger()ofGodasissubstantiatedinQuranSurah42
:51.Thisview,alsoincludesthebeliefthatGodswordcannotbecorruptedwiththeunderstanding
thatGodhaspromisedtoprotectthescripturefromcorruptionascanbeseeninQuranSurah15:9.

ThetraditionalChristianperceptionofscriptureisrootedintheprocessofinspiration.WhereasGod
mayinspiresomeonetowriteaboutGodsteachings,thespokespersoncannotbeviewedasan
amanuensis.RatherthanbeingdictatedbyGodofwhattonarrate,reciteorwrite,thespokesperson
conveystheirinspiredthoughtsfromGodbyexpressingthemthroughhisorherownunderstanding,
thisbeinginthespokespersonsownwords.Thequestionofinerrancythenariseswhenwetakeinto
considerationthehumansroleinthissublimeencounter.IntheIslamicview,theMessengerdoesnot
convertGodswordsintotheirown,rathertheMessengertransmitswordforwordwhatGodhas
conveyedtothem.ErrancyinthiscasecanonlyoccuriftheMessengerfailstotransmitGodswords
accurately.

IntheChristianunderstandingofinspiration,errancycanoccurifthespokespersonthemselves
misunderstandandmisinterprettheseinspiredthoughts,oriftheyexpressthosethoughts
inaccuratelyasinthecaseofanacoluthon.ThereisnoguaranteeintheChristianframeworkof
inspirationthatGodwillprotectwhatHeinspirestoChristianspokespersons,noristhereany
guaranteethatthepersonclaiminginspirationcanunderstandwhatGodistryingtoconvey.These
distinctbeliefshaveleadtotwodiametricallyopposingideasonthepreservationofscripture.Inthe
Christiandoctrineofinspiration,errorscanbeexpectedbutthisdoesnotnecessarilyimplythatthe
scriptureisinaccurateorcorrupted.Rather,Christiansbelievethattheycanextractfromthe
manuscriptrecord,acriticalversionofwhatGodintendedtoconvey.Thisisoftenreferredtoasthe
generaleclecticmethodologyintheprocessofthepreservationofscripture.

IntheIslamicview,whileitisunderstoodthatscribescanmakemistakesotherwiseknownas
lapsus
calami
orslipsofthepen(hand),thetraditionalviewofscriptureinsiststhatthesemistakeswould
notmanifestthemselvesintotheofficialtransmissionoftheQuranwhetherorallyortextually.This
paperthen,seekstoanalysetheclaimsofJaySmithduringhisdebatewithDr.ShabirAllyentitled,
TheQuranortheBible:WhichistheWordofGod?.OrthodoxIslamicbeliefsstatethattheQuran
hasbeenrevealedinsevenmodesknownas
ahrufalQuran
.Thesesevenmodesaccordingtothe
1
majorityofMuslimscholarsreferstotheMessengerreceivingtheQuraninvariantformsfromGod
.
Theseforms,modesor
ahruf
allrefertothesevencategoriesofvariantrevelation.Thesecategories
arelistedasbeingvariationsofnumbers,genders,diacritical(vowel)markings,verbs,syntax,
transpositionandofpronouncement.JaySmithhasincorrectlyattemptedtousethemodesofthe
Quranasevidentialofitscorruptionorerrancy,soastodemonstratethatbothscripturesareerrant.
ThispaperseekstoanalyseJaySmithsstatementswiththesourcesheappealedto,withtheintention
ofdemonstratinghismisrepresentation,misunderstandingandignoranceoftherelevantscholastic
worksreferencedwhichfundamentallyopposehiseisegeticalconclusions.

1.

TheQuranwasthefirstbookpublishedbytheArabpeoplesintheArabiclanguage.Previoustothis,thevarying
tribesinArabiaspokedifferingdialectsoftheArabiclanguageandasaconsequenceofthis,thereexistedno
standardizeddialectofthespokenwordorofitsorthography(styleofwriting).Duetothis,whentheQuranwas
revealed,itwasconveyedinvaryingmodesbyGodtoaccommodatethevariousdialectsinexistenceatthattime.
Thus,the
ahrufalQuran
havebeenexpoundeduponinthePropheticSunnahofMuhammadandhasbeen
documentedextensivelybythescholars.Foraquickintroductiontothistopic,seeBr.WaqarAkbarCheemasarticle,

UnderstandingtheSevenAhruf
whichisbasedontheimmenselypopularworkbyDr.TaqiUthmani,
AnApproach
totheQuranicSciences
.Alternatively,someadditionalworkswhichexpounduponthe
ahruf
ormodesoftheQuran
areDr.MuhammadMustafaalAzamis,
TheHistoryoftheQuranicText:FromRevelationtoCompilation
,and
ShaykhSaalihalMunajjids,
TheRevelationoftheQuraninSevenStyles
.

StructureofthePaper

Thetimestampslistedinthispaperarebasedonthevideorecordingprovidedbytheeventorganizers
livestreamlocatedatthefollowinglink:

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/291710/events/3400440

2
IhaveattemptedtotranscribeJaySmithswordsasaccuratelyasispossible
.Duetohisstyleof
oration,atsomepointshisstatementswereincomprehensible.Thisisespeciallynoticeableonce
transcribedinfull.Hisuseofthelinguisticphenomenonknownasspeechdisfluenciesisfrequent,
3
largelyduetohisnotreadingfromapaperbutfromelaboratingonpointsinan
adlib
manner
.

Theformatofhisquotesandtheirtimestampsareasfollows:

Transcribedopeningspeechenclosedbyquotationmarksanditalicised,followedbya
timestampinbold.

1:00
.

Followingthequoteandthetimestamp,IpresentmyanalysisofJaysstatements.

Theexampleofthetimestamppresentedaboveistobereadas1
minute
and00
seconds
.Eachnew
mistakeiswrittenonanewpage,thusleavingsomeemptyspacefollowingamistakesanalysis.This
isnotanerror,andisdonetoaccommodatethecitationsattheendofeachmistake.

Pleasenote,thispaperhasatotalof
53pages
.

RevisionNotes:

Editsweremadeon20.11.14,andassuch,thisisversion2ofthepaper.Thechangesmadeareas
follows:

Page11,Citation#13Minoradjustmenttoargument.
Page12,Mistakes#5&#6Clarificationofdating.
Page36,Mistake#25TypographicalError,thankstoBr.Anna.

2.

3.

Ifanyerrorisnotedinthetranscription,pleasecontactmeviamyemailatyourearliestconvenience:
callingchristians@gmail.com
.Errorsmadearenotintentionalandwillbecorrectedoncethediscrepancyisfoundto
bevalid.Incaseswherehisspeechwasincomprehensible,theseinstancesarerepresentedbyasuccessiveseriesof
periodmarkings.

Asopposedtoreadingwordbywordfromawrittenopeningspeech,JaySmithimprovisesatcertainpoints.
Unfortunatelywhenhedoesthis,asisdemonstratedinthispaper,heeitherexaggeratesclaims,falsifiesstatements
orissueserraticarguments.Atnopointinhisentireopeningspeechdoesheonceprovideuswithasingleusable
citation.Hedoesmentionalotofauthorsnames,andperhapstheonlyworkmentionedbynamewasDr.Dan
Brubakersthesis,IntentionalChangesintheQuran.Otherthanthissoleoccurrence,hedoesnotstatetheworkof
theauthorshementionsdespiteclaimingtohavetheirworksinhishands.HementionsDr.FrancoisDerochebut
doesnotstatewhichworkofhishesourceshisinformationfrom,hementionsDr.Sadeghibutdoesnotstatewhich
paperhetookhisinformationfrom.

AnalysisofJaySmithsAllegationsAbouttheQuran

Mistake#1:

"
Oneoftheproblem'sthatwe'vehadisthatwe'venotreallybeenabletolookattheQur'an.
"
18:22
.

Attheverybeginningofhispresentation,JaySmithattemptstofalselyestablishaconspiratorial
narrativeinwhichheclaimsthattheIslamicworldhasbeentryingtopreventacademicresearchof
4
theQuransextant
manuscripts.Thishowever,cannotbemorethanfurthestfromthetruth.Itis
universallyknownthatthegreatestOrientalistattemptatstudyingtheQuranicmanuscriptswas
undertakenbytheGermansinthe20thcenturyinwhich15,000+photographsweretakenof
Quranicmanuscriptslocatedworldwide,unimpededbytheMuslimworld.Consequenttothis,the
infamoushistoryofthehidingofthesephotographsbyOrientaliststhemselves,isrecordedasfollows:

"Asapreliminaryresulttherewasfinallygatheredacomprehensiblemassofmaterialstored
withBergstrasserinMunich,nottheleastacollectionofabout15,000photographsoffoliosof
veryoldKorancodicesfromallovertheworld.Astheonewhoinheritedthetaskofcontinuing
afterWorldWar2theworkofhisteacherBergstrasser(d.1933)andofArthurJeffery,and
meanwhileasthesuccessortothechairofBergstrasserinMunich,Spitalerspreadtherumor
thatthesematerialshadperishedinthebombattacksonMunichinthelastmonthsofWorld
War2.Stillfurther,inanotefrom1972inapublicationofhis(seeRudiParet[ed.],DerKoran,
Darmstadt1975,p.413)Spitalerfosteredthisrumor.Butnowintheending1990sitcomesout
thathewasinpossessionoftheseapproximately15,000photographsallthetimesince1945,
obviouslytokeepeverybodyelsealooffromtheminordertoreserveexclusivelytohimselfthe
rightandpossibilityofexploitingtheminthehopeofproducingsomethingoutstandingin
Koranscholarshipwhatintheendhewasobviouslyincapableofachieving.Suchbehaviouris
wellknowninthehistoryofscholarshipascharacteristicofmediocrescholarswhonever
developasenseofunselfishscholarshipasmeresearchfortruthbutareorientedsolelyon
theirownpersonalcareerandquestionablefame.""
AChallengetoIslamforReformationby
GunterLuling,Preface,XXI.
"

Atthispoint,thequotethatJayusesatthetimestampof
18:29
isfromShaykhMuhammadMustafa
alAzami's,"
TheHistoryoftheQur'an:FromRevelationtoCompilation,p.315
.Aswillbecomequite
apparent,Jays
modusoperandi
fromthispointonwardistomentionthenameofanauthorandto
4
5
providesomeapparentinformation
basedontheseauthorsworks
,whichwhenexaminedin
relationtowhathehasclaimed,thereappearstobeaconsistentpatternofinventingconclusions,
misrepresentingtheresearchdoneorbymanufacturinginformationoutright.

4.

5.

Whilemakinghisclaims,Jaypresentsabundleofpapersgraspedinhishandsinwhichhestatesthatthe
informationfromtheauthorsheisappealingto,iscontainedwithinthatbundle.However,notoncedoeshegivea
citationfromthatbundleofpapers.Whatisperplexingisthathe
adlibs
h iswaythroughmostofhispresentationand
neverreferencesasinglequotefromthatbundleofpapers.Ifanyonecanprovideaninstanceinwhichhecitesabook
byDr.Derocheandgivesapagenumber,Illbeamazed.Heattemptstoconvincethecrowdthathehasdonehis
researchbywavingthisbundleofpapersaround,butsurprisinglyhecantgiveasinglecompletebook,journalor
thesisreference!

Theliteratureoftheauthorshementionsbyname,patentlydisagreeswithhisclaims.Onehastoask,hasheactually
readtheseworksornot?

Mistake#2:

"
Nowuptillafewyearsagotherewasnotmuchwecoulddoaboutthisclaim,therewasnotmuch
weChristianscoulddooranybodyelsebecausewewerenotgivenaccesstothesemanuscripts.We
couldgototheTopkapiManuscripts,whichistheonethereinIstanbul,theonewhichmostMuslims
wouldlookatastheirstandard.Wecouldn'tgototheSamarkandwhichwasinTashkent,we
couldn'tgototheHusseiniManuscriptswhichwasinCairo.
"
19:48
.

IamquitesurprisedthatheclaimsChristianswerenotgivenaccesstothesemanuscriptswiththe
exceptionofupuntilafewyearsago.Thisisodd,consideringthatoneoftheforemostworksonthe
6
HusseiniManuscriptsinwhichfourfolioswerepublishedwasbyBernhardMortizintheyear1905
.
7
ItisperhapsJaysintentiontobolsterthevalidityofhisconspiratorialidea
,byclaimingthat
ChristiansweredeniedaccesstotheCairomanuscriptsforreligiouspurposes.Hefailstomention
8
however,thattherestrictionwasduetoamajorpoliticalfallout
intheyearsfollowingtheBritish
OccupationofEgyptfrom1882to1953.

HisclaimsaboutthemanuscriptsfromSamarqandareperhapsevenmoredeceitful.TheSamarqand
manuscriptswerestudiedextensivelyinRussia,notUzbekistan,butinthecityofSt.Petersburgin
1891bytheRussianOrientalistA.Shebunin.Thefacsimileeditionofthemanuscriptswaspublished
9
bytheOrientalistS.
Pissareffin1905,alsofromSt.PetersburginRussia.Dr.Saifullahdocuments

thatmanyfoliosfromthecodexhaveappearedinvariousauctionsintheWesternworld.They
appearedin
Americainthe1940's,andwerealsoauctionedoffinLondonin1992,1993and2008.

6.

7.

8.

9.

See,BernhardMoritzs,ArabicPalaeography:ACollectionofArabicTextsFromtheFirstCenturyoftheHidjraTill
theYear1000,1905.

Hisconspiracytheory,aspreviouslystatedisthattheIslamicworldhidthemanuscriptsfromChristianssothatthey
wouldnotbeabletoexaminethem.ThisdespitetheChristianOrientalistworldhavinghadaccesstothemand
publishingworksaboutthosemanuscripts,aswellastakingphotographsofthemsincethe19thcentury.

Icouldbewrong,butaccordingtohistory,thenativesofamilitarilyoccupiednationmaynotnecessarilybe
enthusiastictocooperatewiththeircolonialmasters.IfJayiswillingtoexplainhowtheBritishmilitaryoccupation
ofEgyptdidnotcontributetothelackofcooperationbetweenthenativeEgyptiansandtheircolonialoccupiers,Idbe
willingtogivehimthetimeheneedstojustifyhisreasoning,howeverlongorimpossiblethatmaybe.

See,Dr.Saifullahshistoryofthemanuscriptwithfullcitationsinhisarticle,
TheQuranofUthmanatTashkent
(Samarqand)
.

10

Mistake#3:

"
Itisthose6manuscriptsthatImgoingtozeroinon,itisthosemanuscriptsthatwevefinally,
finallyhadMuslimslookat
."
20:46
.

Doeshemeantheextensivecodifying/cataloguingofthemwhichhasalreadybeendoneforsome
timenow,ordoeshemeanthestudyingandexaminingofthem?It'sobvioustheformerwasdone,
otherwisehowweretheotherbooksin
Mistake#2
compiled?Ifhemeansthelatter,thenthat
alreadyhasbeendoneforquitesometimebyMuslimscholars.Onesuchworkis
Mu'gamalQira'at
alQur'anniya
byAhmadMuhtarUmarandAbdalalSalimMukarramwhichhasgonethroughtwo
editionsinKuwaitandatleastoneprintinginIran.Therewasalso
Mu'gamalQira'at
byAbdal
10
LatifMuhammadHatibpublishedinSyria.

JaythenproceedstorefertoDr.TayyarAltkulaandDr.Ekmeleddinhsanoluwhomhementions
herebutneverreferencesonceduringhisentireopeningstatement.Wemustaskifhehaseverread
11
anyoftheirworksorishesimplymentioningtheirnamesasanappealtoauthority
,healsoforegoes
12
anotherscholarsworkpublishedsince1972.

10.

11.

12.

See,Arabica57(2010),p.415formoreinformationandfullcitationsasprovidedbyDr.Sadeghi.Itsinterestingthat
SmithappealstoDr.Sadeghilaterinthedebate,heevenmentionsthathesreadDr.Sadeghisworks.Ifhehas
indeedreadDr.Sadeghispublishedworks,howcanhepossiblynotknowofthestudiesdonebyMuslimscholarson
thosemanuscriptcollectionswhichDr.Sadeghireferencesandmentionsbynamenumeroustimesinhisjournal
publication?

JaySmithfrequentlymentionsthenamesofthesetwoMuslimTurkishscholars,butnotoncedoeshequotethemor
giveasinglecitationfromthem.Thereisonepointlaterinthedebateinwhichhereferencesthenumber93fromDr.
Derochesworkbutgiveshisownanalysisanddrawshisownconclusions,whichcontradictsDr.Derochesown
conclusions.

See,S.alMunajjids,DirasatfiTareekhalKhattalArabiMundhuBidayatihiilaNihayatalAsralUmawi,1972.

11

Mistake#4:

"
ThisistheearliestmanuscriptswhichMuslimshavebeenclaimingforcenturies.
"
21:49
.

Exceptsince1972whenwe'veclearlystatedotherwise,asIvereferencedabove!Perhapshes
13
unaware
thatinthelasteightyearswe'vebeenradiocarbondatingourmanuscriptsandarenow
claimingthisoftheSana'aamanuscriptsduetoDr.MichaelCook's,
YasinDuttons
,Dr.Behnam
Sadeghis,Bergmanns,Gouzardi's,
AhmadMuhtarUmars
,
AbdalalSalimMukarrams
and
Abd
alLatifMuhammadHatibs
research?

13.

Hecantbeunawareashespentfromthetimestampof
21:09
to
21:49
boastingaboutthecredentialsofjusttwoof
thenumerousscholarswhoareMuslimsandareattheforefrontofthisresearch.Howisitpossiblethathementions
thenamesof(andclaimstohavereadtheworksof)severalnonMuslimOrientalistscholarswhoreferencetheworks
ofMuslimsintheirresearch,onlyforhimtosay40secondslaterthatMuslimshavenotbeenhonestaboutthe
datings?Hehimselffromthetimestampof
21:09
boastsaboutMuslimsleadingtheresearch!Hisveryargumentsare
basedonresearchbeingdonebyMuslims,howthencanheclaimthatMuslimsarentinvolvedinlookingatthese
manuscripts?

12

Mistakes#5&#6:

"
AccordingtoAltkulaandhsanoluthisisamid8thcenturymanuscript,notamid7thcentury.
Soit'saboutanywherefrom60to100yearsafterUthman,it'snotfromthe7thcentury.What's
more,it'snotcomplete.Ithas2,270manuscriptvariantsthatmeanswordsorphrasesinthis
manuscriptwhichmeanswhichdonotagreewiththeCairotext.Soyou'vegotaproblemthere,this
cannotbeUthmanicit'sfromthewrongcentury.
"
21:58.

LetsreadwhatDr.

Altkula

reallysaysaboutthedating.NotethatJaySmithclaimstohavetheir
researchinthestackofpapersinhishands,butrefusestoreadfromtheirresearchandinstead
choosestoparaphraseortogivehisownrecollectionofwhattheyhavesaid.Thisisproblematic
becausetheystateotherwise:

AltkuladatestheTopkapimanuscripttothesecondhalfofthefirstcenturyA.H.andthe
firsthalfofthesecondCenturyA.H.[dueto]vowellinganddotting.(i.e.earlymid8th
century)(Altkula,AlMushafalSharif2007:81)

ThisisablatantfalsificationofdatabySmith,Ibelievehehasconfusedhimself.Hehasunfortunately
manufacturedinformationandattributedittoDr.

Altkula.ThefirstcenturyAHorAfterHijrarefers
totheperiodbetween622CEand722CE,whichissome78yearsintothe7thcentury.Dr.

Altkula
clearlystatesthattheTopkapimanuscriptdatestothesecondhalfofthefirstcentury.Tounderstand
thedaterangeheisreferringto,wecanpractisesomesimplemathematics.Acenturyis100years.
Halfofacenturyis50years.Thiswouldmean,thatthesecondhalfofthefirstcenturybeginsat622+
50years.Fromthis,wearriveat672CE.Thisdate,wouldthenmeanthattheTopkapiCodexsdating
rangeincludessome28yearsinthe7thcenturyCE.ThereforewhenSmithsaysitsnota7thcentury
manuscript,onwhatbasisisheexcluding28yearsofthe7thcentury?See
AppendixA
fora
graphicalrepresentationoftheHijriandGregoriandates.

Inregardtothe2,270variantsbetweentheKingFahd(Cairo)andTopkapimanuscripts,Iwasquite
shockedtoseeJaySmithinventsuchanincredulousclaim.LetsreadwhatDr.

Altkulastatesabout
14
thesedifferences:

Accordingto
Dr.

Altkulahimself,thevastmajorityofthesedifferenceshavetodowiththe
differencesinthespellingofthesamewords.Thisiswhatwerefertoasadifferenceinorthography.
Whatthismeans,isthatthewayawordcanberepresentedinalanguagemayvaryovertimebutit
willcarrythesamepronunciationandthesamemeaning.TheEnglishlanguageequivalentwouldbe

13

theShakespeareanspellingofsonne,whichweknowtodayas,son.Dobothofthesewordshave
thesamepronunciation?Yes.Dobothofthesewordshavethesamemeaning?Yes.AsDr.

Altkula
states,thedifferencesbetweenthewordsarethevariationinspellingofthesameword.

Thereisquiteliterallynootherdifference.Thisthen,encouragesustoaskaveryimportantquestion.
IsJaySmithlyingbyomission?Heunequivocallystatesthathehastheirresearchinhishands.He
proceededtoboastabouttheircredentials.Whythen,ifhehadtheirresearchinhishands,hashe
paraphrasedwhatDr.

Altkulastated,andnotonlythat,liedtwiceinthespaceof10seconds.Why
washeunabletoquoteDr.

Altkulasresearch,readitwordforwordandthenciteit?Thereasonis,
thathemerelywantedtogivetheimpressionthatheisfamiliarwiththeirworkandbecausehe
wantedtodiscredittheQuran.

UnfortunatelyforJay,IhavequotedandfullycitedbothinstancesofwhereJayappealstoDr.
Altkula,butinwhichJayiscompletelyatodds,ifnotblatantlylyingabouttheTurkishscholars
research.CanJaySmithjustifyhisincredulous,incrediblebehaviour?Thesearenotsimplyisolated
instancesofhisdeceit,theseareconsistent,documented,repetitive,habitualactsofintellectual
15,16
fraud
.

14.

15.

16.

TayyarAltikula,AlMuafAlSharif:AttributedToAlib.Abialib,Istanbul:ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,
ArtandCulture,2011,p.102.

Icanconfirmthatin2012JaySmithdidreceivedaPDFeditionofthisworkbyDr.Altikula.Jaysversiononlygoes
uptopage89,whereasthe2011editionIpossessisthecompleteversionandreachespage124.NotonlydoesJay
haveanincompletesource,theportioninwhichthetwoquotesheliesaboutareincludedintheversionhehas,
whichleadsustoconcludehehasintentionallyliedbyomission.

IwouldliketothankBr.AhmedShakerforassistinginthetranslationofsomeportionsofDr.Altikulasworks.His
assistanceinacquiringandverifyinganumberofquotes,andassistinginfactcheckingwasindispensable.Ayoung
brotherwithabrightfutureindeed.MayAllahrewardhimforhisefforts.

14

Mistakes#7&#8:

"
What'smore,it'snotcomplete.
"
22:06.

TheTopkapiCodexcontains408folios,with99%ofthetextoftheQur'an.It'sonlymissing2folios
whicharesupposedtohavecontainedSurah5:78&Surah17:1733(whichareaccountedforinother
contemporarymanuscriptcollections).In
40:08
,hemakestheclaimthattheTopkapiCodexonly
contains78%ofthetextoftheQur'an,onwhatbasisdoeshearriveatthisfigureandhowdoes17
missingversesaccountfor22%oftheQur'an?

Letusreadwhat
Dr.AltikulasaysabouttheTopkapimanuscripts:

TheTopkapiMushaf,whichwasmadefamousbyaclaimthatitbelongedtoCaliphUthman,
waspreservedinlibrariesforcenturiesanditslaststophasbeentheTopkapiPalaceMuseum
Library.Untilweundertookthisstudy,nobodyhadreadorexaminedthisMushaffromthe
beginningtotheend.Wastherereallyaparallelismbetweenthetextofthiscopyandthe
Mushafsthatwerebeingreadinvariouscountriesoftheworld?Nobodycouldanswerthis
question.Towhatextentdidtherulesofreading,whichpassedfromonegenerationtothe
other,conformtoitsspelling?Nostatementwasmadeonthissubject.Allthesequestionswere
takenintoconsiderationwhenwedecidedtoexamineandpublishitandourexcitement
continueduntiltheexaminationofthetextanditswritingonthecomputerwascompleted.
WhenthewritingwascompletedwerealizedthatthisMushafwhichstartswiththesentences
of

andendswith

,andwhichwascopiedaboutthirteen


centuriesago,exactlyconformstotheMushafsthatarereadbyallthosewhoreadtheQuran
throughouttheworld.Tostateitmoreclearly,thecopiesoftheMushafthatarereadtodayare
thesameasthisMushafwhichwascopiedthirteenorfourteencenturiesago.

Thefactthattwofoliosofitaremissingandtheexistenceoftheminordifferencesofspelling
thatarealsoobservedinthespellingofMushafsinvariousperiodsorcountriesdoesnot
contradicttheabovementionedconclusion.Itisnormalthatsuchdifferenceswillbeseenin
textsthatareproducedbythehumanhand.Apparently,theHolyQuranwasprotectednot
onlybytheHafizuns(peoplewhohavememorizedthecompleteQuran)readingand
memorizingbutalsothankstoitsscriptandspelling.Itexistsinthesamewaythatitwas
revealedandrecordedfourteencenturiesago.Thesewrittendocumentsaretheactualand
materialmanifestationsofthedivinerevelationtotheeffectthatBehold,itisWeOurselves
whohavebestowedfromonhigh,stepbystep,thisreminder:and,behold,itisWewhoshall
17
trulyguardit[fromallcorruption]
.

IwonderifJaySmithhadactuallyread
Dr.Altikulasconclusions,wouldhestillhaveappealedto
himasanauthority?

17.

TayyarAltikula,AlMuafAlSharif:AttributedToUthmanBinAffan[TheCopyattheTopkapiPalaceMuseum],
2007,
OrganizationoftheIslamicConferenceResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture:Istanbul
(Turkey),pp.8283.

15

Mistake#9:

"
Thisonetheydatewouldbetheearliestmanuscripttheywoulddateandtheywouldsaythatthe
underscript.....
"
22:36
.

WhatisconfusinghereisthatlaterinhisspeechhewouldrefertoDr.BehnamSadeghiandGoudarzi
18
whoalsodatetheSana'aamanuscriptstothemid7thcentury
.Thatwouldmeanfourscholarshave
examinedthiscodexandhavearrivedatthesamedatingconclusion.However,laterinhisspeechhe
dismissesthedatingofBehnamandGoudarziandattemptstodiscredittheirdatingoftheSana'aa
manuscriptsbyequatingtheradiocarbondatingtowhentheanimaldiedandnottowhenthescript
waswritten.Hewascompletelyoblivioustothefactthatfourscholarswhomhereferredtoas
authoritiesallarrivedatthesameconclusionthroughbothradiocarbondatingandpaleographic
dating.Howthen,canhereferenceallfourofthemasauthorities,usetheirstudiesbutarriveata
completelydifferentconclusionthantheyhave?

Eithertheirstudiesareconclusiveandreliable,whichwouldbethesameoftheirconclusions,orwhat
ismoreprobableisthatJaySmithdoesnotknowwhathesspeakingaboutandquitefrankly,his
statementsarecertainlybeyondincredulous.

18.

See,citation#20in
Mistake#10
.

16

Mistake#10:

"
Theinferiortext,theywouldhavedatedtothelasttwodecadesofthe7thcentury.That'sthetimeof
AbdalMalik,theCaliphwhoruledfrom685to705CE.Thesuperiortext,theoneyoucanread,that
isdatedtotheearly8thcentury,that'swhatthey'resaying.Butthey'reclaimingveryclearlythat
thisalsohasmanuscriptvariants.
"
23:10.

Ihavenoideaifhe'sreadthesejournalsatthispointbecausewhathegivesastheirdatingisdifferent
towhattheyhavegiven.Weread:

"Thelowertextofanisatpresentthemostimportantdocumentforthehistoryofthe
Qurn.AstheonlyknownextantcopyfromatextualtraditionbesidethestandardUthmnic
one,ithasthegreatestpotentialofanyknownmanuscripttoshedlightontheearlyhistoryof
thescripture.Comparingitwithparalleltextualtraditionsprovidesauniquewindowontothe
initialstateofthetextfromwhichthedifferenttraditionsemerged.Thecomparisonsettlesa
perennialcontroversyaboutthedateatwhichexistingpassageswerejoinedtogethertoform
thesras(chapters).Someancientreportsandmodernscholarsassignthiseventtothereign
ofthethirdcaliphandlinkitwithhisstandardizingthetextoftheQurnaroundAD650.
19
However,theanalysisshowsthatthesraswereformedearlier.
"

Howdaftdoyouhavetobe,toincorrectlyquoteadatefromthefirstpageofastudy.Thefirst
paragraph!Itget'sworse....thefollowingtwoquotesarefromthesecondpageoftheirstudy,butfrom
the344thpageofthejournal:

"Theupperlayerofwriting,astandardQurn,couldbefromthefirstorsecondhalfofthe
seventhcenturyAD,andpossiblyevenearlyeighthcentury.Radiocarbondatingassignsthe
parchment,andhencethelowerwriting,tothefirsthalfoftheseventhcentury."

"AccordingtothecollectivememoryofearlyMuslims,theCompanionUtm
n,afterbecoming
caliph,disseminatedaversionoftheholybook,declaringitthestandard.Thedateofthisevent
isuncertain,butitappearstohavetakenplacesometimeduringAH2430,i.e.AD644650.2
ItistothetextualtraditionidentifiedwiththisversionthatalmostallextantQurnic
20
manuscriptsbelong.
"

Asforthedating,Dr.SadeghiconcludeshisfindingssupportadatingtothetimeoftheProphet:

21
"ThefindingsheresupportthelesscommondatingtothetimeoftheProphet.
"

19.
20.
21.

BehnamSadeghi,MohsenGoudarzi,"Sana'aaandtheOriginsoftheQur'an",DerIslam(2012),Vol.87,p.1.

BehnamSadeghi,UweBergmann,Arabica57(2010),p.344.

BehnamSadeghi,UweBergmann,Arabica57(2010),p.346.

17

Mistake#11:

"
Butthey'reclaimingveryclearlythatthisalsohasmanuscriptvariants.
"
23:20
.

Asdemonstratedin
Mistakes#5to#8
,changesinorthographyarenaturalandashasalreadybeen
explainedin
Mistakes#5&#6
,thevariationsinspellingdonotaffectmeaning.Theycarrythe
samepronunciationandthesamemeaning.Anotheralternativeunderstanding,canbedrawnfrom
Dr.SadeghisanalysisinregardtothemodesoftheQuranor
AhrufalQuran
:

"ThemajoritytraditionalscholarlypositionassociatesCompanionQur'answiththeSeven
22
Modes(ahruf)inwhichGodrevealedtheholybook.
"

Manyofthesevariantsarethemeansinwhichthevowelsarerepresented.Whichiscommonin
orthography(howlanguageistranscribedfromoralrecitationtoatextualgraphicalrepresentation).
Wehavetorememberthatthesescribeshadtositdownandthink,howdoIrepresentthissound,
howdoIrepresentthisword,howisthislettertoberepresented.Overtimetherepresentationsor
orthographymaychangeasthedevelopmentofthetextbecomesmorestandardized.Thisdoesnot
affectwhatthetextmeans.Whatmattersisthatwhatiswritten,whenrecitedorconvertedbacktothe
oralrecitation,isthesameastheoralrecitationbeforeitwaswritten.Sowhiletherepresentationmay
change,therecitationdoesnot.

Thisiscommoninalllanguages.AneasyexamplewouldbetheShakespeareanEnglishword,"olde"
whichwenowspellas,"old".Bothhavethesamepronunciationbutdifferentspelling.Other
examplesare"sonne"and"son".Herewehavebothaconsonantalandvoweladdition,buttheoral
pronunciationremainsthesameasdoesthemeaning.LaterinJay'spresentation,hewillclaimthat
theQuranhas800variantsinwhichavastmajorityofthemhaveconsonantalandvoweldifferences.
Howeveraswehavejustlearned,they'reinconsequentialandcommontoeverysinglelanguageonthe
faceoftheearth.Hewillalsoclaimthatthediacriticalmarksorvowelmarkswerenotinventeduntil
centurieslater,exceptforthefactthatthefollowingquotenotonlydisprovesthat,itmakesitquite
clearthatthevowellingfromtheSana'aa'sloweror
scriptioinferior
textalreadyhadvowellingwhich
conformswithourvowellingtraditionoftoday:

"Surprisingly,thelowerscriptonoccasionappearstousewhatarepossiblydiacritics,inthe
formofperfectlyrounddots,tosignifyshortvowelmarks(andpossiblyelidedalifs,i.e.hamzat
alwasl)Thesedotsareinthesameinkastherestofthelowerwritinganddonotappearto
havebeenaddedlater.Inparticular,thewordstahlukaandnusukininStanford07,inKor2,
195and196,appeartohavedotsontheconsonantslm(l)andsn(s)respectively,both
placedatanelevatedlevel,possiblyforindicatingthevowelu(thedammaa).The
vocalizationofbothoftheseletterslaterbecameamatterofdispute.So,itseemsunlikelythat
thedotsareinthesepositionsbychance.Ifthesewordsarevowelled,thismayindicatethat
theywerealreadydeemeddifficultatthetimeofC1.Ineachcase,

thelowerwritingsapparent
23
vowellingagreeswithwhatcametobethemajorityviewoflaterauthorities.
"

22.
23.

BehnamSadeghi,UweBergmann,Arabica57(2010),p.346.

BehnamSadeghi,UweBergmann,Arabica57(2010),p.359.

18

Mistake#12:

"
LetmejustsaysomethingaboutFrancoisDeroche.IknowanawfullotofMuslimsdonotlikehim
becausehe'saWesterner.Bythefactthathe'sFrenchtheydon'tlikehim.Theylikehimevenworse.
NothingagainsttheFrench.
"
24:00
.

Jayhasbeenknowntobeabitrougharoundtheedges,uncouth,crass.WhenIfirstheardhimsay
this,Iwasverymuchoffendedthathe'dhavetheaudacitytosaysomethingsoinsulting.Idecided
maybethiswasaplayontheQuebecFrancospeakingpeoplesinCanadathing,ajokeofsorts.SoI
askedpeoplewhowereintheaudiencethatnighthowtheyperceivedthatstatement.Mostwere
confusedasthey'dneverheardofDerochebeforethatnightandIdon'tblamethem.Unlessyou're
dedicatedtostudyingtheQur'an,it'sunlikelyyou'dknowabouthim.

Sotheirgeneralresponsewasthatthehallwasquietatthattimebecausethenamethrewmostpeople
off.However,whenIaskediftheywerenowoffendedafterreadinghisstatements,bothMuslimsand
Christiansaffirmedthatthiswasanoffputtingandinsensitive,ifnotoutrightnegativeclaimtohave
beenmade.Jayhadmanagedtoinsultquitealargespectrumofpeoplewiththosestatements.
MuslimsinFrance,AlgerianMuslims,MuslimsinCanadaandAmerica,MuslimsintheUK,Liberal
ChristianswhowereMuslimfriendly,Frenchspeakingpersons,andevenme,allthewayinthistiny
Caribbeanislandthathe'sprobablyneverevenheardofbefore.Ithinkit'sonlyfairthatheshould
24
issueanapologyformakingsucharemarkablyinsensitivestatement
.Thishowever,wasnotthe
worstthinghehadsaidthatnight.JaySmithhadmanagedtosaysomethingevenmoreinsulting,for
whichthiswasthewrongforum.Heinessence,usedhisdecorumfromSpeakersCorner(HydePark,
London)duringthisdebate.

24.

WhilethisisnotafactualerrorinregardtohisclaimsabouttheQuran,Ifoundthistobeahighlyinsulting
statementandIbelieveitspresenceinthispaperisjustifiedonaccountofJayslackofacademicdecorum.An
interfaithforumshouldbynomeanshavetoentertainsomeonesointellectuallyirresponsible.Idobelievethe
moderator,StevenRichardMartinsshouldhavesteppedinatthispointandcautionedJaySmith.E&AM,theevent
organizers,shouldreviewthisdebateandlearnfromthisexperience,IamthoroughlydisappointedinSteven.

Itshouldbenotedthatasofthewritingofthisnote(25.10.14),Stevenhasalreadybeeninpossessionofthesevery
commentsofmine,deliveredverbatimfromthispaperinwhichhisresponsewassought.Todate,hehasnotreplied
toorremarkedonthesecomments.Shouldheeventuallydoso,ourconversationandconclusionswithhispermission
wouldbeincludedinanupdatedversionofthispaperviatheappendix.

19

Mistake#13:

"(But)LetmejustsaywhatyoursupervisorDr.WaleedSalehsaidaboutFrancoisDeroche.Thisis
themanyou(Dr.Shabir)gotyourdoctoratefrom.Hesays...FrancoisDerocheisnowthegiantjar
whosehandleswe,thenotsotall,arealltryingtoreach.Ifyouaregoingtorevisetheoutlineof
earlyIslamichistory,youhadbetterfityourtimelinesuppliedbynowDeroche.Forthemanuscripts
tolightbyDerochearenoteasilydismissed,theworkofDerocheissuchthatasithaschangedthe
mannerofdoingQur'anicstudiesbymakingthecodicesthecenterofourresearchontheQur'an.
DerochehasbroughttheQur'anicstudiestoalevelneverbeforeseeninAngloAmerican
scholarship.
"
24:06
.

CommentsaboutDerocheaside(whathesaysofDerocheislargelyagreedupon),whatwasthe
messagethatJaywastryingtoconvey?Wasitafallaciousappealtoauthority,toinvoketheideathat
astudentcannotdisagreewithhisteacherorthatDr.Shabirissomewhatunqualifiedtomakean
informeddecisiononanareaofstudyhehasspecialisedinandearnedhisPhDabout?Maybe,and
I'mjustspeculatinghere,JaymayhavesomepentupresentmenttowardsDr.Shabir.Afterall,
they'vehadquiteatumultuousrelationshipovertheyears.PerhapswhatismosttellingisthatJay
firstmadepublicstatementsabouthisintentiontopursueaPhDin1998whilesharingaplatformfor
adebatewithDr.ShabirinBirmingham(UK).

It'snow2014,Dr.ShabirhasrecentlyreceivedhisPhDwhileJay,some16yearslaterstilldoesnot
haveone.What'sworse,isthattheareathatheclaimstospecializein,isundergreatscrutinybymany
intheinterfaithcommunity.Forexample,wehave
Klingschor'scritiqueandassessmentofJay's
numerousmistakes
25
inalectureherecentlygaveonIslamicOrigins.Klingschorexposeshistales,
hisinventingofquotesandcitingofpapersthatdon'tagreewithconclusions.I'mdoingprettymuch
thesamething,butinlessthan10minuteswealreadyhave13inaccuraciestoreportonthatare
clearlydeceptiveandintentionallyso.Hisabilitytobetruthfulorresponsibleisdefinitelylackingand
leavesmuchtobedesired.

25.

See,
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=picDHvR00Gw
, ProblemswithJaySmith(ChristianCriticofIslam).It
shouldbenotedthatIfullyexpectedJaySmithtorepeatthesillyandfactuallyincorrectallegationshedeliveredinhis
lectureearlierin2014,IslamicOrigins,duringhisdebatewithDr.Shabir.Surprisingly,afewdaysbeforethedebate
IfoundanEvangelistusingsomeofJaysallegationsbasedoninformationfromthe1980s.Informationso
inaccurate,thatifusedagainsttheNewTestament,accordingtoJaySmithsowncriteria,theNewTestamentwould
beinvalidatedanderrant!Seethatdiscussiononmywebsite,
AChatwithMariKaimo
.

20

Mistake#14:

"Nowyoumaynotlikethatquote,butthenyou'regoingtohavetodealwithyourown(PhD)
supervisor,I'llletyoutalktohimlatertoday.
"
24:45
.

Thistoo,iscrassandonlybolsterstheopinionthatJaySmithdoesnotbelongonastagefor
academicstodiscussideasintellectuallyashechoosesandactivelyso,toargueemotionally.Thiswas
averyunnecessarycomment,completelyuncalledforandcertainlybelowthebelt.IfJayhasanaxeto
grindwithDr.Shabir,Isuggesthedoitinprivate,asopposedtoonastagewherescholasticviews
andopinionsareexchangedanddiscussed.Whatwashethinkingmakingsucharemark?He
definitelyneedstoapologizeforhislackofdecorumandprofessionalism.

AsIremarkedin
citation#24
,themoderatoroftheevent,StevenRichardMartinswasvery
irresponsibletoallowJaySmithtorepeatedlymakeremarkssuchasthese.Iwanttobeabsolutely
clear,IamnotbeingpedanticandIamnotnitpicking.Thesewerespecificallychosen,underhanded
statementsthatweremadeforthesolepurposeofprovokingDr.ShabirAlly.Itismyview,thatthe
moderatormishandledthissituationtosuchapoordegree,Iwouldbeverydisappointedifinthe
futurehedidnotcondemnsuchbehaviouronapublicplatform.Hissilenceduringandafterthe
debateinregardtoJaySmithsinciteful,hatefulanddegradingcommentsservesasimplicitsupport
ofJaysbehaviour.

21

Mistake#15:

"
He'ssayingthatthey're(theSana'aamanuscripts)comingfromthe3rdquarterofthe1stcentury,
soyou'retalkingaboutearlytomid8thcentury.
"
24:59
.

Whenhereferstothe1stcentury,hemeansthe1stcenturyoftheMuslimcalendarorAHasthesuffix
isknownas(AfterHijrah).Sothe3rdquarterofthefirstcenturywouldbethe7thcenturyCE(697
CE,tounderstandthecalculationofthesedatessee,AppendixA),notthe8thcentury.Theproblem
26
is,thisisthesecondtime
he'sspecificallysaidearlytomid8thcenturywhenreferringtothe1st
centuryAH.He'squiteintentionallymanipulatingtheconversionofthedatesbetweentheIslamic
(Hijri)calendarandCommonEracalendar.SonotonlydoeshemisquoteandmisinterpretDr.
Deroche,foraspecialistinIslamicapologetics,hedoesn'tevenknowtheyeartheMuslimcalendar
began,whichisveryimportantashe'sbeenconvertingandthrowingarounddatesallnight.

Theproblemhere,isthathelaudeshimselfasaspecialistinIslamichistory.Itwasquitefrankly,
embarrassingformetositallthewayintheCaribbeanlisteningtoJaySmithinCanada,spewing
blatantlyincorrectinformation,thatheshouldhaveknowngivenallofhisdecadesofresearching
andstudyingIslam.

26.

SeeMistakes#5&#6,wherehealsoincorrectlyattributes
Dr.TayyarAltkulasdatingtothe8thcenturyCE,when
heclearlywrote,7thcenturyCE.

22

Mistake#16:

"
Whencomparing(theSana'aamanuscripts)withtheCairoedition,the1924editiontherehave
manywordswhichturnedoutdifferentindifferentways,theyarewritteninascripteddefective,
themanuscriptdifferswiththeCairocanonicalsystemin93places.
"
25:11
.

Itisodd,orperhapsextremelystrangethatheappealstoDerocheinmentioningthefigure93,but
notDeroche'sanalysisofthisfigure.Weneedtoaskyetagain,whydoesJaySmithrefusetoquote
wordforwordfromtheauthorsheappealstoandwhydoeshecontinuetorefusetociteanyofhis
sources.LetsseewhatDr.Derochesays:

"Turningnowtothefiveoreightqira'atsystemsrecordedbySpitaler,Ishallstudytheposition
ofthemanuscriptincomparisonwiththesevariousschoolsinordertoidentifytheschool
whichisfollowedinCodexParisinoPetropolitanus.Inprinciple,thelattershouldbein
completeaccordancewithoneofthem,asituationwhichcanbeverifiedbylookingatthe
placeswheretheschoolsareatvariance,sincetheydisagreeonsomeverseendingsaswellas
consequently,onthenumberofversesintheQur'an.Inthemanuscript,ninetythreecases
aboutwhichsomeschoolshaveaspecificstancearepresent.Onlythirtyeightofthoseare
commonwiththeKufanschool,whichclearlyexcludesanyrelationshipbetweenitsreading
andthatofCodexParisinoPetropolitanus.Conversely,thelattermostagreeswiththeHoms
reading,inseventyfivecasesofthedisputedverseendings.Itisthereforepossibletostatethat
itisvergingtowardsaspecificschool,althoughitcannotbesaidtoreflectitspositionasa
27
whole.
"

Whatistroubling,isthatDeroche'sconclusiondifferswithSmith's.Whereas38&75oftheendings
belongtotwomajorschoolsofthe
qira'at
system(basedonthe
ahruf
oftheQur'aanasexplained
above),andisbasedonexamining
CodexParisinoPetropolitanus
.WefindthatSmithsaysthatDr.
DerochecomparesSana'aawiththeCairomanuscriptsandarrivesatthisfigure.Notonlyhashelied
aboutthepurposeofthefigureanditsmeaning,hehasalsoliedaboutthequote,themanuscripts
beingexaminedandhasfalselystatedthatitisincomparisonbetweentheSana'aaandtheCairo
manuscripts.NeitherofwhichDerochehimselfhasmentionedinthisregard.Thereforeonehasto
ask,howmanytimesdoesJaySmithrefertoanauthorsworkandthenproceedstoinventandfalsify
conclusionswhichhehimselfhasmanufacturedandofwhichcannotbefoundintheauthorsworks?
Thisisnotthefirsttimehehasdonesoandatthispoint,Ihavelostcountatthenumberof
occurrenceswithwhichthishashappened.

27.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.27.

23

Mistake#17:

"
AndthentheSamarqand,theonethatyouclaimisexactlylikeourQur'antoday.Thisonegetsoff
theworst.ThisoneonlygoesuptoSurah43.It'snotcomplete.What'smore,it'sfulloferrors,errors
notmadebythescribe.Namelytheyexistedintheoriginaltext.ItisneitheroneoftheCaliph
'Uthman'scopies,itisdatedtoinhiscasethemid8thcentury,noteventheearly8thcenturyand
therearesixreasonswhythereareproblems.Ithasnodisciplineofspelling,ithasdifferentwaysof
writingthesameword,therearescribalmistakes,copyistmistakeswrittenbyascribewhohadno
writingexperienceandlateraddedsignsafterverses.TheTashkentmushafwasneithertheMushaf
ofCaliphUthmanwasreadingnorwasitthosewhenhewasmartyrednorwasitanyofthemushaf
hesentintovariouscenters,northatwasacopyofitkeptinMadinaforthebenefitofthepeople
."
26:05
.

TheclaimthatitonlygoesuptoChapter/Surah43andisdatedtothemid8thcenturydoesnot
discreditornegatethetexts'importance.It'sstillaveryearlyQur'an.Ifweweretocomparethe
Qur'anwiththeNewTestament,we'dseethattheTashkent/Samarqandmanuscriptsarewithin100
yearsof'Uthman(mayAllaahbepleasedwithhim),whereastheNewTestament'sfullcopiesofthe
Gospelsaredatedtowithin350+yearsofthedisciplesofChrist.Therefore,ifwearegoingtousethe
ageofthemanuscriptsasadiscriminatingfactor,isn't100yearslessthan350+?IfJayrejectstheir
importanceforbeingwithin100years,thenheshouldcompletelyrejectthevalidityandimportance
ofthe4GreatUncialCodices:Sinaiticus,Vaticanus,AlexandrinusandEphraemiRescriptus.

HissixreasonsastowhytheTashkent/Samarqandmanuscriptsareproblematichasleftmeutterly
baffled.Ofthesix"problems",allofthemareorthographicdifferences.PhillipComfortdescribes
orthographyasthefollowing:

28
"Thecorrectwaytowritelettersaccordingtostandardusage.
"

Whatthismeansisthatthewayletters,vowelsandpunctuationmarksarerepresenteddiffer
throughouttheagesastheconversionfromoral/aural(spokenword)totextualgraphical(writing)
takesplace.Thatmeansonescribecanuseonemeansoforthographyandanotherscribecanuse
anothermeans.Whatmattersisthatwhenthetextualgraphicalillustration(writing)isconverted
(readandspoken)totheoralform,itreadsthesameasbeforeitwasconverted.Ipreviouslygave
someEnglishexamplestoclarifythispoint."Sonne"inShakespeareanEnglishispronouncedthe
sameas"Son"inmodernorcontemporaryEnglish.Thewaythewordsarewrittenmaydiffer,but
theyarepronouncedthesameandcarrytheexactsamemeaning.Asimplerdefinitionoforthography
isasfollows,"
amethodofrepresentingthesoundsofalanguagebywrittenorprintedsymbols
"
TheFreeDictionary
.

Jay'sproblemswhichwere:nodisciplineinspelling,differentwaysofwritingthesamewordand
addedsignsafterverseswouldbeorthographicdifferences.Theycarrythesamemeaningandthe
samepronunciation.Icanwriteacomma10differentways,it'sstillgoingtobeacomma.Icanwrite
aperiod/fullstopmanydifferentways,it'sstillgoingtomeanthesentence,phraseorstatementends
here.Samewordbutdifferentspellingorthographicdifference.Signstoshowaversehasended
orthographicdifference.Noneofthese"problems"areproblems.Asforthescribal/copyistmistakes,
didn'tJayexplainthathimself?Heclearlystatedthatthemanuscriptswerewrittenbyascribewith
noexperience.It'sabitstrangethatheactssurprisedthatanuntrainedscribemadecopying
mistakes.It'sabitlikebeingsurprisedthataninexperienceddriverhasproblemswithdriving,oran
inexperiencedboxerhavingproblemswhileboxing.MaybeI'mwrongtoassumethatJayknowswhat
thephrase"
noexperience
"means.What'smostimportantthough,isthatweknowthescribemade
mistakes.Sinceweknowthemanuscriptshavemistakes,thenweknowit'snotrepresentativeofthe
canonoftheQur'an.TosimplifywhatI'mtryingtosay,considerthatJackandJohnarebothtoldto
copyanessay.Jackspellstheword
apple
as"appel",whileJohnspellsitas"apple".Ifweknowthat
Jackmadeamistake,thenweknowhiscopyoftheletterisnotrepresentativeoftheoriginal.
Knowingthatamistakeexists,impliesthatweknowthatitisnotwhattheoriginalsaid.Amistake
wouldmeanthatanerrorhasbeenmade.Bytheveryfactweareabletostatethatthescribemadea
mistake,thenweknowwithcertaintythathismistakeisnotrepresentativeofwhattheoriginal
lookedlikeorwhatthewordshouldbespelledlike.Giventhatwehavemanuscriptsbeforeand
contemporarytothetimetheSamarqandmanuscriptswerewritten,wecansaywithcertaintywhere
thescribemadeanerrorandwhatthecorrectversionwouldlooklike,hencetherearenoproblems
withthiscollectionofmanuscriptsatall.

Atthispoint,itbecomesimportanttomentionthatnoteverycodex(collectionofmanuscripts)isa
canon(setofwritingswhicharedeemedtobeauthoritative).Manyofusownthoselittlebooklets

24

withjustthefourgospelsinthem,thisisacodex(acollection)ofasubsetofthecanon.Inthecaseof
theQur'an,JaylooksatthiscodexandsaysthecanonoftheQur'anonlygoesuptoSurah43.Inother
words,hetakesasubsetandsaysitisrepresentativeofthewhole,insteadofadmittingitisasubsetof
thecanonandismerelyasmallercollectionofselectSurahs.Tothinklikethis,wouldmeanthatJay
purchasesoneofthoselittlebookletswithjustthefourgospelsandthenproclaimsthattheNew
Testamentiscomprisedofjustthesefourwritingsalone.Obviouslytothinklikethiswouldbe
intellectuallydishonestandthisiswhatJaydoes!Surprisingbehaviourforamanwhoclaimstobe
educated!

28.

PhillipComfort,EncounteringtheManuscripts(KindleLocation11336),KindleEdition,(19072010).

25

Mistake#18:

"
Whenwelookatthepalimpsestaswementionedearlier,theunderscript,possiblythebestwork
beingdoneonthepalimpsestcomingoutofSana'aa.IfIcouldputupapictureofithere,righthere,
herewecouldseetheunderscript.Whenyoulookattheunderscriptyouwillsee,itdoesnotagree
withtheoverscript.Whentheyputitunderultravioletlight,theyhavenowfoundthatthey'retwo
differentscriptsshowingthatthere'sanevolutionbetweenthelasttwodecadesofthe7thcentury
andthefirsttwodecadesofthe8thcentury.There'sevolutioninthose10to20years.Accordingto
SadeghiandGoudarzi,itisclearthatthesefalloutsideofthestandardtypetext,andisfroma
differenttextualtypetraditioncompletely.Dr.ElizabethPuinwho'sdoingthestandardwork,
probablydoingthemostoriginalworkonthepalimpsest,herconclusion,it'sacompletelydifferent
Qur'an,nottheQur'anwehavetoday.
"
27:00
.

It'simportanttonotethatnotonceistheterm"evolution"usedbySadeghiorGoudarzi.Thisisa
figmentofJay'simaginationandI'dgladlyrequestthathecitewhereeitherofthemhavestatedthis
intheirstudy.Whattheyactuallysaid,isasfollows:

"Thereareseveralpossibleexplanationsforwhytheleavesoftheoriginalmanuscriptwere
reusedtoprepareanewone.Theoriginalcodexmayhavebeenwornoutduetoextensiveuse
overanumberofdecades.Justhowquicklythepageswerewornoutwoulddependonhow
oftenthemanuscriptwasused,somethingthatwearenotinapositiontoknow.Inaddition,
theorthographicandpaleographicdifferencesbetweenthetwolayersareconsistentwiththeir
beingseparatedbyaperiodlongenoughforthecodextohavebeenwornout:thoughboth
scriptsareijz,theupperwritingismorecompact,usesmorealifs,andusesmoredotsfor
29
distinguishingtheconsonants.

This"
evolution
"didnothappen,andthechangeswhichoccurredwereduetothedevelopmentof
Arabicorthography,amorestandardizedwayofrepresentingtheArabiclanguageinwriting.The
changestherefore,arenotduetotheQur'anbeingchanged,versesbeingtakenoutorSurahsbeing
takenoutoraddedin.Thechangesareduetoorthographicdevelopmentandstandardization,thisis
clearlywhatSadeghiandGoudarziaresaying,bytheirownwords!TheonusisthereforeonJayto
explainhiserraticanddeceitfulstatements.Theyhavealsoexplainedwhattheymeantbystandard
texttype:

"ManyreportsimplythelegitimacyofIbnMasdscodexorotherCompanioncodices.Even
30
someofthereportsthatexpresspreferenceforthestandardtextdoso.
"

Thisrefersto
theahruformodesoftheQur'aan
aspreviouslymentioned:

"OneideathatseemstohavebeeninfairlywidecirculationalreadyinthefirstcenturyofIslam
wasthattheQurnwasrevealedinSevenModes(sabataruf).31
"

WhenJayclaimsthatDr.ElisabethPuinhasallegedlystatedthattheSana'aaunderscriptisa
completelydifferentQur'an,itisimportanttonotethatshehassincerecantedthoseviewsandnow
affirmsthesameviewasSadeghihimself,weread:

"Beginningin2008,nineteenyearsafteralltheparchmentmanuscriptsinanhadbeen
restored,inthreesuccessivearticlespublishedattherateofoneperyear,ElisabethPuin(the
wifeofGerdRdigerPuin)transcribedthelowertextofthreeandahalffolios(folios2,5,6A,
and20).Herfirstessay(2008)mentionedthepicturestakenrecentlybyS.NojaNosedaand
addedthattheymightbepublishedsoon.Thetranscriptionsarepositivecontributions,though
thearticlesarenotfreefromerrors.Inthethirdarticle(2010),shestatesviews(notfoundin
herfirsttwoessaysandpresentedwithoutjustification)thatmirrortheconclusionsofSadeghi
andBergmannsCodexessay.Shetherebymovesawayfromtheprevailingrevisionist
32
outlookoftheauthorsintheInrahseriesinwhichherprevioustwoarticlesappeared.
"

WhatwasSadeghi'sconclusion?HestateshisviewinaccordancewithDr.MichaelCook'sstudy,he
says:

"Cooksinvestigationofthelistofskeletalmorphemicvariationswhich,accordingtoearly
scholars,distinguishedtheUtm
niccodices,allowedhimtoreconstructthegenetic
relationshipsbetweenandamongthecodices.Thevariationsamongthecitiesfollowstrikingly
regularpatterns.Forexample,thecodexofMedinahasnovariantthatisuniquetoit.Some
variantsbelonguniquelytoitandSyria,andothersuniquelytoitandBasra.Butitneveragrees

26

withKfaagainstSyriaorBasra.Whensuchpatternsaretakenintoconsideration,theupshot
isthatofthewellover100conceivablestemmatathatcoulddescribewhichcodexwascopied
fromwhich,onlyseveralcloselyrelatedonesfitthedata,andamongthesesomearemore
probablethanothers.Ontheonehand,thegreatregularityofthepatternsrequiresan
explanationotherthanchance,and,ontheotherhand,itisdifficulttoexplainwhythetextsfit
thisveryspecificsetofstemmataifnotasaresultofhavingemergedinaccordancewithoneof
them.Cookarguesconvincinglyagainstthepossibilitythatthedescriptionsofthesecodices
wereforgedbypointingoutthatthevariantsoffourcitiesshownosignof
crosscontamination.Tocreatetheappearanceofnoncontaminationwouldhaverequired
skillsthatthescholarsdidnothave,namelyknowledgeofthelogicofstemmata.Fromthis,
Cookinfersthatwehavetodowithgenuinetransmissionsfromanarchetype,thusshowing
thecorrectnessofthereportsabouttheregionalcodices.Thehistoricityofthereceiveddata,in
turn,isatestimonytothecontinuingaccuracyofthetransmissionofthevariantsinthe
33
qirtliterature.
"

AccordingtoSadeghiandCook,theSana'aapalimpsestsunderscriptisanaccuratetransmissionof
the
qira'at
oftheQur'an,whichisbasedonthemodesofrecitation(
ahrufalQuran
).Heconcludes
thatwehaveanarchetypemanuscriptoftheQur'an,whichmeansthatitisfromthisSana'aa
underscriptthatmanyothercopiesoftheQur'anwerewrittenaccurately.Shockedbytheaccuracy
Dr.Cookdescribesthemultiplewitness,yetsimultaneoustransmissionashaving,"
strikinglyregular
patterns
",thatitisnotduetochance,"
thegreatregularityofthepatternsrequiresanexplanation
otherthanchance
"andthatthisis,"
difficulttoexplainwhythetextsfitthisveryspecificsetof
stemmataifnotasaresultofhavingemergedinaccordancewithoneofthem
".Notbychance,
accurate,masstransmittedwithindependentchainsoftransmission,alltheseclaimsoftheQuran,
leadhimtoconcludethattheQur'anwasaccuratelytransmittedandthatthetraditionalIslamic
historyoftheirtransmissionwas,"
atestimonytothecontinuingaccuracyofthetransmissionofthe
variantsintheqirtliterature."

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

BehnamSadeghi,MohsenGoudarzi,"Sana'aaandtheOriginsoftheQur'an",DerIslam(2012),Vol.87,p.27.

ibid
, p.28.

ibid
, p.29.

ibid,pp.1213.

BehnamSadeghi,UweBergmann,Arabica57(2010),p.368.

27

Mistake#19:

FoggsPalimpsest,whenyoulookat.andFoggsfalimps.youcanfindithasomissions,
differentwords,wordsequences,orthographicalvariants,readingerrorsandcorrections.
Certainlythisisnotacompletetext.

28:02
.

Aspreviouslyexplained,variationsinthepresenceandabsenceofwordsandwordsequencesaredue
34
tothemodesor
ahruf
oftheQuran
asrevealedtotheProphet

.The
ahruf
areclassifiedand
35
categorizedasfollows:

Oftheseoneswhoseenlistmentisthemostconcise,wellarrangedandfirmlyestablishedis
ImamAbdulFadlRazi.Accordingtohim,VariationsinRecitaloftheQurandependonseven
kinds:

1. Variationsinnouns:
Thisincludesdifferenceinnumberandgendere.g.

hasalsobeenreadas

2. Variationsinverbs:
Thesameverbisreadinthepast,presentorfuturetense,orasan
imperative,forexample
hasalsobeenreadas
.

3. Variationsinthepositionofdiacriticalmarks:
ThereisavarianceinIrabthekasrah,

fathah,dammah:

becomes

and

becomes

4.
Variationscausedbyomissionsandadditions:
Thereisanextrawordinareading

whichisnotfoundinanother.Forexample

becomes

5. Variationsinplacementofwords:
Awordprecedesinareadingwhileitfollowsin
anothere.g.

becomes

6.
Variationscausedbyreplacementofwords:
Thereisawordinonereadingbutquite
anotherwordintheotherreadinge.g.

becomes

and

becomes

and

becomes

7.
VariationofAccent:
Itrestsroundchangesintafkhim,tarqiq,imalaha,qasr,madd,
hamz,izharandidgham(e.g.MusareadwithimalahbecomesMusay).

Withthishavingbeenexplained,thesevariationsareexpectedandthereforenormalwithinthe
Quranictradition.Inregardtoorthographicdifferencesandscribalmistakes,thesetoohavebeen
previouslyexplainedatlength.Orthographicaldifferencesdonotaffectmeaninginanywayand
scribalmistakesor
lapsuscalami
caneasilybedetectedassuchandrectifiedasslipsofthepen(or
hand).ImuncertainastothepurposeofJaysstatementthatthisisnotacompletetext.Foggs
palimpsestareonlytwoleavesofamanuscript.Twoleaves.Obviouslythisisntanentirecodex.It
escapesmeastowhatconclusionhewasattemptingtodrawhere.

34.
35.

See
citation#1
formoredetailedinformationandfurtherresources.

ThisversionofthequotefromMuftiTaqiUthmanis,
AnApproachtotheQuranicSciences
isacombinationof
Br.
WaqarstranslationfromUrdutoEnglish
andfromtheofficialEnglishtranslationofthebook,
pp.115116(2000)
byDarulIshaatPublishers
. TheofficialEnglishtranslationhasafewtypographicalerrorswhichcomplicatethe
Englishtranslationmorethanisnecessary.Br.Waqarstranslationfixesthesefewembellishmentswithoutaltering
theworksaccuracyinanyway.AlinktotheofficialEnglishtranslationhasbeenprovidedshouldanyonehavethe
needtoauthenticatethepassagequoted.

28

Mistake#20:

Soeveryonethatwevelookedat,thesixmajormanuscripts,everyoneofthemsofarhasbeen
foundtobefraudulent.

28:17
.

Wehaventlookedatsixmanuscripts,wevelookedatseveralcodicesandafewindividual
manuscripts.ThisisabitembarrassingasJayissupposedtobecommentingonthetextuallegacyof
theQuran,buthisineptitudeissogreat,hehimselfdoesnotseemtocomprehendwhatexactlyhes
beendiscussing.Thereisasignificantdifferencebetweensixmanuscriptsandsixmanuscriptcodices
(collections)anditisquiteunfortunatethathesignorantofthisfact.Itisakintostatingthatonehas
readthreeindividualpages,whenonemeanstosaytheyvereadtwobooksandapamphlet,itis
highlyimpossibletoconfusepageswithentirebooksandpamphlets.Thisis,quiteunfortunatelya
verytellingstatementofJaysincredulousandpretentiousclaims.

Iamatalosttointerpretwhathemeanttoconveybyclaimingthesemanuscriptcollectionswere
fraudulent.Noneofthesecollectionsareforgeriesormanufactured,assuch,Iambewilderedbythis
statementofhisandItakethistomeanthatheissimplyspeakingoutofignoranceordeceit.

29

Mistake#21:

Andhelookedatthetenoftheearliestmanuscripts,andhedidhisresearchjustontheseten
manuscripts.Hisresearchisgoingtobepublishednextyear.IntentionalChangesintheQuran,is
thetitleofhisresearch.Younotice,intentionalchanges,andwhathehasdonehehaslooked
at.gonetoeveryoneofthemanuscriptsof.intheonesIvejustlookedout,uhhhreferredto,and
heslookedfortheseintentionalchangesandhesfound6differentkindsofchanges.Hesfound
tapingswheretheyveputtapingsovercertainwords,blockingitout,patchesthatappeartobe
servingsomeotherpurposethantorepairthepagesitself.Hehasfoundhundredsandhundredsof
insertions,herearesomeoftheexamples,causehesnowfound800ofthesecorrectionsinthese
manuscripts.Whereyoufindaninsertion,apostproductioninadditiontothetext,addingittothat
whichwasoriginallythere.Healsofounderasures,wheretheyveactuallyerasedpartofthetext.
Intentionalremovalofthetextfromthepage.Hundredshehasfound.Erasureswithoverwritten,
theyhaveeraseditandtheyhavewrittenovertopofit.Heresissomeexampleshere.

28:42
.

ThefirstpageofDansthesis,theveryfirstpage,intheintroduction,intheveryfirstparagraphhe
statesthathellbeutilizingelevenQuranictextualwitnesses.Notten,buteleven.ThusbeginsJays
disastrousforayintoDansthesis,inwhichhecantevengetwhatswritteninthefirstparagraph
36
accurate.Danstates
:

Thematerialinthefollowingpages,then,contributestoknowledgeabouttheearlyhistoryof
theQuranintheyeararoundandfollowingtheArab/Muslimconquestsofthefirstcentury
AH/seventhcenturyADbycataloguinganddiscussinginstancesofintentionalchangein
elevenoftheearliesttextualwitnesses,theQuranmanuscriptsthemselves.

OnewouldbeledtobelievebyJaysstatementsthatthesearemagnificentintentionalchanges.He
givesanumberofcategoriesofchangesandasignificantnumberoftheminthefigureof800but
stopsshortofeverproducingasingleexample.Thisisverytelling.Onreviewingtheaudioatthetime
stampgiven,Jayproceededtogivesomeexamples,butwhenhepickedupthepaper,heplacedit
downagainandcontinuedwithoutgivingasingleexample.Thisthenimpliesthattherewas
apprehension,andforgoodreason.WhatJaywasclaimingofthechangesandwhatDanhadnoted
weretwocompletelydifferentthings.LetslookatsomeofDansstatementsfromhisconclusionin
histhesis:

Wealsoknowthatthesemanuscriptshavesignsofboththedevelopmentandincreasing
37
precisionofawrittenorthographyoftheArabic...

Oftheseintentionalchanges,heprimarilynotesorthographicvariantsofthevowels:

Correctionsinvolvingtheaddition,removal,orexchangeoftextualelementsinQuran
manuscriptsarenotuncommon.CorrectionsproliferateinthesetenearlyQuransandalsoin
thefragments.Onefrequenttypeofcorrectionsinvolvestheadditionorremovalofthelong
vowelsthatservedasmatreslectionisbutwhoseorthographyfollowedaprocessof
38
standardization

Styleandaestheticalterationsforbeautificationpurposesalsocountasintentionalchangesaccording
toDan:

Stylistically,thereisawiderangeofwaysthatcorrectionsweremade.Insomecases,great
carewastakentomatchthefeaturesandstyleoftheoriginaltextofthepageatothertimes
littlesuchcarewastakenandtheonlyconcernofthecorrectorisconformingthepagetoa
standard,largelyabsentaestheticconcerns.Attimes,aestheticconcernswererelatively
39
impossibletoaddressduetoavailablespaceorotherfactors.

Interestingly,DanquotesSmallsdefenseoftheQuranicpreservationbyrelayingacontradictory
analysisthatquiteasignificantnumberoftheintentionalchanges(accordingtoDan)inthe
manuscriptsstudiedwereactuallyunintentional(accordingtoSmall)andduetoscribalmistakes
whilecopying,followedbythescribesselfcorrectionofthesemistakes.Theseintentionalchanges
werethen,ascribescorrectionwhilecopyingitthemselves:

SmallfindsthatthemajorityofvariantsintheQuranmanuscriptsarelikelytohavebeen
unintentional,Therearemanydifferentkindsofinadvertanterrorsofsightandhearing.
Thereisanapparentconcernforaccuracyinscribalhabitsinthatmanyofthesewere
corrected.Also,thesewereusuallyeasilydetectedandevaluatedbecausetheyoftenresultedin

30

awordfromthatwasnonsensicalorhadclearlyrepeatedlettersormisplacedpunctuation.
Thisfindingseemstoholdtrueinageneralsenseregardingthechangescataloguedinthis
40
dissertationagoodnumberappeartohavebeenmadebytheoriginalscribe.

Wevearrivedataconundrum.TheverypurposeofDansthesisandJaysuseofitwasto
demonstratethattheQuranhadintentionalmajorchanges.UnfortunatelyforbothDanandJay,
Dansownanalysisrelegatesmuchofthesechangestobestylistic,aestheticandorthographicin
nature.Furthermore,weseeDansconcessionthatamajorityoftheseintentionalchangesweredueto
unintentionalmistakes(lapsuscalami)bythescribethemselveswhileintheprocessofcopyingand
thesechangeswerethescribesowncorrectionoftheirmistakes.Thus,Dansthesisnotonlynegates
itsallegedhypothesis,byhisownanalysishesdebunkedJaysgreatlyinflatedclaims.Thisexplains
whyJayrelatednotasingleexampleofintentionalchangeandrelegatedhimselftosolelymentioning
thetypeofchangesandnotwhatwaschangedinandofthemselves.

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.1(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.297(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.299300(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.300(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.307308(2014).
ThereisatypographicalerrorbyDanwhichIveleftintactforthesakeofbeingtruetomyquotingandreferencingof
hiswork,hemeanttowriteinadvertent.

31

Mistake#22:

Theseareallavailable,Icangetthem,Icangivethemtoyouifyouwantthem.Overwriting
withoutanapparentreason,theyjustoverwrotewithouteven,noteventryingtoeraseit.Selective
coverings,coveringsasacategoryofintentionalchangedirectlyovertheportionsofthetext.
Selectivecoveringsthatarethenoverwritten.Thesearefascinating,thesehesfound10sin10sin
10s,hewasexpectingmaybetofindoneortwoorthree.Hefoundover800andthosearejustthe
oneshespublishedinhisthesis.Theseisinterestingbecausetheyhavenotonlytheyarecoveredit
overtheyarethenwrittenovertop.Wewouldliketotakeoffthecoveringandseewhatisthatthey
censored.Causeobviouslythesemanuscripts,theearliestmanuscriptswerenotthesameorarenot
thesameastheQuranwehavetoday.Heresacasewheretheyaremultiplechangesinjustone
page.

30:25
.

UnfortunatelyforJay,theyareavailableandtheresareasonheofferstoprovidetheexamplesbut
nevergivesone.Ivechosenthisquoteintentionallybecauseheraisesasheetintotheairduringthe
finalsentenceandclaimsthatthisisevidentialofhisclaims.Sadly,hedidnotreadwhatthose
changeswereforthereasonsoutlinedpreviously,theysimplywerenotofanysubstance.Wecansee
thatheonceagainengagesinbravadoandsignificantlyoverstateswhatthesestylistic,aesthetic,
orthographicandscribalcorrectionswere,bystatingthesemanuscriptsprovethattheQuranthenis
notthesameastheQuranoftoday.ThisclaimisevidentlyfalsegivenwhatIvepresentedofDans
ownanalysisabove,whichleadsustoask,hasJayactuallyreadDansthesis,andwhosefaultisitthat
JayismisrepresentingDansstudy?Isthisdisasterofapresentation,duetoDansfailureto
accuratelyconveywhathehaswrittentoJay,inwhichcaseDanwouldberesponsibleforthisparody
ofanintellectualdiscourse?

LetsreadforourselveswhatthesechangeswerefromDansthesis,whichaswewilllargelyseeisdue
totheorthographicvarianceofthesingleletter,
alif
:

Asecondexampleofapagewithseveraltypesofchangeisfoundon6rorF340whichhasfive
instancesoftextualalterationcomprisedofthreetypes:insertion,erasure,anderasurewith
overwriting.Thefirstistheadditionofan
alif
squeezedinandslightlyabovethemaintexton
line6,itistheinitial
alif
ofthe
awliyaa
(companions)ofQ4:89,whichwasapparently
41
missingfromthetextasoriginallywrittenhere.

42
OnF327,page7v,thereisaninsertionofa
lamalif
ateritsomissionatthefirstwriting.

OnF328,5v,thereisaninsertionofanalif,withslightlynarrowernib,differenthand(angle
43
ofwriting)andinkonthefinallineofthepage.

OnF328,page74v,lines19and21bothcontaininsertionof
alifs
.44

45
Thesecond,amidwordinsertion,isthefirstalifof
mala
(somemoney)ofQ11:29.

OnF330,page3r,nearthebeginningofline4,thereisaninserted
alif
.46

OnF330,3v,atline5thereisaninsertionof
alif
inredinkandwithamuchnarrowernib
47
thanisusedinthemaintextofthepage.

On069052B.BMP,thereisaninsertioninthemiddleofthefifthlineofthetext.Thisisthe
48
initial
alif
of
uswa
(anexampleof)ofQ60:6.

Atthispoint,ImtryingtodistributethechangesthatDangivesinthethesisfromvariantintervals,to
demonstratethatthenonissueofanalifchangeispresentthroughouttheentirethesisandnot
simplyamisrepresentationbyme:

InF1924,thereisadagger
alif
atthispointinthepage.Thisistheonlysuchcorrection
apparentonthispage,andthereareotherplacesonthispagethatcontaindagger
alifs
in
49
F1924butarenotcorrectedinsuchawayinthismanuscript.

In096086B.BMP,thetwoinstancesofthenameinQ2:9798havebeenchangedto
bytheinsertionof
alif
.50

Ithasbeenwritteninsuchawaythatwhatisnowtheinitial
alif
ofthedefinitearticlebefore
thefollowingword,whichisattheendofline17,hasbecometheinitial
alif
of
ila
,withthe
lam

32

alif
beingnowinsertedintheleftmarginafterthisline,andthenewdefinitearticle
alif
then
51
beingwrittenintherightmarginofline18.

Itisnotquiteclearwhathappenedhereitdoesnotappearthatthelong
alif
wasoriginally
writtenhere,sincealigaturethatappearstobeoriginalconnectsforwardtothefinal
ta
marbuta
.52

Again,erasuremarksareclear,andagapof2cmremains,indicatingthisasacorrectionmade
afterthepagehadbeenwritten.Inthiscase,however,theremovalofthe
alif
isinlinewith
53
todaysacceptedtextatthispoint.

54
OnF331,page52v,thereisanerasureofan
alif
atline11,leavingat2cmgap.

55
OnF340,27v,therearetwoerasuresof
alifs
,leavinggapsatline10.

Erasuremarkscanbeseenoncloseexamination.Two
alifs
andone
lam
ofthelinebelow
havebeenextendedupwardtoapparentlyfillsomeofthisspaceandmakethegapless
56
conspicuous.

Thelong
alif
originallywrittenbetweenthe
waw
andthefinal
dal
appearstohavebeen
57
rubbedoutorerased,andanewlong
alif
placedaftertheinitial
dal
instead.

58
Italsoappearstoconvertan
alifmaqsura
toanupright
alif
F1924hastheformer.

Itseemsmostreasonabletoconsiderthatthiswasarestorationofafadedtext,butitlooks
morelikeerasurewhenexaminedcloselysoitisverydifficulttosaywhatprecipitatedthis
event.Exceptfortheupright
alif
attheendofitsfirstword,whichisan
alifmaqsura
in
F1924,thiscorrectionhasresultedinaCSTthatisinconformityatthispointwiththatof
59
F1924.

Erasuremarksareclearandtheshapeoftheerasuresuggestsanalif,thisalsoappearstobea
60
correctionsimilarinnaturetothoseseenelsewhereonthispage.

Ivethuslisted20casespresentthroughoutthethesis,inwhichanintentionalchangeconsistsofthe
rewriting,erasureorinclusionoftheletter
alif
.

41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,pp.5758(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.62(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.63(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.64(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.64(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.65(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.65(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.91(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.92(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.92(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,pp.99100(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.121(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.127(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.128(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.132(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.133(2014).

33
57.
58.
59.
60.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.143(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.171(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.180(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.202(2014).

34

Mistake#23:

Sowhatarehisconclusions?Whenyoulookatthemanuscriptsbetweenthe8thand9thcentury,
youcanseethatDr.BrubakersaysthereisamovementoftheQuran,towardsastandardizedtext.
Thatcontinuesrightupuntilthe9thcentury,rightupuntilthe800s.Muhammaddiedin632CE,so
thiscontinuesforalmost200years.Thecanonhesuggestsisnot656,orUthmanstime.He
suggestsitsclosertothe9thcentury.The800changesaretheyarefoundcorrections,removingor
addingthelongvowel,correctionsbytheoriginalscribe,correctionsthatsuggestmovement
towardsastandardize,therewerecorrectionssometimesstartedorselectedtotrytoconformtothe
1924text.Styleandstickconformtothepagesstandard,withoutandanyaestethicconcernsand
goesonandonandon.Imnotgoingtogothrough,thewholelistofwhathesdone.Youllbeableto
readitnextyear.
30:58
.

Thereisamovementtoastandardizedorthography,orasJayinsistsoncallingit,amovement
towardsastandardizedtext.Indeed,thisdevelopmentoforthographydevelopedthroughoutthe8th
and9thcenturiesasmorescribesbegantocopytheQuranwhichledtoeffortsofstandardizingthe
Arabiclanguagesorthography.ImafraidatthispointthatJayconfusesthedevelopmentofhow
lettersandpunctuationmarksarerepresentedwiththecanonoftheQuran.Thechangein
orthographydidnotbringnew
surahs
(chapters)oradditionalnumbersof
ayat
(verses).Thechange
broughtvariationinhowtheArabicletterof
alif
wasused,asdemonstratedbytheover20examples
givenpreviously.

The800changesarecorrectionsofmostly
alifs
,removing
alifs
andadding
alifs
,andcorrectionsby
thescribeaftertheymademistakesincopying.Indeed,allofthissuggestsmovementtoonestandard
typeoforthography.Fortunately,wevealreadygonethroughanextensivelistofwhatDanscompiled
andviewedhisconclusions,thisyear.Jaycanwaitfornextyear,butthisyear,wepossessthework.

35

Mistake#24:

ThereforeagreeingwithAtikulicwhosaid,thereisnotonecompanioncodicethathehasreached
thatwaswithoutcorrections,noristhereonemanuscriptthatisevennearmatchtotherecording
reportedreadingofanyoneofthecompanions.Therecannowbenodoubtthatalltheextant
manuscriptsoftheQuranhaveundergonesomealterationandthatthesimplestandardizationof
orthographyorthetechnologyofwrittenArabicisinsufficienttoexplaineveryinstanceofthis
alteration.Thematerialevidenceintheformofmanuscriptpresentations.uh..presentaccording
toBrubakerchallengestothetraditionalnarrativessuggestingaprocessofstandardizationof
writtenQuranstookplaceoveramuchlongerperiodoftimeandnotjust18years.
31:57
.

Itisindeedtruethatitsimpossibletofindacompanioncodexwrittenonpapyriduringanageof
developmentalorthographywhichdoesnotposseschanges.Theonlyeventinwhichthatwouldbe
possibleisifthescribehadaXeroxmachine,aphotocopier,aprintingpressorsomemoreadvanced
writingmaterialthanfragileandeasytowearpapyri.Hisappealtosuchananachronistic,ignorant,
ahistoricalandintellectuallydishoneststatementbringsintoquestionJaysstudyofmanuscriptuse
intheearlymedievalperiod.Heisquitehonestlyattemptingtoargueusing21stcenturywriting
standardsofwhichnotasingletextualcritichaseverattemptedtouseinthehistoryofthisscience.
LetusremindourselvesofwhatDr.
Altikula
hassaid:

TheTopkapiMushaf,whichwasmadefamousbyaclaimthatitbelongedtoCaliphUthman,
waspreservedinlibrariesforcenturiesanditslaststophasbeentheTopkapiPalaceMuseum
Library.Untilweundertookthisstudy,nobodyhadreadorexaminedthisMushaffromthe
beginningtotheend.Wastherereallyaparallelismbetweenthetextofthiscopyandthe
Mushafsthatwerebeingreadinvariouscountriesoftheworld?Nobodycouldanswerthis
question.Towhatextentdidtherulesofreading,whichpassedfromonegenerationtothe
other,conformtoitsspelling?Nostatementwasmadeonthissubject.Allthesequestionswere
takenintoconsiderationwhenwedecidedtoexamineandpublishitandourexcitement
continueduntiltheexaminationofthetextanditswritingonthecomputerwascompleted.
WhenthewritingwascompletedwerealizedthatthisMushafwhichstartswiththesentences
of

andendswith

,andwhichwascopiedaboutthirteen

centuriesago,exactlyconformstotheMushafsthatarereadbyallthosewhoreadtheQuran
throughouttheworld.Tostateitmoreclearly,thecopiesoftheMushafthatarereadtodayare
thesameasthisMushafwhichwascopiedthirteenorfourteencenturiesago.

Thefactthattwofoliosofitaremissingandtheexistenceoftheminordifferencesofspelling
thatarealsoobservedinthespellingofMushafsinvariousperiodsorcountriesdoesnot
contradicttheabovementionedconclusion.Itisnormalthatsuchdifferenceswillbeseenin
textsthatareproducedbythehumanhand.Apparently,theHolyQuranwasprotectednot
onlybytheHafizuns(peoplewhohavememorizedthecompleteQuran)readingand
memorizingbutalsothankstoitsscriptandspelling.Itexistsinthesamewaythatitwas
revealedandrecordedfourteencenturiesago.Thesewrittendocumentsaretheactualand
materialmanifestationsofthedivinerevelationtotheeffectthatBehold,itisWeOurselves
whohavebestowedfromonhigh,stepbystep,thisreminder:and,behold,itisWewhoshall
17
trulyguardit[fromallcorruption]
.

WhileJaydisavowstheexplanationoforthographicdevelopment,asquotedpreviously,Danhimself
62
explicitlyandunequivocallystatesotherwise
.

61.

62.

TayyarAltikula,AlMuafAlSharif:AttributedToUthmanBinAffan[TheCopyattheTopkapiPalaceMuseum],
2007,
OrganizationoftheIslamicConferenceResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture:Istanbul
(Turkey),pp.8283.

See
citations#36
,
#37
,
#38
,
#39
,
#40
.

36

Mistake#25:

WhatAndyBannisterfoundoutisthatthereisaformulaformulaicformulaictypeofusagethatis
uhthatisfoundinallofthesestories.ThesevensleepersinSurah18Ayah9to25,thestoryofDhul
QarnaynwhomanypeoplebelievewasAlexandertheGreat,Surah18,Ayah83to101,andspecially
thestoryofIblisandAdamandhereallyzerosinonthatstory.Andhelookedandhefoundoutthat
thisstoryisrepeatedsevendifferenttimesintheQuranandithas13differentelementsintheseven
differentrepititions,butwhatwasinterestingthereisonlythreecommonelementsthatarefound
onrightthroughallthesevenstoriesofIblisandAdam.Andwhenhelookedatthatherealisedthat
thesethreecommonelementsthatarefoundinallsevenreadingsarethesamethreecommon
elementsthatyoullfindinJewishandChristianapocryphalwritingsthatexistedatthattimein
thatplace.whichmeanstheseareborrowings,thesearejustbeenborrowedfromthosedifferent
writings.
33:41
.

Interestingly,thesecommentsaretakendirectlyfromDansthesisandnotAndyswork.Onehasto
wonderifJayhimselfhaseverreadAndyswork,andifso,whywasheunabletoproduceanything
63
beyondwhatDanhadlimitedhimselftoinhisthesisintroduction
?InregardtoAndysclaimitself,
hepresumesthattheQuranmusthavebeenrevealedinavacuum.Hisentireargumentstandsonthe
basisthattheQuranisadistinctandnewreligiousphenomenonandassuch,itisnotsupposedto
commentinanywayonthepreviousrevelations,MessengersorProphets.Thishowever,isnotonly
ahistorical,butclearlyabsurdthinking,theQuranpositsitselfasamemberoftheAbrahamicfaith
traditionandthusitscommentaryonAdam,SatansfallfromheavenandtheJudaicProphetsarenot
onlyexpected,theyarenecessitated.ThereforethereasoningonwhichAndysthesisandsubsequent
bookwaspublishedon,isnotonlyincredulous,ahistorical,anachronisticandevangelicalinnature,it
escapesanyappealtoformalreasoningandhoneststudy.

Indeed,Andysallegationsarenotnewandshouldnotbepresentedashisownworkorasaresultof
hisownthinking,suchclaimswereleveledagainsttheQuranduringtheProphets
timeandare
commentedupondirectlyintheQuran:

AndwhenOurVerses(oftheQur'an)arerecitedtothem,theysay:"Wehaveheard(the
64
Qur'an)ifwewishwecansaythelikeofthis.Thisisnothingbutthetalesoftheancients."

"Verily,thiswehavebeenpromisedweandourfathersbefore(us)!Thisisonlythetalesof
65
theancients!"

Andtheysay:"Talesoftheancients,whichhehaswrittendown:andtheyaredictatedtohim
66
morningandafternoon."

67
"Thisisnootherthanthefalsetalesandreligionoftheancients,

"Indeedwewerepromisedthisweandourforefathersbefore(us),verily,thesearenothing
68
buttalesofancients."

69
WhenOurVerses(oftheQur'an)arerecitedtohimhesays:"Talesoftheancients!"

Therefore,thisisnotnewresearch,Andysrepeatingofaclaimsome1436yearsoldisnot
groundbreakinganditgoeswithoutsayingthatitisironicthatheclaimstheQuranplagiarised
ancientsourceswhenhehimselfisplagiarisingideas,argumentsandbeliefsfoundintheQuranand
presentingthemashisownresearch.AndyisaChristian,aMissionaryApologistforRaviZacharias
InternationalMinistries,thereforehisresearchhasanevangelicalpurpose.Hisresearchisnot
objective,norisitscholarly,norisitintelligentandtheMuslimcommunitysolelyrecognizeshiswork
asmissionaryapologetics.

Hislogicneedstobequestioned.IfIslamclaimstobefromtheAbrahamictradition,shouldntwe
expectittocommentonthetradition?Whythen,doeshedemandthatIslamshouldnotcommenton
anythingfromtheAbrahamictradition?ThiswouldonlymakesenseifIslamdidnotclaimtobefrom
theAbrahamictradition.ThereforethelogicheemploystoargueagainstIslamisfancifulatbest,and
itshouldnotbetakenasaseriousworkunderanycircumstances,untilheexplainshisreasoningin
anobjective,academicandintelligentmanner.

37
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,pp.2326(2014)

Quran8:31,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

Quran23:83,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

Quran25:5,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

Quran26:137,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

Quran27:68,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

Quran83:13,EnglishTranslationbyMohsinKhan.

38

Mistakes#26,#27&#28:

WhenyoulookattheArabicscriptyourself,youneedtoaskcantheir,couldthisArabicscript,
whatthisArabicscriptaccommodatedtheQuranwehavetoday?Andtheanswerisabsolutelyno.
TheArabicscriptinthe7thcenturywassoincompleteandsodefectivethatitisknowntodayasa
scripturaldefecta.YoucannotreadtheQuranusingthe7thcenturyArabicscript.Derochelooksat
it.Hesaystakealookatjustoneletter,thesmileyface.Thatcouldbefivedifferentletters.Lateron
theyhadtoputdotsaboveorbelowwheretomakeitsosuchyoucoulddistinguishwhichletters
were.Youputonedotaboveit,itsanun,twodotsataa,threedotsathaa,onedotbelowa
baa..5suchlettersforonesmileyface.Canyouseetheproblem?HowtheearlyArabictext,it
couldnothaveaccommodatedtheQuran.TheQurancouldnothavebeenwritteninthattextand
thequestionIwouldaskis,ifGodreallywantedtorevealHimselftomankind,whyintheworlddid
heusethelanguagethatcouldnothaveaccommodatedHisrevelation?WhydidHeuseArabic?
SinceArabic,ittookthem200yearsforfinallytogettheaccommodationsothatwecouldreadthe
Quranaswedotoday.200yearsittookthemtofinally,getthediacriticalmarksandthe
vowelization.whydidntGodjustuseHebrew?SeeHebrewhaditsnotonlyitsconsonantlytextbut
itsvowelizationbythesecondcenturyBCinplace,orgreekthatwehaveforournewtestament?It
hadboththevowelandtheconsonantal,theyvebeenaroundsincetheverybeginning,theyvebeen
sincethetime2000yearsago,theverybeginningoftheNewTestamentwritings.WhydidntGod
continueintheverysamescript,HehadalreadybeenthatHemanhadalreadybeenusingtowrite
downHisrevelation?
36:00.

CouldtheArabicscriptaccommodatetheQuran?Letstrytounderstandthisquestion.Couldthe
ArabicscriptwhichwasbeingdevelopedforthepurposeofwritingtheQuran,beusedtowritethe
Quran?Couldthewheelbeingdevelopedforthepurposeofrolling,beusedtoroll?Couldthecar
beingdevelopedforthepurposeofdriving,beabletodrive?InJaysmind,theanswertoallthese
questionswouldbeno,whiletoeveryoneelse,theanswerwouldbeyes,quiterhetorical.TheQuranis
thefirstbooktobewrittenbytheArabs,thereforeitisimplicitlyunderstoodthattheArabsin
developingArabicorthographywouldseektodevelopitforthepurposesoftheQuran.Weshould
alsoreadwhatDr.Derochehimselfstates,givenJaysmisapplicationandmisunderstandingofwhat
theDr.himselfsays:

RgisBlachrespokelaterof
scriptiodefectiva
.Thisdefinitioncanremaininuseifunderstood
properly.TheArabicscriptisinitselfdefectiveasitdoesnotnotetheshortvowels.Inthecase
ofthe
scriptiodefectiva
foundinearlyQuraniccopies,thescriptfailstowritecorrectlythe//
andissomewhatinconsistentinthewayinwhichitwrites//andinitsuseofdiacritical
70
marksinadditiontothelackofshortvowels.

Ascanclearlybeseen,Dr.Derocheisreferringtothewritingofthevowels,therepresentationofthe
vowels,particularlytheshortformofthevowels
a
and
i
.Heinsiststhatshouldthedefinitionofthe
defectivescriptbeunderstoodproperly,thenonewouldsolelyattributeittothelackofa
representationofshortvowelsinparticular.Therefore,byDr.Derochesownanalysis,Jaywould
qualifyassomeonewhodoesnotunderstandthisdefinitionproperly,asheattributesthedefective
scripttotheconsonantsandnottheshortvowels.Thiswouldthenmean,notonlyhasJay
contradictedwhatDr.Derochehassaid,hesalsolied,andisthuscategorizedbytheDr.sown
definitionasbeingonewhohasnounderstanding.Dr.Derochefurtherqualifieswhattheterm
defectivescriptshouldbeunderstoodas:

Themanuscriptsin
hijz
stylewhichfollowbasicallytheUthmanicversionprovideevidence
ofthissituation,withlimitedvariationsofthe
rasm
.Thescriptusedfortherecordingis
defective,particularlyinthesensethatthediacriticsarenotputtouseinordertoclarify
possibleambiguitiesofthe
rasm
,althoughtheyareknowntothecopyistsofthemajorityof
71,72
thesecopies.

Thisisimportant,heagainrelegatesthedefectivescripttothediacritical/vowelmarks.Whatisof
greaterimportanceisthatwhilethescriptmaybedefectivetous,aswedonotinourmoderntimes
knowtherulesthescribesandcopyistsusedindevelopingtheorthographytoreadthescript,those
scribesandcopyistswouldhavehadtoknowtherulesneededtoreadthescriptaccurately.Thusitis
notdefectivetothosewhowrotethescriptthemselvesortothosetrainedtoreadthetext
contemporarytotheirtime,butdefectivetousaswedonthavetheknowledgerequiredto
understandthescriptasthescribesandcopyistswouldhavepossessed.Thisissimilarinthecaseof
theEgyptologistsandtheirexperienceofthehieroglyphsbeforetheRosettaStonewasfound.Until
theStonewasfound,wecouldnotdecipherwhattheancienthieroglyphsmeant,butobviouslythey
hadmeaningtotheEgyptianswhochiseledthemonthestonewalls,theyhadrules,theyhadsyntax

39

whichweinthemodernagedidnotpossess,buttheancientsdid.Therefore,notonlydoJays
statementsdirectlycontradictDr.Derochesownstudies,theyareblatantlymisrepresentationsand
falsificationsofthedefinitionofdefectivescript,andseekstoclaimthatthescribesthemselvesdid
notknowwhattheywerewriting.Notonlyisthisastunninglyinaneclaim,itbehovesmetoquestion
Jayseducationitself.ThereisnowayanyonecanlevelsuchclaimsagainsttheQuraniftheywere
trulypartiallyorevenminimallyreadonthesubjectmatter.

Itmustbestated,thatittook200yearsforthedevelopmentoftheorthographyofthevowelmarkings
todevelop,itshouldnotbeunderstoodthattheArabshadnouseofvowelsbeforethe7thcenturyas
Jayhasconfusedhimselftothink.JaysknowledgeinregardtothelanguageoftheBibleisalso
defective,withrespecttotheHebrewoftheOldTestamentweread:

SometimeaftertheeighthcenturyAD,JewishscholarscalledMasoretesaddedvowelpointsto
73
theHebrewtextinordertoaidreadersinpronunciation.

Icouldbewrong,butIdobelievethe8thcentury,isaftertheriseofIslamintheArabiaduringthe
7thcentury.PerhapsJaycouldexplaintousifthe7thcenturycomesbeforeorafterthe8thandwhat
theimplicationsofthiswouldmean.IftheJewshavebeenreadingtheTorahforcenturieswithout
diacriticalmarkings,cantthesamebesaidoftheArabs?ItshouldalsobenotedthatallearlyNew
Testamentmanuscriptswerewritteninallcapital(majuscule),nospacesentences,withno
punctuationmarkings.WereadfromBartEhrman:

OneoftheproblemswithancientGreektexts(whichwouldincludealltheearliestChristian
writings,includingthoseoftheNewTestament)isthatwhentheywerecopied,nomarksof
punctuationwereused,nodistinctionmadebetweenlowercaseanduppercaseletters,and,
evenmorebizarretomodernreaders,nospacesusedtoseparatewords.Thiskindof
continuouswritingiscalled
scriptuocontinua
,anditobviouslycouldmakeitdifficultattimes
toread,letaloneunderstand,atext.Thewords
godisnowhere
couldmeanquitedifferent
thingstoatheist(Godisnowhere)andanatheist(Godisnowhere)5andwhatwoulditmean
tosay
lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable
?74

Accidentalslipsofthepen16nodoubtwereexacerbated,aswehaveseen,bythefactthat
Greekmanuscriptswereallwrittenin
scriptuocontinua
withnopunctuation,forthemost
part,orevenspacesbetweenwords.Thismeansthatwordsthatlookedalikewereoften
mistakenforoneanother.Forexample,in1Cor.5:8,Paultellshisreadersthattheyshould
partakeofChrist,thePassoverlamb,andshouldnoteattheoldleaven,theleavenof
wickednessandevil.Thefinalword,
evil
,isspelledPONRASinGreek,which,itturnsout,
looksalotlikethewordforsexualimmorality,PORNEIAS.Thedifferenceinmeaningmay
notbeoverwhelming,butitisstrikingthatinacoupleofsurvivingmanuscripts,Paulexplicitly
75
warnsnotagainstevilingeneral,butagainstsexualviceinparticular.

Therefore,theproblemshelevelsattheQuran,arenotrealistic.Whilehisunderstandingofthe
developmentoftheorthographyofboththeHebrewandGreeklanguagesusedtowritehisscripture
isnotonlywrong,itisdeficienttoastupendousdegree.IwouldliketoseeJaySmithlookatthe
majusculeofCodexSinaiticusandcomparethebreathings(diacritical)markingswiththatofa12th
centuryNewTestamentmanuscript,andthentellusaboutthedevelopmentofGreekdiacritics.
Wouldhebeabletoseethedevelopmentbetweenthetwophotosbelow?

40

76
Above,isaphotooftheGospelofMatthewfromCodexSinaiticus
.Belowisa12thcenturyNew
Testamentmanuscript.CanJayseethedevelopments?CodexSinaiticusisdatedtothe4thcentury
77
CE,whereastheothermanuscriptbelowisdatedtothe12thcenturyCE
:

Eightcenturiesseparatethesetwomanuscripts,canJayexplainiftheresbeenanydevelopmentashe
seemstothinkonlyArabicorthographyunderwentdevelopmentandistheonlylanguagetohavehad
thisdoneso.InresponsetoJaysquestionofwhydidntGodcontinuetousethesamescriptfor
subsequentrevelations,isntthataproblemforChristianitytoanswergiventhattheHebrew
Testament,wasatfirstinpaleoHebrew?OrthattheNewTestamentgraduatedfrommajusculeto
minisculepolytonicGreekorthography?Somehow,IdontbelievepaleoHebrewtobethesameas
minisculepolytonicGreek,Jayisinvitedtocorrectmeonthatthough.

70.
71.
72.
73.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.21.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.137.

Rasm,istheArabicwordforOrthography.

Comfort,Phillip(20100719).EncounteringtheManuscripts(KindleLocations1066310664).B&HPublishing.
KindleEdition.

41
74.
75.
76.
77.

Ehrman,BartD.(20090123).MisquotingJesus(KindleLocations770776).HarperCollins.KindleEdition.

Ehrman,BartD.(20090123).MisquotingJesus(KindleLocations14641471).HarperCollins.KindleEdition.

Matthew1,
CodexSinaiticus
.

GreekReporter,
ReturnofByzantineManuscripttoMountAthos
(2014).

42

Mistake#29:

Dr.KeithSmall,didhisdoctoratelookingatthereadings.Henoticedthattherewereseven
differentreadingsintheQuranbecauseoftheproblemofthescript.Theyaresomanydifferent
waysthatitcouldberead,thosearetheahrufortheqiraat.Bythetimealmujahidfinallycreated
these7readings,thatwas936,weretalkingaboutthe10thcenturyhethenallowed7different
readingsoftheQuran.Thenthreemorereadingswereaddedandthenanotherfourwereaddedon
topofthat.Sothatyoucametoatotalof14differentreadingswhenfinallytheOttomansinthe
1500sdecidedthatittochoosejust1oneofthosereadings.TheHafsreading.Andremember,these
areasDr.Ksmallsaid,thesealternatereadings,aredifferentdiscreetversionsofthetext.Eachone
ofthemisdifferent.whenyoulookattheHafsthattheyvechosen,thisisoneofthe14,what
happenedtotheother13?Wellonestillexiststoday,theWarshitsstillfoundinnorthernAfricaand
partsofWesternAfrica.TheHafsthenbecamethestandardinthe1500sthatbecamethereading
thatwasbutthismeansitwasmenthatwaschoosingthat.
37:55
.

KeithSmallisalsoaChristian,MissionaryApologistjustasAndyBannisteris.Thescopeofhiswork
isalsoapologeticinnatureandisneitherscholasticnoracademic.Itisinterestingtonotethatmany
havenoticedthatKeithisunabletoreadArabic,givenhisinabilitytoproduceasingleArabicsource
abouttheQuraninhisbookandthemistakesmadeinArabic,alsoinhisbookasdocumentedand
expoundeduponbyBr.SamiAmeri:

WhileSmallsinabilitytoreadArabicwasevidentlythemainreasonhedidnotuseArabic
referencesinhisbookabouttheArabicQuran(!),Smalldidnotabstainfromdiscussing
linguisticthemestoprovehisnegativeviewoftheQuranicmanuscripts.Hemadeegregious
mistakesashewastryingtomakeitappearthatobviousscribalerrorswerevariantreadings.
Hewrites,forinstance,thatthealkibrwithanextratoothalkabir,asiswritteninthe
manuscript0129.1Q.14:39,meansveryoldageinpluralform.Tomakeitworse,he
alludedintheendnotetoDictionariesthatdonotcontainanysuchincorrecttranslations.The
wordalkabirhasnothingtodowiththeclaimedpluralformitmeansmainlythebigorold,
insingular.ThewholesentencewiththeformalkabirisnotanacceptableArabic
78
construction.

WhatisperhapsmosttellingaretheseriesofbasicmistakesthatSmallmakes,thusdemonstrating
hisinabilitytocorrectlywriteoneofthemostinfantileandpopularwordsintheArabiclanguageand
Muslimculture,
mujahid
,weread:

MoreappallingthanthetwopreviousexamplesisthefactthatSmalldoesnotevenknowhow
tospellthenameofthecentral,keyfigureofthereadingsstudiesSmallwrotethenameofthis
personthroughouthisbookasIbnMujahid,,andhisnameisspelledIbnMujahidwithh,
79
andnoth.

Onemightbeasking,howgreatofamistakeisthis?Evidently,itsamistakesomeonesolelyignorant
oftheArabiclanguagecanmake.Essentially,givenKeithsArabictransliterationtableinhisbookas
writtenbyhimself,itdemonstratesthatheclearlydoesnotknowthelanguageonabasiclevel.Inhis
80
table,hegivesthefollowing
:

Thesearetwocompletelydifferentlettersandthereforewords.Whereasheshouldhavewritten
,heinsteadwritesbyusinginIbnMujaid,whenheshouldhaveusedhinIbn
81,82,83,84
Mujahid
.ItsverymuchlikewritingcatastrofeinEnglish,whenonemeantcatastrophe,
anotherexamplewouldbewritingfonewhenonemeantphone.Itwouldthenbehighly
stupendousforsomeonewhocantdistinguishbetweenthoselettersandwordstobeacriticofthe
ArabiclanguageorofArabicliterature.ThisisthekindofscholarshipthatJayrefersto,whomhe
appealstoasauthoritiesintheChristianworldwhoaresupposedtobeexpertsofIslam.

AllMuslimsunderstandthedifferencebetweenthe
Qiraat
andthe
AhrufalQuran
,theyarenotthe
samething,theydonotcarrythesamemeaning.UnfortunatelyJaythinkstheyareinterchangeableas
hesays,thosearetheahrufortheqiraat.ThisislikeconfusingaGospelwithanEpistle,whileboth
mayrefertoNewTestamentliterature,theyconveydistinctanddifferentmeanings.IfaMuslimhad

43

said,TheEpistleorGospelofMatthew,itwouldbelaughable,suchistheresultofJayserratic
statement.Thereare7
ahrufalQuran
,or7modesoftheQuran.Thesemodeswhichwerepreviously
85
mentioned
givecredencetothe
qiraat
orrecitationsoftheQuran.Themodes(
ahruf
)allowfor
morethanonerecitation(
qiraat
)tobereadfromthem.Jayhasconfusedthemodeswiththe
recitations.Whereasarecitationcancomefromamode,amodeisnotarecitationinandofitself.
86
Therefore,therearesevenpopularrecitationswhicharefromthefollowingreciters
:

1. NaafialMadani
2. IbnKatheeralMakki
3. AasimalKufi
4.
HamzahalZayaatalKufi
5. AlKisaaialKufi
6.
AbuAmribnalAlaalBasri
7.
AbdAllaahibnAamiralShaami

Theserecitationsarefromthe
qiraat
.These
qiraat
,arebasedonthe
ahruf
.Overtime,various
recitationsbecamemorepopularthanotherrecitations.Theserecitationscomplimenteachother,are
substitutesforeachotherandassuch,ifonerecitationislosttodisuse,nothingislostaseach
recitationiscompleteinandofitselfandwasrevealedforthesolepurposeofallowingtheQuranto
beunderstoodbythevariousArabictribesatthetimeoftheProphet
.Overtime,onerecitation
becamemoreprevalentthantheothersandeventuallyasitistoday,moreMuslimspreferredtheuse
oftheHafsrecitation,whileaminoramountofMuslimsfounditeasiertoreciteintheWarsh
recitation.

JaysstatementslendcredencetotheviewthatheishighlyignorantofthenatureoftheQuran,its
transmissionanditsunderstandingwithinthereligionofIslam.Hisconfusionofbasictermsand
definitionsasusedinregardstotheQurancannotbeexcused,giventhefactthatheisspeakingon
behalfofChristianacademicsandtheirerrantresearch.

78.

79.

80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

Ameri,Sami(20130121).HuntingfortheOriginalWordofGod:thequestfortheoriginaltextoftheNewTestament
andtheQur'aninlightoftextualandhistoricalcriticism(KindleLocations30393045).ThoughtsofLight
Publishing.KindleEdition.

Ameri,Sami(20130121).HuntingfortheOriginalWordofGod:thequestfortheoriginaltextoftheNewTestament
andtheQur'aninlightoftextualandhistoricalcriticism(KindleLocations30353037).ThoughtsofLight
Publishing.KindleEdition.

KeithSmall,TextualCriticismandQuranManuscripts.pxv(2011).

KeithSmall,TextualCriticismandQuranManuscripts.p8(2011).

KeithSmall,TextualCriticismandQuranManuscripts.pp2527(2011).

KeithSmall,TextualCriticismandQuranManuscripts.p38(2011).

KeithSmall,TextualCriticismandQuranManuscripts.p53(2011).

See
citations#1,#35
and
#86
.

ShaykhMuhammadSaalihalMunajjid,
TheRevelationoftheQuraaninSevenStyles
.

44

Mistake#30:

Andthenthatbecamestandardizedin1924whentheQuranwasfinallycanonized.Thatsright
canonizedin1924.Thatslessthan100yearsagoandthenitwasfinallyofficiallycanonizedbythe
KingFahdMushafastheyknowit.KingFahddidthatin1985.Thatslessthan29yearsago.So
yourQuran,infactImtwiceasoldasyourQuran.WhichQuranisShabirtalkingabout?
MathematicallytherewasreallynoQuranuntil1924.
39:07
.

87
Atthispoint,Jayismerelyregurgitatingideasfromhisevangelicalbrothersthesis
.Thisviewhas
notoriginatedwithDanhimselfthough,itisparrotedfromtheorientalist,revisionistworkpublished
in1977byJohnWansbroughentitled,QuranicStudies.Essentially,Dansthesiswasanattemptto
reconcileanageoldmissionaryargumentcoupledwithquasiresearchofQuranicmanuscripts.
Interestingly,thesamemistakesthatKeithSmallmade,wefoundDandoingthesame.InKeith
Smallsbook,aspreviouslydiscussed,heattemptedtoequatescribalerrors(lapsuscalami)with
qiraat
differences.AsBr.SamiAmericommented:

Hemadeegregiousmistakesashewastryingtomakeitappearthatobviousscribalerrorswere
88
variantreadings.

DespitealreadyagreeingwithSmallsviewthatmostofthechangesintheQuranwereduetoscribal
89
errors
,Danalsotriestopassoffobviousscribalerrorsasvariantreadings,oftentimescommenting
inhisthesis:

89
Nomentionofanissueatthispointwasfoundinthe
qiraat
literature
.

ItisnotcoincidentalthattwomissionariesstudyingQuranicmanuscriptsseveralyearsapart,one
citingtheotherswork,randomlyusesthesameflawedmethodologytoarriveatthesamemistaken,
orrather,theidenticalforcedconclusions.GivenKeithsflawedmethodologyandcriticism,itwasodd
tothenfindthatDanwhocitesandquotesKeithsworkoften,alsousesthesameflawed
methodology.ThisleadsmetobelievethatDanwasnotobjectiveinhisstudyanditisquitedishonest
forhimtohaveclaimedtheworkinhisthesistobehisown,whenallhehaddonewasrepeat
verbatim,Keithserraticconclusions.

Toprovethisview,whereasDanquotesKeithinacknowledgingmostchangeswereduetoscribes
91
correctingtheircopyingmistakes
orrewritingfadedscript,Danrepeatsthisviewyetopenly
continuedtoclaimthattheseintentionalchangesarebeyondscribalcorrection,thuscontradicting
himselfandblindlyrepeatingconclusionsfrombothKeithandWansbrough:

Chapter6

Overwritingwithoutapparenterasure

Sometimesthetextisseentohavebeenalteredinsomewaywithoutanyevidenterasure.This
sortofchangeisinsomerespectssimilartoinsertionexceptthat,ratherthanelements
standingapartfromtheoriginaltext,itratherinvolvesmodificationoroverwritingofexisting
letterforms.Thiscategoryisperhapsthemosttentativewhenitcomestotheclear
classificationofareworkingaschange,sinceitoftenlooksalmostasifsomeonehassimply
attemptedtorestoreaportionoftextthathasfadedwithtime.However,inlightofallthe
otherthingsthatweseegoingoninthesemanuscripts,andalsotherathertargetednatureof
someofthetouchingupofthetextwhichoftenonlyconcernsitselfwithrestorationofcertain
wordsorareasonapagetheentiretyofwhichhasbecomefaded,Ifeelitisimportantto
92
includetheseforconsiderationhere
.

Onwhatbasis,canrewritingfadedwordsbeconsideredintentionalchanges,ifnothinghadbeen
changed?Yet,insomeplayoflogicandreason,Dancomestoanalreadypredeterminedconclusion
thatthesearealterations.ThisiswhyIarguethathisstudywasnotobjective,butmissionary
apologeticalinnaturethatmerelysoughttoparrotviewsfromorientalistsandfellowmissionary
writings.ThestrikingerraticandflawedmethodologiesfollowedthroughinbothDanandKeiths
workscanthereforenotbeseenascoincidental,butintentionaltoarriveatsomepredeterminedend.
WhenDr.DerochespeaksaboutthecanonoftheQuran,hereferstoitsorthography(arabic:
rasm

diacritics,typography),andnottoitscontents.ThisisimportantasJay,DanandKeithwouldliketo
giveanimpressionofthelatter,asopposedtothescholasticviewoftheformer.Dr.Derochesaysof
thecanoninregardtotheQuranicorthography:

45

Inallthesecases,theerasureofthesupplementaryelementensuredtheconformityofthe
93
manuscriptwiththecanonical
rasm
.

Mostimportantly,heexplainsthatthedevelopmentofthe
rasm
ortheorthographyoftheQuran
providesproofthatwhileitwasnotyetfullystandardized,acrossthevariousstylesoforthographythe
contentsofthemanuscriptscorrespondandarecompatiblewitheachother:

Inaddition,thesmallnoncanonicalvariantsandthepeculiaritiesofthedivisionofthetext
intoversessuggestthatatthetimewhenthemanuscriptwastranscribed,the
rasm
wasnotyet
fullyfixed,althoughthe
CodexParisinopetropolitanusis
initselfproofthatthepartofthe
canonicaltextcorrespondingtothecontentsofthemanuscriptwastheremoreprecisely:is
94
compatiblewiththem
.

Onamoreimportantlevel,thatofcanonicity,thetextfoundintheCodex
Parisinopetropolitanus
,inspiteofsomepeculiaritiesinthedivisionintoversesorinthetext
itself,isconsistentwiththeUthmanic
rasm
sincewecansurmiseforthemomentthatthe
differencesinorthographyandthelackofdiacriticalmarksdonotimpairthepossibilityto
95
readitaccordingtothecanon
.

WhatissurprisingisthatwhileheacknowledgestheorthographyofSanaaaisdifferenttothatofthe
standardizedUthmanicorthography,heconfirmsthatthetextoftheQurancoincideswiththe
canonical(standardized)orthographyoftheQurantoday:

WiththeimportantexceptionoftheCodexanI,therasmfoundinthehandwritten
witnessesofthatperiodcorrespondstotheUthmanicvulgateifweadmitthat,inspiteofthe
orthographicpeculiarities,alackofmostoftherequireddiacriticsandofanyorthoepicsigns,
96
thetextthecopyistshadinmindcoincidedwiththecanonicalversionasweknowittoday
.

Theevidencetheyprovide,whenconfrontedwiththeaccountstransmittedbytheIslamic
traditionaboutthewritingdownoftheQuran,confirmsthatthesereportscontainwithout
doubtahistoricalcoreand,notablyinthecaseoftheCodex
Parisinopetropolitanus
,thata
97
textcompatiblewiththecanonicalversionwastransmitted.

ThisdirectlycontradictsJaysclaimthattheQuranoftodaybasedonthe1924orthographicstyleis
notthesameasthatoftheearlierQuranicmanuscripts.Dr.Derochequitesuccinctly,confirmswhat
theIslamictraditionhasbeensayingfortheprevious1436years.Itisimportanttonotethough,that
whenJayspeaksofcanonhedoesnotunderstandwhatDr.Derocheisreferringto.Jaythinksitisa
canonofversesandchapters,whereasDr.Derochespecifiesandstatesnumeroustimesthatitisof
orthography.Weneedtoremindourselvesthatorthographyreferstohowlanguageistextually
represented,therepresentationchangesovertimeasitbecomesmorestandardizedacrossthevarious
townsandcitiesthatwishtocommunicateinonestandardofthesamelanguage.Today,whilethe
contentsoftheQuranhasremainedthesame,therehasbeenanaturalupdatetoitsorthographyto
helpreadersrecitetheQuranasitwasrecitedbytheProphet:

46

Whatsthechange?Colour!Colourhasbeenaddedtohelpreadersidentifywhencertain
tajweed
(pronunciation)rulesshouldbeused.Doesthischangethetext?No.Doesitchangethemeaningof
anything?No.Hastherebeenachange?Yes.Whatdoesthischangeaffect?Thereadersabilityto
correctlyidentifyandrecitetheQuranasitshouldberecited.Thisisthebestexampleofwhatwe
meanbyorthographical,
rasm
,typographicaldevelopmentoftheQuran.Thecanonofthe
rasm
or
canonoftheorthography,simplymeanstheacceptedstandardofhowtorepresenttheQuran
textually.

WithrespecttotheNewTestament,theverylastupdatetoitscontentswasinthemonthofAugust
2014withthereleaseoftheUnitedBibleSocieties5thEdition.Thisinvolveschangestothemaintext
oftheNewTestament.ThishasnothingtodowithhowthelanguageoftheNewTestamentis
represented,itinvolvesthealterationofthecontentsofversesandpassages.Suchanupdatehas
nothingtodowithorthography.Assuch,Iam22yearsolderthantheNewTestamentslatest
canonicaledition.GivenJaysestimatesofhisage,heisasoftodaysome58yearsolderthantheNew
98
Testamentscanon
.TheNewTestamentscanonofitsmaintext,ofitscontents,isroughlytwo
monthsold.ThephysicalcopiesoftheQuranwhichwehavetodayaresome1436yearsolderthan
theNewTestamentasitexistsinitsformtoday.

87.
88.

89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.299(2014).

Ameri,Sami(20130121).HuntingfortheOriginalWordofGod:thequestfortheoriginaltextoftheNewTestament
andtheQur'aninlightoftextualandhistoricalcriticism(KindleLocations30393045).ThoughtsofLight
Publishing.KindleEdition.

See
citation#40
.

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.251(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.299(2014).

DanBrubaker,IntentionalChangesintheQuran,p.277(2014).

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.31.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.35

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.37.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.71.

Dr.FrancoisDeroche,TheQur'anoftheUmayyads,(Brill),p.137.

IjazAhmad,
NewestCriticalBibletobeReleased:UBS5thEd.GreekNewTestament
.

47

Mistakes#31,#32,#33&#34:

ItcertainlycannotbetheTopkapi,thereis2270variantswiththeQuranwehavetoday.More
thanthat,itsonly78%oftheQuran.YoubetternotusethePetropolitanusbecausethatoneonlyhas
26%oftheQuranandasweseefromDr.Brubakersmaterialeveryoneofthesemanuscriptsisfull
oferrorsandwhatsinterestingandwhatkeithsmallgoesontosayitsisthatthereseemstobea
standardizationgoingonalmostimmediately.
40:06
.

ItcertainlycanbetheTopkapi,giventheevidencespresentedin
Mistakes#5&#6
.The2,270
variantshavetodowithasingleorthographicvariantoftheletter
alif
.Hiscalculationof78%has
beendemonstratedtobewrongandinventedgiventheevidencespresentedin
Mistakes#7&#8
,
wepossess99%oftheTopkapiMushaf.WecanuseCodexPetropolitanus,asDr.Derocheconfirmed
in
Mistake#30
thatitconformswiththecanonicalQuranasweknowittoday.DanorDr.Brubaker
asJayreferstohim,hasshownthattheletter
alif
,iswhathasbeenaddedandremovedgiven
orthographicalstandardsandassuch,hehasnotlabelledthemaserrors.InregardtoKeithstating
thatthereisastandardizationoforthography,Idonotseetheproblemwiththisanditisasthispoint
thatIbelieveJayissimplyrepeatinghimself
adnauseum
.Iamremindedofanoldadage,Jayislikea
drunkmanleaninguponalamppost,hedoessoforsupportbutitdoesnotilluminatehim.

48

Mistakes#35,#36,#37&#38:

Letmejustgiveyouahistoryofthestandardizationprocess.WhenKeithSmalllookedathis
doctorateatthedifferentcorrections,thecorrectionsinthetextthathefoundshowapattern.they
werechangingearlierwordingsthatbecamethatiswhatisnowknownasTextusReceptus.67%of
thecorrectionshefounddidthis,evenmoreso,whenhelookedatthepalimpsestsbecausetheyare
theolderonetheolderscriptsunderneath.Physicalcorrectionsinmanuscriptsandpalimpsests
providesubstantialevidenceofthestandardizationsoftheimpressionofvaryingtexthesaysand
youcanseethestandardizationgoingtowardsonetextbutwhowasdoingit.Wellaccordingtoin
albuhari,inchatper6hadithnumber109510,itsveryclearhesaysthatthefirststandardization
woulddoneunderthetimeofUthmanandZaidibnThabitwasgiventheresponsibilityalongwith
Zubairalas,andHariththefourofthemweretocreatedtheQuraninonestandardform.Thatwas
thensenttothefourcitiesthatImentionedearlier.Leftmadina,sentbasra,baghdadand
damascus.sothatwasthefirststandardization,sowhowasthefirstresponsibleforthatUthman,
hewasapoliticalauthority.Sothisisapoliticalstandardization.Apoliticalcontrol.Thentheres
alsosaidthatAbdalMalikdidanotherstandardizationinbetween685and704inisgovernorate,
in705alHajajYusuftheneradicatedthechanges11differentchangesandcreatedanother
standardization.soyouhaveanotherstandardizationcomingwithin50to60yearsaccordingto
Islamictradition.Theproblemwithislamictradition,justtakealookwhenitwaswritten.alBuhari
diedin870,muhammaddiedin632,canyouseeaproblem?Everythingweknowaboutthe
standardizationprocesscomesfrom240yearslaternoneofthesepeopleeverknewtheProphet
Muhammad,neverlivedinthesamecentury.Theylived200240yearsaftertheevent.Thenyou
hadthestandardizationthatibnMujahidwellhediedin936soithappenedpriortohisdeath.
UndertheauthorityofibnMutlawhodiedin940.Soheresanotherpoliticalstandardization,is
therefascinatingineverycaseitstheCaliphthatcreatesthestandardization,andthenthe
Ottomansdidthisinthe1500sbychoosingtheHafs,oneof14,readingstheyonlychoseoneofthem.
Threwawaytheother13,Idontknow,Idlovetoseetheother13toseewhyitistheyrejectedthem,
thankyou.

40:30
.

HebeginsbyarguingthatKeithSmalldemonstratedthattherewasamovementtoonestandardized
texttype,ororthography,asexplainedthisisnotnewinformationandthisprovesthattheearly
MuslimswereinterestedandintentondevelopingtheorthographyoftheArabiclanguagetopreserve
theQuran.Jayaskswhowasdoingthisdevelopment,obviouslyitwasthescribeswhowere
transcribingandcopyingtheQuran.Scribesandcopyistswouldbetheindividualswhoare
developingtheorthography.ForanexpertonIslam,heshouldknowImamBukharispropername,I
havenoideawho
alBuhari
is.IwouldbewillingtoforgiveJaysmistake,butitsakintosaying
Jeyus
,
whenonemeant
Jesus
.Itsamistakeyoucanonlyacceptfromanuneducated,inexperienced
individual,notaselfproclaimedexpert.

InregardtothecollectionandwritingoftheIslamictradition,itiswellknownthatthecompanions
andtheirstudentsbothhadwrittencollections.Br.Waqarhasdocumentedandcitedseveralearly
99
evidencesofthismaterialinhiswork,HadithCompilationbytheCompanions
.Iwouldnotexpect
JaytoknowofAbdullahibnAmrsmanuscriptorofthosebyAbdullahibnMasud,AliibnAbiTalib,
MalikbinAnas,IbnAbbas,HammambinMunnabihmayAllahbepleasedwiththemall.Itis
thereforenot240yearsbeforetheIslamictraditionwaswritten.Jaythenproceededtoconfusethe
orthographicstandardizationwiththatofthe
qiraat
andthecodificationofthe
ahrufalQuran
,allof
whichhavebeenexplainedindetailpreviously.TheOttomanschosethemostprevalent
qiraat
(recitation)tobetheonewhichwouldbetaughtbytheirscholars,therebycontinuingalegacyofthe
standardizationoftheQuranicrecitation.Theydidnotoutlaw,ban,destroyorpreventtheother
qiraat
frombeingtaughtorused,theysimplypreferredoneovertheotherduetotheirusageand
experiencewithit.

Theydidnotreject,orthrowawaytheother13
qiraat
.ThroughoutIslamictradition,weknowof14
prevalent
qiraat
basedonthe
ahrufalQuran
.Overtime,asthenationofIslamgrewandmore
peoplesbegantoacceptIslam,amigrationto10andsubsequently7
qiraat
occurred.Aswasstated
previously,theserecitationscomplimenteachother,aresubstitutesforeachotherandassuch,ifone
recitationislosttodisuse,nothingislostaseachrecitationiscompleteinandofitselfandwas
revealedforthesolepurposeofallowingtheQurantobeunderstoodbythevariousArabictribesat
thetimeoftheProphet
.

99.

Br.WaqarCheema,
H adithCompilationbytheCompanions
.

49

Mistake#39:

AndthenofcourseaccordingtoMuslimstodaythisisthestandard.Thisisthestandard1924,this
istheonlystandardthatwaschosenbywhatIwouldcalltheologians.alAzharUniversitybutit
hadtobegivenitsruleofapprovalandthatwasnotdoneuntil1985,lessthan29yearsago.Again
bytheIbnSaudfamily,apoliticalstandardization.
43:04.

InhisfinalstatementsontheQuran,JaypersistedinconfusingtheorthographyoftheQuran,with
the
qiraat
,the
ahruf
andwhoscholarswereandwerenot.Doeshenotconsiderthecompanionsof
theProphet
,theologiansorscholarsintheirownright?DoeshenotconsiderUthman,Ali,Zayd
binThabit,mayAllahbepleasedwiththemallastheologians?DoeshenotconsiderIbnMujahidasa
theologian?ItisthereforeveryconfusingforJaytomakesucherraticstatementsthatmean
absolutelynothingorofwhicharecompletelycontradictorywithIslamictraditionandhistory.

InonebreathhecondemnsIslamforallowingpoliticalauthoritiestostandardizetheorthographyof
theQuran,whileheignoreswhenPopeDamasuscommissionedSt.Jeromeneartheendofthe4th
centuryCEtoproducethebesteditionoftheNewTestamentbasedontheLatintextsofthattime.
Whilethatisapoliticalstandardizationofthetextualcontents,theQuransstandardizationof
orthographyhasnothingtodowithitscontents.WhentheCouncilsofCarthagein393and397CE
werecalledbythepoliticalauthorityforthepurposeofunityindeterminingwhatexactlyconstituted
theNewTestament,Jaydoesnotseethisaspoliticalinvolvementinthedevelopmentofthecanonof
theNewTestament.Thosecouncilsinvolvedvotingonwhichofthe27bookswouldbeconsidered
scripture,therewasnosuchcouncilforIslam.Allofthecompanions,allofthescholars,everything
fromourreligioustraditionconfirms114SurahsoftheQuranandAhlusSunnahwalJamaahhas
neverdifferedonthis.

Therefore,JayisbeingunfaithfultoChristianityanddeceitfulwhenlayingtheseallegationsbefore
ourrespectivefaiths.Hehasmerelydemonstratedhisignoranceofhisownreligionandmoresoofthe
Islamicfaith.

50

Conclusion

ThispaperwhilemeanttocriticiseJaySmithsclaimsduringhisdebatewithDr.Shabir,isnotlimited
tobeingunderstoodasrelevanttoonlythatdebate.Theinformationsharedwithinthispaper
explainsandcommentsuponmanyofthemissionaryallegationsabouttheQuran.Itistherefore
usefulinunderstandingtheargumentsofmissionariesandChristianapologists,andthusprovidesa
reliablefoundationfromwhichonecanutilizeincounteringandthoroughlyrefutingtheirclaims.I
havemadetheutmostefforttociteasmanyexamplesasIcouldhave,especiallythosethatcanbe
foundonlinesothatthesourcetextscanbeeasilyaccessedforanyonewhowishestostudythistopic.
Forthebenefitofthereader,attheverybeginningofthispaperImentionedseveralworksbyMuslim
scholarstohelpthemdevelopaholisticunderstandingoftheQuranasitisseeninIslam.Asthis
paperiswritteninEnglish,IhavereferredtomainlyEnglishsources.

ItshouldbenotedthatthispaperisnotmeanttobeapersonalattackonJaySmith.However,ashis
statementswereissuedonapublicforumandmeantforpublicconsumption,itismyrighttohave
expressedmycriticismofhisstatementsandthisreasonisthefoundationofthispaper.Imyself,have
hadnocorrespondencewithSmithandIhavenotwrittenthispaperonbehalfofanyone.The
criticismsleveledagainstSmithinthispaperaremyownandshouldnotbetakenasrepresentativeof
Dr.ShabirAllysviewsorsentiments.AsIhavedemonstrated,JaySmithsallegationswerewholly
inaccurateandunreliable.Inmyattempttocritiquehisstatements,Ihavefoundhimtomisrepresent,
misquote,misapplyandmisunderstandtheworksoftheauthorshereferredto.Hisinabilitytohave
quotedanyoftheauthorspresentsatroublingphenomenon.Giventheunderstandingthathehadin
hispossessionadocumentduringthedebatewhichcontainedallthequotesandreferencesfromthe
workshementioned,itisindeedaverypeculiarproblemthathefailedtociteasinglesource.

Icannotfindanexcuseforhiminregardtohisappealingtoauthorsbutdisagreeingwiththeir
conclusions.ThereexistsacleardichotomybetweenwhatSmithwantstobethecaseandwhatis
actuallypresentedintheworksoftheauthorshementioned.Inmyassessmentofhisallegations
againsttheauthorshehasappealedto,thereisnotasingleinstanceinwhichhisstatementsaligned
themselveswiththeauthors.Similarly,Ifoundithighlyproblematicthathehasconfusedthe
qiraat
withthe
ahruf
.Consideringthatthiswasthefocusofhisarguments,beingignorantofthemcannot
beexcused.Infollowingthisissue,healsoconfusedtheQurans
ahruf
withitscanon,anditscanon
withitsorthography.Thesearesimpletermsasusedbytextualcriticsandbythoselearnedinthe
fieldofQuranicstudies,itisembarrassingforanyonetoclaimtobeanexpertonthistopicbuttobe
patentlyunaware,ignorant,andconfusedwiththebasictermsofthisdiscipline.Forthereader,I
havefoundYasinDuttonsexplanationofthe
ahrufs
differenceseasytounderstand,andforthis
reasontheyarepresentedasfollows:

Whatisalsoapparentisthatthislevelofvariationdoesnotinanywayindicatealoose,unfixed
text,orthattherewasevermorethanoneQuran,but,rather,inthelightofcontemporary
oralitytheory,thattheQuranisessentiallyamultiformtext,suchasonewouldexpectwitha
100
textthatmanifestedinasocietywheretheoral,ratherthanthewritten,wasthenorm.

Inotherwords,thedifferencesthatareencompassedbytheseven
ahruf
donotaffectthebasic
101
storyline,ormeaning,ofthetext,butonlyitsform:themessageisalwaysone.

ThisunderstandingescapesSmithandhisevangelicalfriends.WhatSmithhastriedtodemonstrate
withallofhisargumentsinthisdebateisthatthereisnooneQuran,therearemultipleQurans.To
thecontrary,thereisonlyoneQuran,ofwhichthereareseveralmodesor
ahruf
.Thisproblemin
understandingisevidentwhenheaskswhichoneisthetrueQuran,heisunabletoconceptualizethat
theQuranhasmodes,andsodeniesthemortriestoconflatethesemodesbycastingthemasentirely
differentandcontradictingQurans.Fortunately,wedonotdependonSmithasasourceforIslamic
studiesandwecanrelyupontheworksofthe
Ulama
toexplainthisliteraryconcept:

51

ItisthusclearthatIbnalJazarismainargumentis,firstly,thattheseven
ahruf
mustrelateto
formandnotcontentsecondly,thatthisvariationinformcannotbeconsidereddialectalbut
manifests,rather,withinoneform,orwecouldsayonedialect,ofArabic(effectively,the
highestregisterofthedialectofQuraysh)thirdly,thisdegreeofvariationonthelevelofform
wasallowedintheearliestperiodbutwasthenrestrictedsomewhatinthetimeofUthmanina
waythatwas(a)permissible,and(b)didnotresultinanyofthecontentoftheQuranbeing
lost.TheQuranisthuscomplete,butonlypreservesofthevariationsformerlyallowedinthe
timebeforetheagreementononeskeletaltextthatoftheseven
harfs
thatitcancontain,
102
whilecontainingatleastoneofthose
harfs
initstotality.

WhileitistruethatIhavefoundmanyerrorsthatSmithandhismissionarycolleagueshavemade,
theendresultcontinuestobethesame.Themassofworkscitedandquotedinthispaperallpointto
thesameconclusion:

103
Indeed,itisWewhosentdowntheQur'anandindeed,Wewillbeitsguardian.

Itisthusfitting,thatIendwithaquotefromDr.JonathanBrownslatestworkwhichIhavefound
mostsuitableinexplainingJaysandhismissionarycolleaguesdilemma:

IslamsscriptureshavealwaysposedagreatobstacletoWesternattemptstounderstandthe
religion.TheQuransformatandstylewouldstrikeanyoneaccustomedtotheBibleas
unusual.Itisnonlinear,withnoonenarrativeflowwithinindividualchaptersoracrossthe
bookasawhole.ThishasconfoundednonMuslimreadersforcenturies.Despiteincalculable
advancesinscholarshiponandawarenessofotherlandsandcultures,ChristianandEuropean
104
reactionstotheQuranchangedlittlebetweentheeighthcenturyandthe1800s.

100.
101.
102.
103.
104.

YasinDutton,Orality,LiteracyandtheSevenAhrufHadith(2012),p.3.

YasinDutton,Orality,LiteracyandtheSevenAhrufHadith,p.20.

YasinDutton,Orality,LiteracyandtheSevenAhrufHadith,p.30.

Quran15:9,EnglishTranslationbySaheehInternational.

Dr.JonathanBrown,MisquotingMuhammad:TheChallengeandChoicesofInterpretingtheProphetsLegacy,
(KindleVersion).

52

AppendixA

HijriCalendarinContextof7thCenturyCECalendar.

Asisseenabove,the1stcenturyoftheMuslimcalendarisdenotedbythepostfixofAHor
Anno
Hijrah
(intheyearoftheHijrah),intheupperline.TheGregoriancalendarisdenotedbythebelow
thickerlineinwhichthemorecommon,CEpostfixisused(CommonEra).Intheyear622CEofthe
Gregoriancalendar,theMuslimcalendarstartedyear1.Thisisthusrepresentedas1AH.

Withthevaluespresented,the7thcenturyoftheGregoriancalendarisdelimitedbetweentheyears
of600CEand699CE.Wecanthensee,thatthesecondhalfofthe1stcenturyAH,fallswithinthe
secondhalfofthe7thcenturyCE.Therefore,whenSmithsaysthatthesecondhalfofthe1stcentury
AHfallsoutsideofthe7thcenturyCEandinsteadlimitsustothe8thcenturyCEandbeyond,heis
highlymistaken.Thesecondhalfofthe1stcenturyAH,clearlyfallswithinthesecondhalfofthe7th
centuryCE.

ThedateprovidedfortheinitiationoftheHijricalendarhasbeenadoptedfromthedataprovidedin
the
EncyclopaediaofIslamandtheMuslimWorld
(2004),Hijra,p.299.

53

AppendixB

GeneralInformationAbouttheAuthor.

Br.IjazAhmad(penname)isatthetimeofthispaperswriting,a22yearoldMuslimfromthetwin
islandRepublicofTrinidadandTobago.HeisamemberoftheMuslimDebateInitiative,whose
workscanbefoundonbothoftheirwebsites:

TheDebateInitiative
www.thedebateinitiative.com
MuslimDebate
www.muslimdebate.org

Amajorityofhiswritingscanalsobefoundonhisownwebsite:

CallingChristians
www.callingchristians.com

HehasdebatedanumberofChristianApologistsbothformallyandinformally,includingAnswering
IslamsAnthonyRogersandSamShamoun,alongwithCLEdwardsandPastorSamuelGreen.The
recordingsofthosedebatescanbeviewedon
www.callingchristians.com/debates
:

TheOldTestamentTeachesthattheAngeloftheLordisaDivine,DistinctPersoninthe
GodheadAnthonyRogersvsIjazAhmad(2012).

JesustheChrist:Man,GodorBoth?CLEdwardsvsIjazAhmad(2013).

AnIncarnateGod:FactorFiction?PastorSamuelGreenvsIjazAhmad(2013).

Br.Ijazisavailablefordebates,discussionsanddialogues,bothonlineandonstage.Hecanbe
contactedviahiswebsite:
www.callingchristians.com
orthroughemail:
callingchristians@gmail.com

Anyissuesfoundwiththispaper,factual,typographicalorotherwisearenotintentional.Shouldsuch
anissuearise,pleaseinformtheauthorviaanyofthemeanslistedaboveatyourearliestconvenience.