Uncovering The Truth About Quran Preservation With Dr. Marijn van Putten
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Check out Dr. Marijn van Putten links: 🔥
His new book:
brill.com/view/title/61587
Book:👉 www.amazon.com/Grammar-Awjila...
Academia SIte: 👉 leidenuniv.academia.edu/Marij...
Dr. van Putten's Patreon: 👉 / phdnix
=======================
GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal. 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Recommeded books 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Email MythVision 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 @DerekPodcast
Instagram: 👉 @dereklambert_7
MythVision Discord: / discord
=====================
Check out Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s lecture “Did Jesus Call Himself God? A Closer Look at the Evidence!” Here in this link. MythVision will be here! mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
=====================
Thank's to Abdullah Gondall for the questions and slides for this episode.
1) Is the Quran “preserved”? In the theological sense of dot to dot
2) What is mutawatir, and are the qiraat (Reading Traditions) “mutawatir”? How many total Mutwatir Qiraat? 7 or 10 or 14 or 25?
3) How many variants exist in the whole quranic corpus? An approximate number?
4) (Sanaa lower text#1,2,3) What is the significance of the Sanaa manuscript/palimpsest? The lower text & its variants
5) (modern variants#1,2,3,4) Are there any significant meaning changes due to any of the variants?
6) What exactly is the dialect of the Quran, and is that the dialect Muhmammad was speaking in. Historians say some arabic pronunciations are lost
7) Does anyone even know what does “ahruf”(Ah-roof) mean? Can you elaborate on the 40 different opinions
8) Do you think the Quran was burned to eliminate the growing variants in the empire?
9) What is the magnitude of variants between companion codices? Ibn Masud vs Ubay vs Zaid for example (Whole chapters missing according to each)
10) Do any Mutwatir Qiraat deviate from Uthmanic Rasm?
11) Is there significant variability in manuscripts? Or manuscript evolution?
12) Can canonical readings be rejected? Why did Tabari reject canonical readings?
13) Can any canonical readings be grammatically incorrect?
14) What if 2 canonical readings contradict? Are there any examples
Timestamps
0:00 Introductions
4:50 Is the Quran preserved from a theological perspective?
15:53 What is Mutawatir? How accurate are they? Are the qiraa’t mutawatir? And how many are there?
24:35 Is it possible to have questionable chains of transmission? - Ibn Ahmed’s case
31:30 How many variants exist in the Quranic corpus? Non-canonical readings. Impact of reciters’ linguistic flares on the reading of the Quran
35:49 What is the significance of the Sanaa manuscripts?
41:10 Sanaa lower text 1 - Surah Baqarah 2 : 222. Is the Sanaa lower text older than the canonized/modern version?
46:07 Sanaa lower text 2 - Surah Munafiqun 63:3.
50:58 Sanaa lower text 3 - Surah Tawbah 9:18
55:38 Are there any significant meaning changes due to variants? Can they be reconciled with the main canonized text?
58:12 Variants of Surah Maidah 5:6
1:00:17 Variants of Surah Qasas 28:48
1:04:55 Variants of Surah Anbiya 21:4
1:08:51 What is the dialect of the Quran? Was this the same dialect for Muhammad?
1:16:33 What is the impact of having the Quran revelation in a dialect that was not the vernacular for Muhammad and his companions?
1:20:11 What does Ahruf mean? The story of the seven ahruf
1:24:25 Did Uthman burn other versions of the Quran? Were these supposedly burnt copies drastically different from the standard text?
1:29:11 What is the magnitude of variants between companions' codices? - Ibn Masud vs Ubay vs Zaid
1:32:35 Do any of the Mutawatir/qiraat deviate from the Uthmanic rasm?
1:37:53 I sphere significant variability in the manuscripts or manuscript evolution? - Variants on how Mary conceived her child.
1:44:10 Are there grammatical errors in the Uthmanic standardized version of the Quran
1:51:19 Parallels between the Christians, Jews, and the Muslims in the way in which they were writing their respective religious manuscripts.
1:57:57 Can canonical readings be rejected? The case of Tabari rejecting some canonical readings. What makes a reading valid?
2:02:03 What happens when 2 canonical readings contradict each other? Examples of such instances
2:04:15 Is there intertextuality between the Quran and other non-Islamic mythologies? (Borrowing from other non-Muslim Stories)
2:15:11 Final remarks
#MythVision #MarijnvanPutten #Quran
20:63 is not a canonized "grammatical error." It is a variant reading that makes perfect grammatical sense both ways. 1. in hāḏani... 2. inna hāḏayni... Both are grammatically correct. The first is a conditional sentence while the second is an emphatic statement. 1. "These two are nothing but sorcerers." 2. "Indeed, these two are sorcerers." Variant reading, yes; but not grammatically incorrect.
Pick up Shady Nasser's two books 📚 and read it
Dr Ali Ataie sir, you are my proverbial man-date. I have so much to ask and learn from you!
@@inquisitivemind007 you have no idea who Dr. Ali Ataie is do you. This man will run circles around nasser in his sleep.
my teacher my mentor even if im older that you i respect you brother
@@inquisitivemind007 Dont disrespect The Dr like that 😂 you have no idea. Blind to the truth.
Nice Interview. I am a Muslim and I have no problem with what he said. Please more scholars who are objective as he was.
So you have no priblem with him saying that Muslims can't know wether they have the Quran of Muhammed? All he did was say that Muslims have the Quran of Uthman. Of course you do, it's the only Quran in town 😂
Also, Van Putten is sure the Quran was not preserved: ruclips.net/video/iPrLGTtpcBc/видео.html
@@danma3548 There are some problems with his epistemic framework, but he's clearly an intelligent and well-intentioned scholar, unlike the lying, deceiving and deranged Christian missionaries that talk about the matter, - which is a shame because I expect better from Christians!
@@danma3548 If Christens had a Gospel of one of his disciples do you think they will abandon it so why when Muslims have the Quran of Prophet Muhamed's disciple (Uthman) we should abandon it?
@@danma3548 Some people will react to academic discourse like pearls thrown to swine. Be sure that your polemics mean very little to most of us. But peace.
@@shaunshaikh8617 the conclusions of academic discourse should mean a lot to you. We don't even need academics, your own hadiths destroy everything you believe in. Your quran is missing the verses of stoning that that was sent down to muhammed as quran
Jihad means struggle in the way of Allah. Prayer and Zakat (charity) is part of Jihad. May Allah guide you for this incredible research 🙏
Indeed struggle against self (the ego) to bow down in prayer and give zakat (charity)...thats the REAL Jihad
It's an understatement to say that Quran was precisely preserved as a text. Quran is a recorded sound that no writing system can accurately reflect. Try to learn Quran Tilawah and you will understand how super precise it is in recording the lengths, weights, heights and widths of sounds. It even employs a tunic system that doesn't exist in Arabic or in any language in the whole region. For example. The word (faqasat) which means: "then it became hard" needs a rise in the voice after the end of the sound "fa". otherwise it will change the meaning and become: Then it hatched". The recording process rules are so precise to the point where you say: AAAA or AA or AAAAAA. The Ra sound is always heavy. Make a single mistake and you will immediately be corrected.
11:00 Man what a snake, he says in the decade between the Prophet SAW dying and it being standardized it could've been changed when literally the ENTIRE ARABIAN PENNINUSALA of MUSLIMS MEMORIZED IT AND BECAME HAFIZ
YOU DON'T GET MISTAKES WITHOUT SOMEONE POINT IT OUT.
Not precisely preserved. Disagree.
@@TheOneLogic69 Prove it!
@@Mohammad_Qunbos What does Quran mean to you?
@@TheOneLogic69 The message from our creator
My brother Derek! Thanks so much for doing this great interview. I learned a lot and enjoyed it!
﴿ إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ﴾
(Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.)
who are the 'WE?'
the 'hafidz?'
@@adamsulaiman639
In this verse God almighty refers to himself by saying "WE" as a respect or glorification
It is common in Arabic language and many other languages
Even a human king use the same "WE" when declaring a new roles for example.
I hope you understand now brother 😁
@@abood_176
Quran 70:40
is the human king confused?
Peace
@@adamsulaiman639
what do you mean "is the human king confused"?
The last comment I told you that one person can refer to himself as "WE". I didn't say God is a human king.
The verse 70:40 "So I swear by the Lord of [all] risings and settings that indeed We are able"
What is confusing about it 🤔
@@abood_176
Quote:
'WE as a respect or glorification'
in indospeak = penasaran.
is that how you 'see' THEM ?
As a muslim i saw nothing problematic here. If anything its an affirmation of what muslims believe
The Quran is preserved amd variants exist as per the hadith of the 7 ahruf. Much respect to u both for the interview.
No it is not preserved as there are about 40 scribal errors that have been passed down. Also what about the canonical readers like that junk reading of Hamzah Zayyat that Ahmad ibn Hanbal couldn't stomach ruclips.net/video/oJxqC5aQXgg/видео.html
@@inquisitivemind007. It has been preserved. U heard him say it in this very interview. Preservation is not affected by an extra waw or a kasrah instead of a fathah here and there. All the so called differences are easily reconcilable amd give a richer meaning of the text. Even the examples in this video were very easy to explain.
@@xingyimaster1987 richer meaning? Of course you're going to say that. No one apologists is going to admit these scribal errors, no matter how small they are, have entered into the Quran. What about how to read it like Hamzah Zayyat who Ahmad ibn Hanbal couldn't stomach and others say he has poor grammar. How the hell did his reading within 100 years end up being from Allah?
@@inquisitivemind007 if he said poor grammar, all that means is he had unfamiliarity with that use of grammar. Heres a challenge show me one direct contradiction between two variants that cant be reconciled and show me a grammatical error in the Quran. U wont be able to. Dont send me your videos. Type one of each here.
@@xingyimaster1987 unfamiliarity? You mean Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Tabari, Ibn Mujahid etc Quran teacher forgot to them then that hey you may be unfamiliar with Hamzah’s dialect but it's from Allah do don't talk bad about it or pick holes in it? Explain the contradiction of Lots wife as explained in Tafsir al-Jalalayn ruclips.net/video/dejD-qBMhE0/видео.html
Huge respect for keeping this open to access here on You tube. Thanks.
Was it me or did Marijn debunk everything that Derek threw at him with those super heavy loaded questions. It was like Derek was trying to sway another point of view or narrative but Marijn brought it back to the traditional stance. Good interview. I would love to see you now ask the same loaded questions to someone like Dr Ali Atai who has credibility in all the semetic languages also so the audience can get a fair and balanced opinion from both views.
What else do you expect from Derek who says that Apuss is his friend and teacher of Islam? 🤦🏻♂️🤣
What an interview will need to re listen! Thank you Derek, can't believe you got him to come on. Great work
Very interesting, just found your channel and i really dig your work.
On the specific issue, we should always keep in mind that the Qur'an is an oral tradition before it is a written one. Keep them coming.
Othman Can't change it, because hundreds and thousands memorized it at that time.
And the memories were lost with the guys whovdied at war
5:17
False statement
@@murielpucoe9213islamic wars were one of the most outnumbering wins in history almost no muslim men died in war and the people who didnt go in war ie woman survived and had their memory as well as the men who survived which had their men
Thank you to Derek and Dr. van Putten! Listening from 6:50 to 10:04, non-muslims scholars (in this case Dr. van Putten) confirm that Quran is preserved from around 650 (shortly after prophet Muhammad pbuh. death) up until now, 2023! Thank you very much for your effort in research!
But , What dr van putten failed mention or brought into research , where is Our Prophet Moh copy of Quran , It was someone hand ,,,,, Nope Utamaan is not the Person who compile it ( Quran)
It was first written in Syriac and Aramaic then translated gathered in one book and called it Qur'an .. fabricated a new religion based on many previous ones .. mohamed never existed
Abdullah ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Gabriel, upon him be peace, taught me to recite the Quran in one reading and I requested another. I continued to ask for more until he stopped at seven readings.”
Derek i watched your video about 6 years ago. Really helped me with the music in the backround was a very touching video
Excellent, very informative presentation. The questions and the answers provided great contents. Thank you for sharing
Derek it looked like you were overjoyed when you thought that your guest was going to say something negative about the preservation of the Quran, however, he flips it around, reaffirming preservation, then you realize that in your mind you were making a mountain out of a mohill. Very funny the look of disappointment on your face…. haha. La elaha ella Allah, Mohammad rasoul Allah.
😂 totally true
Oooooh, I was hoping you would get him on! Wonderful!
Yes, this is so wonderful. Opened a big can of worms on the historicity of the Quran, which claimed to be a MIRACLE! But not a miracle as it seems. Remember he used the term STANDARDISED Uthman Quran, and there should NOT be any form of standardisation if it is a miracle and true words of God/Allah. Yes the ''Utman's Standardised Version of Quran'' is well preserved. But what and where were the other texts used to *standardise* the Quran? Sanna Manuscripts are a classic example. Even though the meanings of the two different texts [standard vs Sanaa] seems to be similar in context, an authentic, miraculous, divine, well preserved text should not have such differences or written-overs at all as it is a miracle with divine origins. This is history repeating itself, nothing but!
@@thetruthseeker5448 hmmm the can of worms is not so bad then.???
Halfway through the interview, as usual beautiful scholarship, a question I would’ve liked to explore more, as I think I know that Arabic was written without dots which can make huge difference in meaning of words, and then dots came at a later date, and the issue of “dotting” the written Arabic language is a debate and sometimes used as an argument against the transition between oral tradition of reciting and the written codex
One more thing, grammar, Arabic grammar was set into tangible rules in a proper text later on, how could that have affected the codex since Arabic has many vowels and ways of writing certain words especially in reference to plurals, males and females suffix and even the “mothanah “ when u refer to dual nouns
the answer to 52:44
“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one's utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self - the struggle to purify one's heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person.
so you can call the prayers and zakat Jihad too.
It felt like Derek had very tiny moments of 'joy' in this session.
😂😂😂 wallahi i too was looking at his face how dumb he gets when he hears what he didn't want to.
At first i underrated mythvision but now the quality of experts brought on board is commendable. No room for apologetics, polemics 😅.
Its really wonderful that you interview neutral critical scolars and not those biased Christian apologists or those activists who demonizing Islam making it look like something completely different in history of religions
So true! As an ex-convert to Islam who has studied both Islamic studies (secular) and Islamic divinity/theology (religious) (two seperate study subjects at university in the country I’m living) I really appreciate critical scholarship and I’m so thrilled that Derek gives actual scholars a platform.
I’ve been so frustrated lately to see either Christian or Muslim apologists mostly occupying the field. Their fights always remind me of the Spider man memes where two spider mans are pointing their fingers at each other lol
@@ahmarshaikh7427 how often do you want to keep spamming that @ me still ? lol (I don’t mean to be an ass but I just wondered)
@@ahmarshaikh7427 no worries! I’m sure you meant well.
This scholar is very isl am biased and not very useful for truthful learning.
@@ahmarshaikh7427 Please go and listen to the best scholars on the field - Dr. Shady Nasser for example
May God bless you for such an academic podcast, Ameen.❤
The stutter and the difficulties of both speakers to say the truth is sooo obvious..hahaha..just say it dude..it is very very perfectly PRESERVE! Caught it by suprise ehh?
Finally someone agrees
Still the standard narrative of the Qurans has giant holes in it.
@@TT-hx9nj What evidence again??
@@TT-hx9nj yes there is like your fraudulent canonical reader Ibn Amir ruclips.net/video/AwgcuCYqnsU/видео.html
@@ahmarshaikh7427 why are you showing a link to a video that doesn't address the fraudulent single chain of transmission of Ibn Amir's reading?
Great interview.. keep it coming Derek. Good job
Based on my limited understanding, this is the closest historical research and scholarship comes to highlighting the care our forebears took to preserve and transmit the Quran to future generations. I am sure many Muslims learned as much from this discussion as I did. Thank you both and Jazak Allah Khair.
The problem of the initial question is that it is wrong "was the Qur'an preserved dot for dot?" ... well, there were no dots! So you can't say yes or no.
There were minimal dots on early manuscripts not none.
@@inquisitivemind007
You get the point. Besides ... there were on _some_ early manuscripts which had those very minimal dots. And that doesn't mean there were any in how they were written down by the Prophet's scribes. The point still stands; the question is wrong.
There was no divine SKELETAL text either. The text is there to capture what was spoken to Prophet. So whether that spoken word such as colour is spelt with an English or American spelling doesn't alter the preservation of the oral speech.
@@OriginalAndroidPhone
Sorry but it has been proven that all manuscripts (except one) descend from the Uthmanic Archetype. So call that text-type archetype what you will. I call what was even before Uthman, what the Prophet had *his* scribes write down, the Prophetic rasm.
And no, I think the rasm is important and part of the revelation.
Excellent content yet again Derek!
We.....are.......MYTHVISION
Case in point, the Quran is not perfectly preserved, there is no miracle
@@sojernon8689
Have you even heard what he said?
@@Logia1978 yes, since the canonization the text is well preserved but not the 100% miraculous preservation Muslims claim. Also note he distinguishes the original Quran prior to the canonization and what came about after it. There is no certainty about how well it reflects what Muhammad originally said.
@@sojernon8689
The canonisation of the text is 100% preserved....
Every single word of the modern quran can be traced back to first century manuscripts....
The issue is not the text but the reading...
The faith part is that the othmanic text represent what Muhammad taught. We can not confirm or dismiss....
After that the othmanic codex is the same and is preserved til today....
@@Logia1978 I think what you’re trying to say is that the skeletal structure is preserved since the canonization? But the skeletal structure is not the same as the words, that’s why we have contradicting qirat.
What a great conversation alhamdullilah.
Very true about the book prices! There are a number on early Islam and the Quran that I can't afford but would love to have. This is purely out of interest, my field of study was astrophysics.
Well, start by reading the quran I guess. A lot of people are giving them away for free. How can we read book reviews without reading and experiencing the book firsthand, am I right? XD
@@Wotasheeep Are you assuming that I have not read the Quran? Why would you assume that? I have read the Quran more than once (I have three translations at home, one English-Arabic with commentary by well-known scholar), I have the 9-vol English-Arabic set of Sahih al-Bukhari and have read countless other hadiths online, I have read countless tafsirs by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, al-Jalalayn, Maududi and others, the commentaries by al-Tabari, and I have and read a couple of Sharia books.
However, one does not need to read the Quran if one is only interested in things like textual variants or the origin of the stories found in the Quran and would like to find out what scholars have to say on the topic.
@@theastronomer5800 I am terribly sorry if I offend you, I was just pointing out that you can get the quran for free, because you were talking about book prices. That's all. My additional comment was supposed to be a bit of a joke, hence the smiley face :)
But hey, that's good if you've read the quran, even all of those other essential stuff.
It can be a reflection for myself as well. Even though I was born and raised az a muslim, in a country with muslim as the major population, I can't even be sure that I know more than you regarding my own religion. Thank you. That is a problem of muslims nowadays. I believe it wasn't a problem back then, during the golden age of islam.
I hope we always strive to know the truth and never be misguided. Have a nice day random stranger :)
@@Wotasheeep No offence taken! As for your historical comment, I would disagree. I think it's only now that many Muslims are actually finding out about Islam, thanks to all the sources being available online in more and more languages (many writings of Islamic scholars were for example not translated into English until recently) and also to the fact that they can read. This is likely the main reason that so many are leaving the religion. The same was true for Christianity until just a couple of centuries ago. Muslims have also done VERY little textual and source criticism on the Quran, unlike Christians on their Bible, and most of the work in these fields is being done by Western scholars (with strong opposition by Muslims, because they don't like any facts which contradicts their beliefs, as Christians didn't about their Bible).
Keep in mind that during the ancient time and Middle Ages most people could not read and write. At best, it is estimated that ~5% of people could read and fewer write (it's the more difficult skill to learn). Also, Islamic sources were not translated into other languages so the people only knew "cultural Islam" and what they were told to do/believe. I'm from Poland myself and for centuries the Christian mass in Poland was in Latin! Which person from a small town, a farmer (most of the population...) could afford to spend many years in school to learn to read their own language, and after that start on another one like Latin or Greek?! So, people had no idea what the Christian texts or scholars said until these were translated into different languages and the average person went to school.
As for the Golden Age that you mention, remember that most of the famous people (scholars) from that time were NOT what you would consider devout Muslims. There were highly educated people and hence had many issues with the religious ideas and many were declared heretics, their works censored, and some were in prison. Here is just a short list:
Ibn Sina - rejected the Hereafter, accused of being a kafir and an atheist by scholars
Al Maarri - rejected the idea that Islam had a monopoly on truth, thought it was simply a matter of geographical accident what faith people adopted, regarded by historians as one of the three foremost atheists in Islamic history
Al Razi - heretic, was told that he should be executed for his ideas on religion and prophecy, he was censored for his opinions
Al Kindi - disagreed with the Quran, his library (know to all Baghdad) was confiscated and he got 50 lashes, fell into depression
Ibn Al Haytham - "father of optics", leader of heretical branch of Shiism, pretended to be insane to avoid execution, was under house arrest for 10 years
Al Farabi - argued against prophets, went against teaching of imams, shows that since all religions can present the same types of argument, one cannot tell which religion is right, which are wrong, or even if any are right
Thabit Ibn Qurra - Sabian, kafir, studied magic
Ibn Rushd - accused of heresy whose books were burn
Jabir Ibn Hayyan - was accused of being a magician
Ibn Battuata - accused of slandering religious leaders, had at least 6 marriages, lovers and fathered several children on his travels
Ibn Bajjah - many Muslim biographers consider him to have been an atheist
Al Khatib - a fatwas was issued in which his work on Sufism and philosophy were branded heretical, jailed and died in prison
Al Jahiz - a heretic who was told that he should be executed
You seem to be a well read person.I am seventy years old and have gone through the atheistic and agnostic and historical/factual grind.You can never get to the Quran through this route.
Quran is an emotion
The text speaks to you.I advice you to read the footnotes of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Asad translations.My sincere advice...
It’s a miracle having so many quality shows
Readings existed at the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace
1- I'm watching almost 30 minutes now and he didn't mention the oral preservation of the quran.
2- He didn't tell that quran is the primary source of islam, while hadith is secondary and all of quran is mutawatir or with the process of multiple different people who narrated or taught the same thing in 100% level.
Both Derek and the guy Marijn seem to try hard to get a point to criticize the preservation but they failed. Quran is different than bible and right now, there are at least 20 million people who know orally by heart. These people are called Hufaz in plural and Hafiz in singular and they even live in your city and pray in your local mosque. Text and writing preservation in quran is secondary to this type of oral preservation. If you produce a new wrong text and call it quran, no one will take you serious, because most of the people know by hear and mistakes will be apparent when read. An extraordinary book.
All the Quran is mutawatir 😆 is that why you don't know is basmalah is verse no 1 of Surah Fatiha or not ruclips.net/video/9vFLNWGNDxE/видео.html
He's a historian, he's not interested in tradition, and not interested in our claims. That's fine though.
I appreciate the honesty. A good researcher is an honest one. May God guide us all :))
This is awesome! Please interview Ahmad Jallad, Shady Nasser, and Asma Hilali as well. I think you already have a talk with Sean Anthony which I will watch next
He already had a discussion with Shady Nasser. But agreed with your other options too!
@@inquisitivemind007 Aww she doesnt agree with your conclusions
@@inquisitivemind007 ruclips.net/video/9SCECRhQHW0/видео.html
Hythem sidky agrees wih her
@@inquisitivemind007 48 : 51
@@inquisitivemind007 iam talking about haythem sidky and this video
ruclips.net/video/9SCECRhQHW0/видео.html
He mentions Asma Hillali as one of the 3 major works on the Sanaa manuscript
He does not say Asma Hillali is wrong
and also he agrees with the opinion that the Sanaa reading is a companion reading
The Qur'an is indeed, at times, engaging intertextually with non-canonical gospels. The author of the Qur'an is not mandated to conform to Athanasius' 39th festal letter. Just as the Qur'an confirms and repudiates Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it also confirms certain things in other gospels. The Qur'an does not care if highly Hellenized proto-orthodox ante-Nicene Christian fathers considered certain other Christian writings to be heresy. The author of the Quran is bound by no one. Even the gospel of John says: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
The Quran fails to even account for most of the theological paradigms and discourse of the gospels and Old Testament to which it so heavily relies upon. And the proposed corruption is ad hoc, and there is no actual evidence in the history and tradition contra academic delusions of mass fabrication or internal contradiction and textual unreliability. The real question is an examination of how the Quran lines of to biblical theological and soteriological motifs as opposed to fallacious arguments of truth hood
This was so so informative and interesting!
I'm not a Muslim, so I won't defend the preservation or divinity of the Quran. But, I do know BS when I see it, and Van Putten's reasoning (in many cases) is patently circular. Without delving into the finer details of the Arabic Qira'at, just a few examples will suffice:
1. The differences in the readings of Q 5 : 6 (wipe vs. wash the feet) reflect "sectarian" differences.
Van Putten says that if the written text was originally ambiguous, then it must have been open to interpretation by different sects. And if different sects uphold different interpretations of the text (which they do), then that must mean that these are nothing more than different interpretations of what was undoubtedly an originally ambiguous text.
2. The differences in the vocalization of Q 21 : 112 and Q 43 : 24 (say vs. said) reflect the trivial choices of the eponymous readers.
Van Putten says that the eponymous readers (Hafs etc.) were working from an originally ambiguous text, and they had to apply their own individual guesswork to make sense of it. And if the Qira'at differ from one another in seemingly trivial ways (and they do), then that must mean that the original text was susceptible to multiple, independent, and ultimately trivial readings (i.e. the text itself was originally ambiguous).
In short, Van Putten sees the state of the Qira'at (as we know it today) as evidence of the ambiguity of the original text, but that very same ambiguity is the primary, unproven assumption underlying Van Putten's analysis of the state of the Qira'at, in the first place. Again, since I'm not a Muslim, I won't say that this automatically vindicates the traditional Islamic understanding of these issues. Far from it. But, let's be honest: if anyone else had made this argument (i.e. anyone without a PhD) he would have been laughed out of the room immediately.
@@ahmarshaikh7427 the Quran was preserved through people’s hard dedication and devotion not a magical unexplainable miracle but still very impressive
@@ahmarshaikh7427 that academic said that the quran is not 100% preserved. He agrees that human errors , variations and corruptions were introduced after muhammad's time. this is obviously difficult for muslims who think that islam is true because quran 15:9 says that allah will preserve/protect the quran, and if a supposedly perfectly infallible being is saying he will preserve something, you'd expect it to be preserved perfectly and infallibly. You would not expect the text to be preserved fallibly and almost perfectly , like how humans would preserve/protect a text.
@@ahmarshaikh7427 If you believe that the quran has been perfectly preserved then you should be able to answer this question .
When the quran 17:102 quotes what moses said to pharoah, did moses say
"you have already known that none has sent down these signs except the lord of the heavens and the earth "
or did moses say " I have already known that none has sent down these signs except the lord of the heavens and the earth"
according to the "canonical" reading of al-Kisāʾī , moses said "I have already known", but the other "canonical" readings say that moses said "you have already known".
Which is it? Either one thing could have been said on that occasion by moses or another, not both. Whichever quote is correct, the other must be wrong because he only could have said one of them on that occasion.
There are at least 14 other examples in the quran of different "canonical" readings directly contradicting each other by quoting characters saying different things on the same occasion. You can't do the normal cope of claiming that it's all just like malik/maalik because these are quotes in the quran of what characters said on particular occasions , so only one version of what he said could be true and match what that character actually said on that occasion.
@@lordsneed9418 yes this is a good point . Both readings are seen as true and that causes a some what lost in translation effect . In the original Arabic it's not an issue as both words are same but when read can be read or understood differently so some ambiguity is inherent but this has no theological problem .
The question is did he say it I know or you know ...still stands and that's a matter of interpretation and translation .
@@lordsneed9418 al-Kisa'i's reading in Q 17 : 102 is not a contradiction. Just think about it logically. The Quran is (according to the traditional theological definition) the verbatim speech of God only - not the verbatim speech of anyone else. In other words, the Quran does not purport to be the verbatim speech of Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus etc. Indeed, this should be obvious to anyone who reads the Quran, if for no other reason than that the Quran is in Arabic, and none of these individuals (by the Muslims' own admission) spoke Arabic during their lifetimes! The Quran's claim is simply that God speaks and that God tells the story. Ostensibly, we can trust God to re-tell the story accurately, but it's important to note that (whether or not you're a Muslim) God isn't under any obligation to report these stories in a comprehensive, "courtroom transcript-style" fashion. Such a requirement would certainly clash with the Islamic doctrine of the eloquence of the Quran (i.e. how could Pharoah, for example, be as eloquent as God? Is God forced to constrain his own eloquence in order to produce a wooden, literal, word-for-word translation of exactly what Pharoah said?) No. The Quran, from the Muslim perspective at least, is beyond human speech (or as Seyyed Hosein Nasr once put it "the ippsissima vox of God, in the Quran, shattered the Arabic language, and transformed it..."). Thus, precisely how this should be resolved is unimportant to me, since I'm not a Muslim. But I can at least recognize that, for a Muslim, the Quran may encompass any number of specific solutions (e.g. obviously one could say that God intended to express the meaning of both, without actually attributing either one to Moses. Or we might apply modal logic, such that there is a possible world where Moses said "I know" and a possible world in which he said "you know"). The point is: if we read the Quran the way it's meant to be read, then there is no contradiction.
Interesting stuff but in direct contradiction to the material the likes of Jay Smith is producing. Smith is an evangelical christian I know and has an agenda, but his contention that the written material is very late (a couple of centuries after Mohammed) is presented as academic research... i
Like you said , Smith is coming with an agenda. His views are absent from peer reviewed journals and the consensus of scholars of authority
But his basic contention about the late date for a written source should be easily refuted if so..
@@thomaschapple4749 it has been refuted but people choose selectively what suits their agenda. In the 70s maybe he could have gone unchallenged but nowadays with all the early manuscripts that have been carbon dated, those extreme revisionist theses are untenable
@@zeustn9525 I look forward to hearing about these reputations fromn academics not Believers
@@thomaschapple4749 well you just heard one of them. The manuscripts that have been dated lately leave little doubts about the date of the canonisation of the codex. But there are also some very clever studies on the text itself that show there was an archetype then 4 copies from which all the other manuscripts descend... which is exactly what the Islamic tradition reports.
Jihad literally means to strive in the way of Allah. For ex, if a man wants to sleep with a woman but stops himself for the sake of Allah, that is jihad. To pray & give charity is also jihad. Contrary to western beliefs the word jihad has nothing to do with holy war, there is a completely different term for that which is only mentioned once in the Quran if Im not mistaken
Very scientific and helpful even to the rational religious Muslim . Thank you for the chance to enjoy rare objective dealing with Islam .
Great show!
Great interview! One key thing to understand is that when Marijn talks about the text being preserved from Uthman onwards he means the rasm, which was a skeleton that had no marks for short vowels and hardly any dots to distinguish the many consonants that look alike. That's where the oral recitations come in though these have thousands of variants. Besides the canonical 2000ish and companion 2000ish there were many thousands more read by non canonical readers after Uthman. These are all collected in an academic work called Mu'jam al qira'at by Abd al-Latif al-Khitab. It has about ten volumes coming to 6000 pages total listing variants and their reciters (about 5 variants per page).
To add that the regional scribal errors he mentioned are hereditary and have been passed down into today's Quran.
This is a clear mis-representation of the state of the canonical Qira'at. The first characteristic which ought to be mentioned and emphasized is the overwhelming (even nearly invincible) agreement among them. This is the statistically accurate way to discuss the Qira'at, lest lay people come away with the impression that there are overwhelming differences among the canonical Qira'at, which is false. As Van Putten himself conceded in a tweet from Feb. 10th of this year:
@ PhDniX: "And while I agree with Nasser that not all of the canonical readings are completely mutawātirah, this does not mean that *nothing* of it is mutawātirah. The canonical readers agree on variants that have effect on the meaning at least 98% of the time."
Any additional variation variation among non-canonical readings would only be relevant from a purely abstract historical perspective, since they pose no theological problem for Muslims (precisely because they're non-canonical). To be clear, I'm not a Muslim, and therefore I'm not trying to trivialize the differences which do exist among the canonical Qira'at. But, if we're going to criticize Islam, we need to be honest. And discussing these Qira'at in a way that minimizes or obscures the fact that they have a 98% level of agreement is dishonest.
I'm doing no such thing trying to obscure the level of agreement. Van Putten says in the video itself that the roughly 2000 are out if c. 70,000 words and so the differences are less than 1% (sic). I assume the readers of my comment will have watched the video. My point rather is to add that there were thousands more disagreements recorded of dozens of non canonical reciters besides the ones he mentioned. That is to be expected when there are so many other reciters and did not all comply with the rasm unlike the canonical ones. It gives a more complete picture of the oral landscape in which variants may have arisen. The scale of variety is relevant to the question of whether variants were ever innovated.
@@alanbishopman you clearly don't know anything about your own religion like your so called reading from Allah called Hamzah Zayat whose reading was seen as a piece of junk ruclips.net/video/oJxqC5aQXgg/видео.html now all of a sudden is from Allah now is it?
At 1.38 .00 seconds he asked the question on scribe error becoming part of the cannon.
Interesting answer .
Any other documents or tradition that had this much hard dedication to preserve as close to the original as Islam has for centuries? I really want to know
Give credit where credit is due. No doubt out of all the religious books in the world 🌎 the Quran is no 1 when it comes to being as it was written 1400 years ago.
@@inquisitivemind007 fair play . But you hate it tho.
@@snf321gotti6 the contents of it isn't great. If I get into which part then this debate will go on forever so I'll leave going down that route.
@@inquisitivemind007 ok. Just know that we have views and opinions on those aspects that don't necessarily mean what the outside world attributes to it. .
Asma Hilali thinks the Sanaa Palimpsest is actually the work of a student learning to write the Quran. Which means the work is not written by a professional scribe but by a novice who was writing from memory and not copying from a text in front of him. In one instance there is a note that says ‘do not say bismillah’ at the beginning of surah 9. All Muslims know every surah in the Quran starts with bismillah except surah 9. It seems the teacher was correcting the student not to write bismillah at the beginning of that surah. That’s a telltale sign it was not written by a professional scribe.
Amazing! Enjoyed every second of this as much as with other Islamic scholars. Not or never to Islamic apologist 'scholars' yet more to ex Muslims as to why they left Islam, for us to know their personal stories, wisdoms, and argument. Cheers Derek I cant wait you reach 5OK sub, wonder why this channel is so underrated
Derek:
I hope you'll keep doing more crossovers, such as with Andrew from Religion for Breakfast.
Istighfar (Astaghfirullah) is the road to happiness and relief. Start chanting it whenever you are distressed, and it will, insha Allah, lift you out of your anxiety, place you in a tranquil position
Great interview amd conversations here. Derek is a great host with the right interjections here and there.
Your channel is amazing Derek, thanks for the enlightenment. Cheers from Morocco
Salam / Peace. In the third example for lower text and modern text comparison (example from surah tawba), jihad means struggle in the way of Allah swt. It's a wide concept. You can consider fighting, praying, giving alms, fighting against evil temptations as parts of the Jihad concept. So praying and giving zakat can be considered under the concept of Jihad. When you look at the second example (surah munafiqun) where you see "they increased their disbelief", this expression is actually mentioned in somewhere else in the Quran in a similar way (3:90 and 4:137). So, I guess at that point the scribe of Sana'a manuscript was probably confused so that he mixed up the order of verses in a sense. Lastly, when you guys talk about the preservation you mentioned that Quran says "it will be preserved" and so muslims are doing their best to memorize it and protect it and because this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.... well actually it's not self-fulfilling when you understand how Allah swt do things from the Islamic point of view. Without his "permission" or "approval" or "confirmation" nothing actually "happens". If we succeed in doing something, it is actually because He let us do that. Allah (swt) knows best.
Conclusion is that the Qur'an is not perfectly preserved according to normal definition
What is YOUR Definition of *PERFECTLY PRESERVED* then, to CONCLUDE
@@amanpalestina9664 I guess it will be what they claim word for word letter for letter ? Basically it is the same as it was originally spoken. But that will be hard to prove .
@@siaboonleong : Ya its true. Chinese Paper Technology wasn't available yet until the 8th Century. Scrolls and Parchment wont be able to carry through the Semitic Lingua-Pranka as advance as the Chinese Civilization, at large. Abjad (Semitic Alphabet) were at its infancy burdened with NO VOWEL in any Semitic Writing, Hebrew, Aramaic, Hijazi etc. Most importantly Muhammad himself is The Unlettered Prophet. The ONLY logical way is through the *Verbal Transmission* which is guarded by the 7-Hafs, 10-Qiraat, Wash and Tajweed etc. Only during the Caliph Uthman time the Writing System were developed properly with the introduction of the Indian Numerical System.
This video explained it well and DR Marijn van Putten expressed it (Al-Quran) as *THE MOST STABLE*
There is NO such thing any available Perfectly Preserved original. Guesses has to be made on the Egyptian Heliograph and Babylonian Writing and NOBODY knows how it sounds like. Nobody knows what language Moses 1,200+BCE speak and the earliest Septuagint is in the 1st Century and it was in Greek. Nobody knows how earliest Bible ended up in Greek Kone too and there is none in Aramaic available. The oldest Yalur Vedas is 2nd BCE and nobody knows the earliest BOB.
Great interview, good to see an expert talk on this.
At around 1:16:00 the professor says that Hafs an Aasim is not in the dialect of the prophet. Is Warsh an Nafii closer to his dialect? I believe it does read ى as "e" and drops the pronunciation of hamzas.
The Qur'an was revealed in different dialects. It's basic knowledge.
@@samboy90 No one is disputing that but the question is about which readings align with which dialects more.
Van Putten is of the view that the dialect underlying the Qurān was "Old Hijazi". He deals with this in his articles. He is of the view that this dialect had imālah (e), indicated by a yā and alif maqsûrah, and that it lacked hamzah within words (mūmin instead of mu'min). He has also expressed the view that the Hejazi dialect pronunced words such as salāt, hayât and zakāt as salôh, hayôh and zakôh. In that sense, he would probably say that Qira'āt that have preserved such readings are "closer" to the dialect that the prophet and his companions spoke. He is otherwise a secular scholar, and does not consider the Qur'ān preserved in the sense that it is word for word exactly what Muhammad announced. But he does consider the Uthmanic rasm a fairly stable and well preserved manuscript tradition. He calls it "Uthmanic", without saying anything regarding if Uthman actually was a caliph or not etc. But that is his view as far as I have been able to gather. He also seems to hold the view that later Qira'āt are overlaid on the original orthography/rasm of the Qur'ān. That is, they are derivative and secondary to the skeletal text of the Qurān. Not original in the sense that religious Muslim believe. They tell us more about the linguistic sensibilities of the Basran and Kufan scholars in Ummayyad and Abbasid times, than the language of the first generation of Muslims.
51:30 The first sentence marked in red can also be found in the text that Osama B.L. used as legitimisation (Sword verse, or something). If we see those two versions as interchangeable and it's imposed on that verse, then it's kinda weird.
Quran doesn't only say, it's in the tongue of Arabs and clear to understand. Quran also says, "It has clear verse and unambiguous verse, and only the wicked minded will go to unambiguous verse to reject truth".
So, unknown and ambiguous words doesn't mean lost pronunciation. Different word other than known dialect certainly doesn't mean lost word for sole reason of all word needs to be in known vocabulary.
Can you "literally make a mistake accidentally"? Isn't a mistake by definition an accident? Can you make a mistake on purpose? So many questions.
That's not the question the question is did they do those mystics.. but if u look at it it's less than 1% 5-10 lines of the Quran.....
Thankyou for Your Reaction, Peace and Happy Always.
INDONESIA LOVE YOU.
In quran One word is used more than 700 times. Jala, ج ع ل
Meaning to make
but physical material not involved
Example
To make any policey
Mythvision brings the best Religious content on RUclips.
Congratulations for taking on Islam
Please also go and have an interview with Dr. Shady Nasser who also is an expert on the topic.
Check out Derek's recent videos and you'll have a nice surprise :)
did you see the first part Trinity he said quran is preserved all of it and the bible doesnt even come close its laughable xd xd xd
@@knowledge_lantern allah was nowhere near to preserve anything as he clearly promised us and challenged us in the qran, unfortunately ruclips.net/video/F8l7GU-tvkw/видео.html
@@knowledge_lantern allah said - we easily busted 😂 🤦♂
@@knowledge_lantern Even if quran was preserved, it would be preserved with countless of contradictions, errors and scientific failures. So ur argument is pretty much pointless.
Did u know there are 30+ different arabic versions of q0ran? Allah lost count on how many different qurans he have 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣 ruclips.net/video/pWCSLmgOhdE/видео.html
Excellent and Genuine academic work! far from far-fetching or bias. I love it
Great talk man. I wish you would get Ali Ataie on next....
I'm quite a way in to this, but isn't the traditional Muslim explanation reasonable, in that there were variants that were fringe or unusual emerging, so the Uthamani codex endeavour was initiated to address the issue? From the scholarly perspective is there undue attention on dismantling an entirely reasonable explanation that, in and of itself, didn't appeal to any supernatural cause. Forgive me if you've already dealt with this in this discussion.
Derek need to apologize about his view and what he said in the past about Quran prior to this interview
Before this interview , he said he was of the view that Quran is like Bible
This is a discussion of history and facts that can be respected by all Muslims. This discussion bear no resemblance to the hate speech and Islamophobia. Most of what the professor is saying is well understood by many educated Muslims. However, it is refreshing yo hear this discussion among Westerners instead of the traditional fear mongering against Islam.
I would like to know if the Doctor could produce a chapter like the Quran. Secondly, the Quran is that which is orally recited, not that which is written in a book. For example, I can recite my ABC's perfectly, but I might make a mistake in writing it down.
If it was preserved, why did it take from the time of writing in the mid 8th century to the 1920s for a final version to win approval ?
Go back to j Smith and show him this interview . Please .
@@snf321gotti6 😆
@@snf321gotti6 Lol, Well said. It's baffling how some people don't apply any critical thinking on the source of information they get from.
Most people just look for confirmation bias
@@hmansour89 👍
What was standardized in 1920s is having a specific verse on a specific page on a specific position.
Hamad abdel Samad is great as well. If you could invite him to the show that would be great.
Do you compare a distinguisged scholar in Leiden to an ignorant and no scholar !!!!!
@@ahmedamir4240 🤣 I agree with you on that.
@@ahmedamir4240 Ignorant Sheikhs wanted to kill Hamed
@@takiyaazrin7562 You said ignorant, so they can be no sheiks people like this guy his arguments shall be refuted and if he is Murtad or renegade God only has the authority to punish him in the hereafter unless he did not launch a war or violent actions against believers
The host is incorrect about Psalm 22:16. He forgets that the Hebrew manuscripts didn't originally have the vowel diacritics.
Can Mr. van Putten produce a letter by letter RASM comparision of the codes(mushaf) of Uthman and todays Hafs stripped down to RASM? Everyone would love to see such comparision to be at ease about the preservation issue.
This one, Sean Anthony and Shady Nasser are the best. Serious scholars. But the ex-muslims are also important
@@inquisitivemind007 watch blogging theology ..recently had him on talking this topic
Felt Shady Nasser was evasive on sources of Quran, tried to be flippant about age of Aisha, apparently he's not heard of women having issues with child marriage and the Prophet's conduct.
Putten has been the best so far. Would like to see Robert Hoyland on or another revisionist academic who can really challenge SIN. Sean Anthony didn't do that.
@@Stardust475 well yes ask him questions about what he does not about what you want to talk about . As the other guy said ask the right questions this host was trying hard to squeeze out some points.
Exposing Harvard Professor Shady Hekmat Nasser
ruclips.net/video/SRvc6YARzRY/видео.html
One more thing what the "scholar" forgot to mention is why such variations existed in the first place? the simple fact that was narrated by the tradition (hadith) was to accommodate dialects of different tribes, though the traditional view (opinion not hadith) was that Arabic is a static language with different dialects from the dawn of history, modern historians found that modern Arabic came into existence a mere century before the prophet peace and blessing of God upon him (actually Quran created and unified Arabic grammar), this meant that at the time of the prophet the difference between tribes scattered of more than 3 million km² was more than a mere dialect, so the Quran had to accommodate this because of two reasons the first is the dissemination of Quran among the tribes, the second is the reluctance of these tribes to use Quraish's ( the prophet tribe) "dialect" out of tribal pride. What Othman had codified was Quraish "dialect" and that was clearly mentioned, all of that was missed by the "scholar".
Did you watch the whole video? Because he clearly mentioned all those things.
@@AJansenNL I watched until the supposed contradiction of "they said two magics" vs. "they said two magicians" ignoring the simple fact that a multitude of people do say multiple things at the same time, refusing this simple fact of life gave me indication I should be watching something less biased.
@@AJansenNL Did he mentioned modern historians' opinions on the state of the Arabic language at the revelation time, he did not, while it is the only reason keraat existed in the first place, this is one thing he missed.
Whatever you know he knows and he knows a lot more that you don't.
@@inquisitivemind007 Of course he knows and that is my problem with him he does not convey that knowledge to the audience, he is telling half truths, and in some cases he pretends to miss basic logic when that is convenient for him, that is my problem with him.
Something is missing here. You will note when uthman heard of differences he and the committee went back to the source and made a comparison with the source instead of keeping the source aside and making a comparison of the two that are differing.
The interesting things with the Sanaa texts is it relates to sahih hadeeths where the prophet mentioned that gibrail taught him to recite in different ways.
The Islamic scholars say this was due to some words having different meanings in different dialects. For example in the Qurashi dialect a word meant a certain thing but in the Yemeni dialect that word meant something different. The Arabs wasn't a cohesive people before Islam, and even today different words have different meanings in North Africa vs Saudi Arabia and this is after standardisation of the Arabic language.
Derek you are the man! Don’t mean it as some sort of ass kissing 😂 but you really manage to bring all of the major academics to your channel.
Great stuff dude 🤓👌
The preservation is different because of the very different ways in which the religions developed. Christianity for a long time was a fringe religion, while Islam conquered and expanded very quickly.
Case in point, the Quran is not perfectly preserved, there is no miracle
@@sojernon8689 Not according to the academic research from professor Marijn Van Putten. Unlike you, he doing a proper research on the Quran. While you graduate from Whatsapp University.
True, usually religion develop slowly with ketchup added here and there like christianity.
Theres one god at the start, then after some multiple meeting, it become 3 fully god person.
Islam is an exception. its still strong and doesnt seems to die out.
@@ridhuan2335 You are forgetting that fact that Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and the Jewish religion emerged from a polytheistic world of the region, with Yahweh being one of the gods worshiped and eventually became the only god worshiped by the Israelites (the Bible speaks of not worshiping those "other" gods). Also, you speak of 3 persons in Christianity, but one of them is the holy spirit which the Quran also speaks of.
As for Islam dying out, that goes against the evidence. If you look at many Islamic countries the people are fed up with this backwards ideology. In Iran, a 99% Muslim country, only about 40% of people believe in a god (less for the younger population). As people become more educated about their sources, history, science, etc, they tend to leave these ancient superstitions behind.
@@theastronomer5800You take Iran as an example 😂😂😂. Iran is a majority Shia country and Shia people go against many teachings of Islam. There is a reason why there is a clear distinction between Shia and Sunni Muslims because Shia people have a lot of different beliefs than Sunni's. You can't look at one country failing due to politics and say that Islam as a religion is dying. Iran is such a small percentage of "muslims" that their downfall is of no significance to Islam as a whole.
Has Dr Ali Atai been on this chanel ? Just came across this discussion and loved it. Perhaps having an Islamic academic on would help elaborate on discussions like these.
Do you mean a Muslim scholar? Otherwise, this guest is an Islamic scholar (an expert, non-muslim scholar in Islamic studies).
@@Kuuzie1I mean he literally brings ex Muslims to talk about Islam? And Ali ataie although is biased towards Islam will bring evidence he won’t just speak out of his ass😂😂
❤thank you. Humbled. Affirmed. Alhamdulillah.
Two things can be true at the same time. 1:03:00. If you speak in another language you can translate a sentence into English but it wont convey the same meaning. e.g I can speak Urdu and say "Wo Udr hai". If I translate it into English it would be "He is there" or "She is there" or "It is there". The "Wo" is gender neutral. All of them can be true. Hazrat Musa (PBUH) did not speak Arabic. He might have spoken in a way where it meant both things. So put two and two together.
With all due respect, anyone says there's a grammatical mistake in the Quran, it's nonsense
It's just nonsense because the pagans (enemies of Islam) were masters in the language, and they could have reported it immediately.
If there is a deference in one or two places of what you usually know, it's because you don't know it's valid in another perspective of the language.. and all Companions knew it, but that clearly mean it's a revelation from God, not from a man who could insure to avoid such confusings...
What a great religion, with a great book and authentic legacy!
By the way, many claims from the gust need to be corrected... Already refuted by Muslim scholars, he needs to ask the right persons for clarification.. or needs to search more!
Religion is a control mechanism, be it an ancient one or a current one (e.g. climate or covid scare). All are based on fear and submission.
@@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951 Well of course we need to be controlled in a way or else there would be no rules regulations literally hell on earth. Look at some of our biggest cities it’s disgusting. In LA you can steal up to $450 worth of stuff and the police can’t say anything. Wtf is that all about. Liberalism is also a control mechanism through your lens.
Are you talking about Proposition 47? You misunderstood. Stealing any amount is misdemeanor.
Here is an example of a contradictory readings. in Surah 10:16 , “if Allah had willed I should not have recited it to you nor would He have made it known to you.” wa laa adrakum is the reading of most Readers, which negate knowing. Ibn Katheer reading is “wa la adrakum” by not pronouncing the alef after the lam, the meaning be comes affirmative . “He would have made it known to you.” Dereck. I would love to be on your podcast.
The Sanaa version is a personal copy. Someone memorized it and then for his wrote it down for his personal copy
Its not even certain that Osman existed. The canonised version of Quran we have today was in fact produced by Abdul Malik. Even if Osman existed he didn’t have the means to canonise the Quran and send it to other places.
Derek’s ignorance is astonishing.
He is biassed...
This was fantastic.
1:00:15 no its not a sectarian difference. In sunni islam we have both washing the feet, and wiping over the socks. This is a fiqh issue so as we see here the qiraat only add meaning to the deen of Allah while preserving maximum eloquence in its recitation.
The period of the Messenger and the Companions is an unknown period to us (except for what came in the Qur’an) because during the time of the Messenger there was no historian to record and we did not obtain an inscription or document from the same time...All our information (which is fictitious) came a century or two after the death of the Messenger.
Marijn van Putten's ignorance and the likes want the Qur’an to be in line with the tradition, therefore he was confused and couldn't think properly and this is because the effect of the tradition on his mind.
We do not know anything about the people of the Messenger and his companions except what the Qur’an mentioned only.
Don’t you know that God is the one who preserves the Qur’an and not the people.
75:17 "Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation."
Note the word (Us).
15:9 "Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [the Qur’ān], and indeed, We will be its guardian."
Note the word (We).
41:42 "Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy."
A divine law that conquers and prevents every creature from distorting.
18:27 "And recite, [O Muḥammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words"
Divine law forbids distortion.
80:11 "No! Indeed, they [these verses] are a reminder;"
80:12 "So whoever wills may remember it."
80:13 "[It is recorded] in honored sheets,"
80:14 "Exalted and purified,"
80:15 "[Carried] by the hands of messenger-angels,"
80:16 "Noble and dutiful."
56:77 "Indeed, it is a noble Qur’ān."
56:78 "In a Register well-protected;"
56:79 "None touch it except the purified [the angels]."
56:80 "[It is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds."
Clear texts that the Qur’an can't be reached and can't be receive distortion.
The Qur'an has nothing to do with humans.
The Qur’an is preserved by God, and there is no income for anyone but God.
What do you think about the Sunnah that prove that verses and even chapters are missing?
@@danma3548 the sunnah is corrupted. The same way the way the Torah was corrupted by mishna is the same way hadiths corrupted Islam
@@centi50s Oh interesting. Quran only or shiite?
@@danma3548 I am just plain Muslim 😊
Hi Derek - see the comment from Prof Ali Ataie . He is definitively some one you should invite. He is a living encyclopaedia ( or shall I say Google 🤔) of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He speaks Hebrew, Latin and Arabic amongst many languages. I am sure that would be a hit show.
The preservation of the Quran reminds me of today's blockchain tech...
Islamic doings are once again ahead of the world xD.
I remember as a kid playing a Nintendo society building game, which portrayed the Orient as advanced and full of new tech... like water bombs (to irrigate the fields) and advanced ships and stuff.
Looking back, in a way it did put some love and admiration to the Orient and especially Muslim culture...
Which at the end of the day is the culture that surrounds the revelation, even if the revelations transcend cultures and in fact had been given to every culture pretty much, at least according to the Islamic narrative (and you can see monotheism indeed widespread in the world, not always coming from Abrahamic religions, that also would be interesting to study...)
Jazakallah for the video brother in humanity...
I'm an occidental revert btw, that also strikes me, the variety of ethnicity we have in Islam... here in Spain people must think Islam is from Morocco... because that's what we have near... but not at all...
I'm extremely happy, because I did find God again, and he guided me, and my morals are restored and I'm not in darkness anymore.
Here we have Catholicism as the only way to "God", but I always looked at the idols of the Church and felt that it was fake... also the Church was always empty, that gave me the vibes you know...
And like many Christians, and this is btw the Islamic vision, I thought Jesus was just a prophet and the messiah, not God...
That also tells you something... We instinctively, by the fitra, know the truth of God being one...
And when you read the Bible overall, you can't help but think Jesus is a prophet of God, sent by God, and not God.
This is especially true if you consider the fact that many of the verses they use to say Jesus is God are literally later additions... precisely because the originals were more open and sometimes did point out at the fact that Jesus is a prophet of God and not God... May the peace and blessings of Allah be on Jesus son of Mary...
Also, I get frustrated when i research the Bible, because it gives so many confusing messages, and every time I find out x verse was added later... I can't just follow a text of that quality...
On the other hand, and this is key, the Quran is quite explicit, and clarifies the condition of Jesus son of Mary.
The Nicea convention, essentially humans doing politics, voted that Jesus is God and equal to the Father.
But the Father (Allah) said:
5:17
لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۚ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ شَيْـًٔا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ ٱلْمَسِيحَ ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُۥ وَمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًۭا ۗ وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا ۚ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌۭ ١٧
Indeed, those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have fallen into disbelief. Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Who has the power to prevent Allah if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and everyone in the world all together?” To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. He creates whatever He wills. And Allah is Most Capable of everything.
- Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran
Again, not the fault of fellow Christians, but we are brothers in humanity, and in the end of the day, we must point out the facts, in a respectful and honest manner, knowing we can also be wrong.
If anything, the Christians priests who lied and deformed the scripture are the only ones to blame... not people who simply were converted to Christianity because in the village they didn't have anything else...
So, peace be upon you may brothers in humanity... and may Allah guide you and me, to the real success...
Meanwhile the companions had different amount of surahs
Woop Woop 🙌 You have nailed it. 🎉
Nailing is a different religion.
@Vicky Wells May you give me your take on this interview Vicky?, do you think that this scholar supports your theory regarding Qur'an having glaring preservation issues? (With my infinite respect to you).😊
@@juadwhite1391 Hi Juad. Marijn makes it very clear that the Uthman Quran IS well preserved however the BIG issue (that Marijn conceded) is that we have ZERO source materials from the first 70 years of Islam (before the creation of Uthman Quran) and this interrupts our knowledge of what was ‘preserved’ before this.
We know lots of Islamic material was burned and destroyed to create the Uthman Quran and so this is for me the ‘glaring problem’ in our ability to be confident in the Quran. (Although the Quran is also supported by the oral transmission which creates additional issues)
@@misswarda78 just to clarify, if the canon is fixed in 650 then the "missing" documents period covers 40 years from the start of the prophetic ministry or 20 from the prophet's death. Also, we do not "know" that the alternative codices have been all burned. One tradition claims so but the Sanaa palimpsest clears contradicts it. And in anyway it's impossible to prove it because it implies the absence of documents to prove it!!
I also beg the question, why on earth many Quranic materials were destroyed [which is a historical fact] to make way to ''create'' Uthman's Quran to be the foundation of the standardised version less than a century between Mohamed's preaching and creation of Utman's Quran. What were the destroyed material and why? Furthermore an existence of a book called Quran does not qualify to claim it is the words God. On the same note what qualifies Mohamed or any other to be ''a'' prophet of God.
On what basis does the interviewee assert there was a complete Koran in existence at about 650 AD? Where is there any complete manuscript from that era?
He said we have basically the complete Quran (or to be specific, the rasm which didn't have vowels and sparse dotting to tell various consonants apart though it could be easily guessed usually) when you put all the 1st century fragments together. Much or most verses are covered by more than one 1st century fragment. Some "fragments" cover multiple surahs. But bare in mind the rasm isn't enough to preserve they meaning on its own and the readings of it did have disagreements.
@@adamnasser2995 then you don't have the complete Quran in the first century.
@@tomasmatias4109 we absolutely do. The entirety of thr Quran is found in 1st century manuscripts with a few holes in some folios it leads scholars to say around 95-99% but those are natural deteriorations that are easily supplemented with other manuscripts close in age. Refer to Dr Hythem Sidky's interview on blogging theology.
@@iliasalmaudi8365 suit yourself. If that is what you believe, that is what you believe.
Here is an analogy. If you have a human body where one arm is in one museum, another is in another museum and the body in the 3rd. Do we have a complete body? Answer is yes. Are they in one place? Answer is no they are spread out.
Canadian linguist and Middle Easterner Robert Kerr sheds new light
on the origins of Islam. According to his research, the alphabet used in the
oldest known manuscripts of the Quran shows rather than the founding book of
Islam appeared in the area currently covered by Jordan, Syria and Iraq
and not in Mecca or Medina.
Research Phd Robert Martin Kerr
The Department of Archaeology & Classical Studiesis pleased to present a lecture by:
Dr. Robert Kerr
The historical origins of Islam: Some archaeological and linguistic remarks
”
The biggest worry; Muslim intellectuals run away from any meaningful discussion
He did not talk about the goat that ate the quran
so you like shoddy narrative this man is a scholar work according evidence not biased by dogma !!!
A very popular point that polemics tend to use. However, it holds no weight in a scholarly realm. Let me explain, suppose you have a book today and your dog eats a page of that book. Does that mean that the page is forever lost. The answer is no since your book is not the only copy.
Same thing applied on the story with quran and the goat.
At the time the quran was already widespread in the islamic community and there were already other qurans written.
Thats why you dont see neutral scholars use such a story, because it holds no value.
I've mostly seen people with an agenda use this point.
@@hmansour89 Did you check the authenticity of this hadith of thre chicken ???? these are baseless narratives even contradict the historical material evidence? why shall resort to things outside the text itself !!
The 3rd Caliph that burned all the original versions? The oldest texts are in the 700-800-900 yrs... Today there are 30 versions...
There are 30 versions of the j Smith theory ...
Hmm, that's an interesting point by Dr. van Putten - from what I read/heard, I was read to believe that the language used in the Quran is that of northern Arabia, not the Hejaz region (eg: Dr. al-Jallad, who studies epigraphy). Can anyone shed some light/references on this topic?
What you mentioned is wrong according to Islamic tradition-
The dialect of Quran is Hijazi to be more specific Qurashi.
Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, said to the Companions when they wrote the Mus-haf (physical copy of the Quran), “If you differ with Zayd ibn Thabit on the Arabic of the Quran, then write it in the tongue of Quraysh, as the Quran was revealed in their tongue.” [Al-Bukhaari and others]
54:22 There is no drastic Mission change in this verse. You have to look at the context of the contents of the Attaubah chapter as a whole, don't cut it into pieces (and don't insert prejudice either). Both versions of this verse are related contextually to the entire contents of the Chapter.