Islam Dismantled

by Sujit Das

  4.2: Is the Qur’an Preserved?

  Muslims believe that the original copy of the Qur’an (43.3 – “the mother of the book”; 55.77 – “a concealed book”; 85.22 – “ a well guarded tablet”) is kept in the heaven. To prove that Qur’an is superior to Bible, Muslims say that the Testaments are corrupted and changed. They say, for a holy scripture to be authoritative, it has to be preserved without any changes at all, and point to their Qur’an which claims to have been revealed word by word by Allah. Qur’an claims,

  No change there can be in the words of God. (Q: 10.64)

  There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God . (Q: 6.34).

  But Qur’an itself confirms that God’s word can be changed. This is called the “doctrine of abrogation” by which later revelations can cancel previous ones.

  Revelations… We abrogate or cause to be forgotten . (Q: 2.106).

  Not only two different Sunni and Shiaa Qur’ans; today we can present many other “authentic” Qur’anic manuscripts (dating from first century of Hijrah) which are different from existing standard forms. These Qur’ans were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen) which is one of the oldest mosques in Islamic history. The date of building goes back to sixth year of Hijrah. In 1972, during the restoration of this Great Mosque, laborers working in a crown space between the structure’s inner and outer roofs stumbled across a amazing grave site containing an unappealing mountain of old parchment and paper documents, damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by rain and dampness for over one thousand years.

  By realizing the potential importance of the find, the President of Yemeni Antiquities Authority sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments because no scholar in his country was capable of working on this rich find. In 1979, he managed to interest a visiting German scholar who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the “paper grave” was a resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different codices of the Qur’an. Muslim authorities during early days cherished the belief that worn out and damaged copies of the Qur’an must be removed from circulation leaving only the unblemished editions. Also such a safe place was required to protect the books from looting or destruction if invaders come and hence the idea of a grave in the Great Mosque in Sana’a.

  Restoration of the manuscripts was organized and supervised by Gerd R. Puin and H. C. Graf V. Bothmer. Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645-690. Calligraphic dating has pointed to 710-715. Some of the parchment pages seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries (Islam’s first two centuries), perhaps the oldest Qur’an in existence. Between 1983 and 1996, about fifteen to forty thousand pages were restored, specifically twelve thousand fragments on parchment and manuscripts dating back to the seventh and eighth centuries.

  The rare style of fine and artistic handwriting fascinated both Puin and Bothmer, but more surprise was waiting for them. When these ancient Qur’ans were compared with the present standard one, both of them were shocked. The ancient texts were found to be devastatingly and disturbingly at odds with the existing form. There are unconventional verse ordering, small but significant textual variations, different orthography (spelling) and different artistic embellishment (decoration).

  It scattered the orthodox Muslim belief that the Qur’an, as it has reached us today, is quite simply “ the perfect, timeless, and unchanging words of God”. It means; Qur’an has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands. The sacred aura surrounding this holy scripture of Islam, which remained intact for over fourteen centuries, is gone with this astonishing discovery and the core belief of billion plus Muslims that the Qur’an is the eternal, unaltered word of God is now clearly visible as a great hoax, a downright falsehood. Not only this, the Qur’anic claim that “ nobody can alter the words of God” is also bogus. Muslims call the Qur’an “Mother of Books” and believe no other book or revelation can compare (Caner & Caner, 2002, p. 84). However, it is all gone now; the end result of whole Islamic struggle for fourteen centuries is a big zero.

  As if that were not enough, many manuscripts showed the sign of palimpsests, i.e., versions very clearly written over even earlier washed off versions. The underwriting of palimpsest is, of course, often difficult to read visually but ultraviolet photography can highlight them. It suggests that the Sana’a manuscripts are not the only variants but even before that Qur’anic text had been modified and rewritten on the same paper. It means, Allah’s claim (Q: 56.77-78; 85.21-22) that original text is preserved in heaven on golden tablets, which none can touch except angels, is also a fairy tale. Puin, after extensively studying these manuscripts, came to the conclusion that the text was actually an evolving text rather than simply the word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad (Warraq, 2002, p. 109), “ So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur’an is just God’s unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur’an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur’an has a history too. The Sana’a’s fragments will help us to do this .”

  Puin even concluded (cited Taher, 2000), “ It is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the Prophet Muhammad began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten ”. Elsewhere Puin (Lester, 1999) recalls, “ They [Yemeni authorities] wanted to keep this thing low profile, as we do too, although for different reasons. They don’t want attention drawn to the fact that there are Germans and others working on the Qur’ans. They don’t want it made public that there is work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said about the Qur’an’s history was said a thousand years ago .”

  In fact, Puin and Bothmer knew for sometime during their study that Qur’an was an evolving text but they knew the possible implications of their findings and kept quiet. If Yemeni authorities come to know about this discovery, they may even refuse them further access. This is actually what Puin called “different reasons”. So both sides kept quiet, and the research was carried on unabated. Puin’s findings also confirm Wansbrough’s theory on Qur’anic text. During the seventies, Wansbrough concluded that Qur’an evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries after a long period of oral transmissions and different sects used to argue furiously with each other on the genuineness of the revelations. The reason that no Islamic source material from the very beginning of Islam never survived is because it never existed. In fact Puin admitted that he was “ re-reading Wansbrough” during the course of analyzing the Yemeni fragments (Warraq, 2002, p. 122).

  Puin’s other radical theory is that pre-Islamic sources have entered the Qur’an. He argues that two tribes it mentions, As-Sahab-ar-Rass (Companions of the Well) and the As-Sahab-al-Aiqa (Companions of the Thorny Bushes) were not part of the Arab tradition, and the people of Muhammad’s time certainly did not know about them. He also disagrees that Qur’an was written in the purest Arabic. The very word “Qur’an” itself is of foreign origin. Contrary to popular Muslim belief, the meaning of Qur’an is not recitation. It is actually derived from an Aramaic word, “Qariyun”, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service. Qur’an contains most of the Biblical stories in a shorter form, and is “a summary of the Bible to be read in service”.

  Bothmer had painstakingly finished taking more than thirty-five thousand microfilm pictures by 1997 and brought the pictures back to Germany (Warraq, 2002, p. 109). It means; now Bothmer, Puin and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely. Puin alr
eady wrote several short essays on their findings in various science magazines where he pointed out several aberrations between the ancient Qur’an and the present standard one. The extraordinary discovery of Puin had fascinated Rippin, as he concluded (cited Warraq, 2002, p. 110), “ The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt. Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of Qur’anic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected. The text was less stable and therefore had less authority than has always been claimed ”.

  Warraq (1998, p. 14) has the same view as Rippin, “ Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible in their position, realizing that parts of the Qur’an were lost, perverted, and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of ‘the’ Qur’an ”.

  There is another proof that Qur’anic messages were distorted in the early days of Islam and nothing like “the” Qur’an does exist any more. Inscriptions of several Qur’anic verses are decorated on the Dome of Rock of Jerusalem which is most probably the first Islamic monument meant to be a major artistic achievement, built in 691 (Whelan, 1998, pp. 1-14). These inscriptions significantly differ from the present standard text. Coins from 685 have inscriptions that do not match today’s verses (Warraq, 2000, p. 34).

  Muslim criticism of Qur’an is very rare and almost nonexistent. Recently some websites critical to Islam are doing remarkable work on this. Otherwise whatever criticism is done on Qur’an are all by the Christian scholars. But Muslims should not take the Christian criticism as a mark of religious opposition. Christian scholars have done much more criticism of their own faith than Islam (Sproul & Saleeb, 2003, p. 17; Spencer, 2007, p. 1).

  Once the findings of Sana’a are published, Islam will not be the same as it was for fourteen centuries. Muslims will cast doubt on Qur’anic sacredness and the very “romantic” concept of the Qur’an will gradually disappear, and a very interesting development can be observed. The first question which will appear in their mind is – which version is superior. But then, it is not possible to choose a Qur’an and discard the other copies by preference, because the Muslim belief also confirms that whoever denies a single verse of the Qur’an denies the entire revelation.

  To protect the Qur’an from humiliation, Yemeni authorities had debarred Puin and Bothmer from further examination of the manuscripts. In fact, now they do not allow anyone to see those manuscripts except some very carefully selected non-Qur’anic parchments which are at display at the ground floor of Dar al-Makhtutat Library. But this is not going to help; the bird is already out of the cage and it is useless closing the door now. More than thirty-five thousand microfilms are out of Yemen before the authorities even came to know and already several duplicates are made. These microfilms, once published, will hammer the last nail in the coffin of Islam. Islam is in real danger now.

  Ursula Dreibholz, a preservation expert who worked on the Sana’a project for eight years as the chief conservator, is much frustrated by seeing the lack of concern of Yemeni authorities to protect those manuscripts by using modern technology (1983, pp. 30-8). Neither the security devices are correct, nor is adequate attention being given to the manuscripts to avoid further deterioration (1996, pp. 131-45). In fact, Dreibholz (1999, pp. 21-5) said that it was her greatest concern to create a safe and reliable permanent storage system for the restored fragments. Also, there is poor storage, hardly any protection from insects and water. Most importantly, there is the lack of a fire prevention or detection system, keeping in mind the truly catastrophic fires that have destroyed important libraries and artworks around the world. The Yemeni authorities said neither they have money nor means to install efficient fire protection systems.

  Obviously, by realizing the divine downfall within sight, many Muslims are disturbed and offended. The fundamentalists will not accept Puin’s and Bothmer’s work as having been done with academic objectivity, but see it as a deliberate attack on the integrity of the Qur’anic text (Taher, 2000). Naturally, those two German scholars will be at the forefront of their rage. Puin fears a violent backlash from orthodox Muslims because of his “blasphemous” theory, which he says, he cannot take lightly. By remembering the Salman Rushdie affair he wrote, “ My conclusions have sparked angry reactions from orthodox Muslims. They have said I’m not really the scholar to make any remarks on these manuscripts ”. If Puin’s views are taken up and trumpeted in the media, and if there are not many Muslims being rational about it, then all hell may break loose. There will be some hostile response and riots causing much death and destruction, may be another fatwa from Iranian Mullahs. But can they stop the truth from spreading?

  4.3: The Trustworthiness of Allah and His Qur’an

  The value and importance of truth is proclaimed in every religion. Bible does not condone or allow for deceit of any kind (Revelation: 22.15). Believers are commanded to keep their oaths even to their own detriment (Joshua: 9; Psalm: 15.4). Bible describes Jesus as Truth (John: 14.6) and instructs that the believers should be holy as God is Holy (Leviticus: 19.2; Peter: 1.16), you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John: 8.32).

  In Hinduism; the guiding principles of the Vedas are truthfulness and non violence. Traditionally Hinduism (more specifically Vedanta philosophy) considers itself to be Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion), and known to be Universalist and accepts all other religions to be true and valid. According to the authority of Bhagavad-Gita, the Absolute Truth is the objective of devotional sacrifice, which continues through many incarnations. As example; those who are devotees of other Gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only me (Lord Krishna) (Bhagavad-Gita: 9.23) and, I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me (Bhagavad-Gita: 10.8). In Sikhism, we find similar truth claims, as example; All Truth, all austere discipline, all goodness, all the great miraculous spiritual powers of the Siddhas (enlightened master or guru) without you, no one has attained such powers, Oh siblings of Destiny, follow the Guru’s teachings and dwell in truth. Practice truth, and only truth, and merge in the true word of the Shabad (a sacred song) (Siri Guru Granth Sahib).

  Muslim apologists repeatedly tell us that telling lies is an unpardonable sin in Islam. As Qur’an is a cheap copy of the Bible, it tries to condemn falsehood in few verses.

  When you speak, be just, even if it affects your own kinsmen. Fulfill the covenant of Allah . (Q: 6.152).

  Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth . (Q: 2.42)

  Now, based on the above verses, we should never expect Muhammad to tell lies, or to fervently incite other Muslims to gleefully resort to lies and deception, but no. The statement – lying is the greatest sin in Islam – itself is the greatest lie ever told. Both Muhammad and Allah were habitual liars. He even taught his followers how to lie and deceive because deception is an authorized Islamic strategy. In Islam lying is not only permitted, but actually fostered and sometimes even commanded. No doubt, lying is a core part of the religion of Islam. Though Muhammad did his best to pretend that he was chosen by the same God who gave missions to Moses and Jesus but with regard to lying and deceit, he stuck to his tribal culture. Allah claims at least thirty times in the Qur’an that he misleads people astray, and that He is the best deceiver (Wallahu khairul Makirin) (Q: 3.54; 4.88, 143; 6.39, 126; 7.178, 186; 8.30; 13.27, 31; 14.4; 16.93; 17.97; 30.29; 35.8; 36.8-10; 39.23; 40.33, 34, 74; 42.44, 46; 74.31). Even the first rightly guided Caliph Abu Bakr said (cited Khalid, 2005 p. 99), “ I swear to Allah that I do not feel safe from Allah’s cunning even if one of my feet is already inside Paradise….”.

  God playing with men’s souls is an embarrassing thing in a religion. How are Muslims to differentiate between Allah and Satan? How a “khairul Makirin” can be trusted? Satan does all he can to keep an unsaved person deceived and in darkness. For Muslims, Muhammad was the “perfect example” to be followed b
y all. This “perfect example” Muhammad believed that lying was acceptable and even taught his followers how to lie and how to expiate (make amends for) an oath. Bukhari recorded Muhammad’s disgraceful words,

  Narrated by Zahdam; Once we were in the house of Abu Musa … by Allah, Allah willing, if ever I take an oath to do something, and later on I find that it is more beneficial to do something different, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation for my oath . (Bukhari: 4.53.361).

  If we translate the above Hadith in common English, it means – “By the will of Allah, I am a liar; you should not trust me. You are forewarned”. Now let us read the above Hadith in conjunction with following Hadith. These two quotes, if joined together, speak volumes.

  Abu Musa reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Make intercession to me, you will be rewarded, for Allah decrees what He wishes by the tongue of His Prophet ” (Sunnan Abu Dawud: 3.5112).

  Therefore, the conclusion is, Allah speaks through a liar’s mouth. Nobody had seen or heard Allah, and Qur’an was revealed through a habitual liar. So where is the trustworthiness of Qur’an? The above two ahadith are enough to destroy the entire religious credential of Qur’an. How can a real God speak through an immoral and untrustworthy person? If Prophet is immoral, his God has to be immoral. Lying and deception had found a place in the Sharia law. It permits a Muslim to tell lies if and when necessary for the benefit of Islam. As Keller (1999, p. 745) commented, “ When it is possible to achieve such an aim (the victory of Islam) by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible. ” Imam Jafar Sadiq (cited Richardson, 2006a, p. 170) said,