"In reference to the Quran, the faithful declares that it has ‘Never Changed, Never Altered’
This is a central claim of Islamic apologia. This is understandable, because without this assertion the most basic claim of Islam as to its uniqueness and superiority is undermined and worthless.
Stressing the perfection, flawlessness and unchanged, unaltered nature of the Quran is perhaps the single most important assertion for those engaging in ‘Da’wah’, or Islamic prosletysation.
The problem is, it’s simply untrue.
Of course if you are a believing Muslim you have to believe that the Angel Gabriel recited words directly from Allah into Muhammad’s ear and that the current form of the Quran is word for word the same as each word recited by Allah through the Angel Gabriel into Muhammad’s ear.
The facts, of course, are different.
The Quran has been altered. The Quran has been changed.
There are multiple ways of demonstrating this, even through using primary Islamic religious texts:
(1) Firstly it is important to remember that the Quran was never actually written down into any single book during Muhammad's life. It was always recited.
(2) Even during the period before it was written down, there is some evidence that the Quran was changed by Muhammad himself.
According to Ibn Ishaq, the earliest source on the life of Muhammad, there was an additional verse in Surah an-Najm that Muhammad later removed, saying that Satan had tricked him into believing it was from God. The verse is commonly referred to as verse 20.5, because it was supposed to fit between 20 and 21. It is also knowns as the "Satanic Verse" The verse went like this:
19: Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá 20: and Manāt, the third, the other? 20.5: These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.
Later Islamic scholars came to deny that this ever happened.
But it seems to me that the reasoning behind denying the veracity of this event has nothing to do with scholarly skepticism and everything to do with the dangers of the theological repercussions of accepting the veracity of this.
After all, if Satan had tricked Muhammad into believing that this verse was from God, then how can we be certain that all the other verses of the Quran are from God and not from Satan?
Also the idea that Muhammad could be tricked by Satan, even for a short time, flies in the face of the notion that Muhammad is the perfect man.
From a non-religious perspective, the acceptance of the three traditional Pagan Goddesses into Islam makes sense when Muhammad was weak and needed reconciliation with the Pagans, and the removal of this verse later when he was stronger and no longer needed their support makes a lot of sense, for that reason I do not doubt the veracity of the event so much.
Of course when you bring this up in a discussion, it is likely to cause anger and outrage among some Muslims, who will often deny that this event occurred, and will even assert that Ibn Ishaq was a liar or something along those lines.
This is often one of the major problems of trying to debate with some Muslims over the veracity of the Quran. Many will assert that the Quran has never been altered, and when proof from the earliest Islamic sources themselves is shown that plainly states that Muhammad himself altered parts of the Quran, those Muslims will often become outraged and refuse to discuss any further."
@anythingoes477 my apologies. If you are not interested in discussing this, I apologize for replying again. I just really am curious for myself but it isn't good to keep talking if it is unwelcome, so forgive me
@Babylon I do not study the Quran to look for textual differences and historical accuracy. I have read the Quran for content.....I have interest in the history and the meaning of the wording....but I do not believe Mohammad was more than just a man. I do not think killing in the name of God or Allah is "religious".
Both Chritianity and Islam preach God says to be gentle and to love each other and abhor violence...but the history of both religions is awash in blood. And the original teachings of both have long since been perverted to mean about anything the people in that religion wants it to mean. Especially the believers of the Quran. Those words have been so perverted the words Jihad now means "ITS A BELIEVERS DUTY" to kill virtually everyone but their own sect....including other Muslims. When a people turns on itself..in the name of Allah.....which both sects of Islam believe in......and yet one kills the other over trivial differences......where is the God and love and peaceful belief in that?
At this point in history The Quran is interpreted by violent caliphate leaders to be used only as a tool to fuel a twisted ideology that pushes a violent political agenda to kill and rule for the sake of power on earth. Who can kill the most...(notably the name ISIS comes to mind).......overrun the most countries....eradicate the most people-----who are seen as the "enemy"---so a few can rule on earth....are the victors for Allah. ?? Really..is violent conquest the intended premise behind the original Quran..........or the Bible?
And that perversion of "God's intent" is no less bloody in the past history of Christianity. The only difference is how you look at it. Is it the Jews killing for God that is the perversion? Or is it the Muslims are killing others in the name of Allah???
By any stretch of the imagination of any believer....of either the Quran or the Bible.......the original intent of God...........has changed.
Especially the believers of the Quran. Those words have been so perverted the words Jihad now means to kill virtually everyone but their own sect
If you read the Qur'an, why do you say this? Hoe much of the Qur'an have you read so far?
I disagree heavily with jihad meaning this. Your view is rather concerning as it matches and supports groups like ISIS, even though Islam forbids you gave. Proper Muslims or anyone who studies Islam doesn't believe that. Jihad is struggle and we have explanations by the prophet that describe it https://sunnah.com/nasai:4209
Jihad means struggle and will continue to struggle. Even resisting a sin you really want to do is considered jihad. That's harmless. Imagine I told you the English word for struggle means war, attack, amd bloodshed. You would call me crazy even though you can use the same wors for when the U.S. struggled for independence from British supremacy and dominance (for a simple example). Maybe people who don't follow how Islam teaches the meaning of struggling will do evil things and come up with such wild and straight up evil interpretations, but we cannot accept that.
When a people turns on itself..in the name of Allah.....which both sects of Islam believe in......and one kills the other over trivial differences......where is the God and love in that?
I agree with you that this is terrible and you're right. They aren't following God and are not doing this out of love.
At that point Islam is only a ideology that pushes a violent political agenda to kill and rule for the sake of power on earth.
No, that is not Islam. You have to respect academic integrity basic historic accuracy and honesty. What someone SAYS about something does not necessitate reality. Islam forbids the unjust taking of lives. Killing innocent people is forbidden. I dunno who made you believe such a violent, very inaccurate view of Islam's teachings. Rather, you took baseless interpretations (which Muslims have been debunking and rejecting since EVER) and the attributed that to Islam. That is not justice and it not truth. Islam has very direct teachings that go against that. If you'd like, we can talk about that
Who can kill the most...(notably the name ISIS comes to mind).......overrun the most countries....eradicate the most people who are seen as the "enemy" so a few can rule on earth......is NOT the premise behind either the original Quran or the Bible
You are right in that this is not of the teachings of Islam. Thank you for mentioning that. So many people have a strong misconception that it is the other way around but I am glad you recognize this. Fortunately, the world is against ISIS and we can expunge those evil people from the face of the Earth and Muslims can be free from their terror.
Is it the Jews killing for God? Or is the problem the Muslims are killing others in the name of Allah???
I am not expert, scholar, or even student of intensive Jewish history. However, I assure you that Muslims certainly do not have that goal. The percent of evil people who have that view which is clearly fabricated misinterpretations against Islam, condemned by ALL credible Muslim scholars, non-Muslim academics who have studied Islam, and the general Muslim population is less than 0.0001% of Muslims in existence today. Forget the entire millenia and over of refutations against their view. You don't need living scholars of Islam to destroy this violent misinterpretation. The dead scholars over a thousand years ago refute it.
Also, if you don't mind doing me a favor, I am still trying to get to the bottom of who is propagating these views myself. If you know who is teaching these incorrect statements about Islam's teachings, let me know, please. Just so I may find the source and analyze it myself.
All religions are outdated. None are the exception.
SW-User
They get changed in our local mosques and madrasas everyday where religious scholars also give bomb blasting training, until anti terrorist squad or military raid them. Lol
The church wrote a New Testament because the old one was too dogmatic for modern times.. me think the Q book needs the same.. “kill them where you find them” Are instructions….
Revelations 22: 18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
From what I've learned Muhammad's closest friend whom collected surah compile them all become a quran.
I always disagree when they claimed the book was never change. To me, as long it was handled by humans there is a chance those texts were changed same as old and new testament.
As the only holy.. Well. How can we prove that? The context/verse/surah itself is complicated.
Ironic considered their pedophile prophet muhammed was illiterate (couldn't read or write), and the quran was only written (and revised several times) after his death... 🤔
That is the problem they all think their book is "the book". All the books are full of logical conflicts which could not happen if they were, "the book", the one and only.
Something to consider is the multiple translations. Every dude that has translated their own English version has their own interpretation. Some slight and some major. You can buy two different translated English qurans and they are not the same. The only "unchanged" version would be in Arabic. Since everyone isn't fluent in Arabic they are reading someone elses interpretation...that has been changed or altered in some way. Would that not count?🤷♂️
