"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 I don't know if this is because you are unaware kf the history or if it is because you are willing to fabricate things to pretend that Muslims have no merit to the claim of preserving the Qur'an.
[quote](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. [/quote] Uh, no. We know the scribes who were even accompanying and writimg all the verses down as they were revealed, when they (the scribes) lived, when they (the scribes) died, who they were, who their families were, whether they were trustworthy, truthful, honest, accepted or rejected as reliable and truthful sources, and descriptions said or written by many others. We even have a manuscript in Burmingham dated back to the life of the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him. Look up the carbon dating of the Burmingham Qur'an before you start misinforming people to just argue that Muslims have not properly preserved the Qur'an. This is not even the only mushaf, for your information. This is one verified by non-Muslim scholars as an authentic text to prove its preservatiom objectively.
[quote] The Quran has been altered. The Quran has been changed. [/quote] You are trying hard to prove this using Ibn Ishaq and then claim this:
[quote] Later Islamic scholars came to deny that this ever happened [/quote] Another untrue statement. Malik ibn Anas was alive at his time and refuted his work along with other scholars who were writing or reporting the events at that time. Not EVERYTHING Ibn Ishaq did was inaccurate but it certainly was not trustworthy, and if you know about how rigorous Muslim history is, you know Ibn Ishaq was rejected as a reliable source. It isn't okay to try and paint an image like "Muslims knew there were satanic verses and changed it so they later lied about it ever taking place." This is a clear fabrication and isn't refuted by us here and now. We have mo place to talk about who was alive and saw what took place, but the historians and scholars alive and around Ibn Ishaq saw he was unreliable and reported it.
[quote] 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 [/quote] Then you go on to say this as if you trust Ibn Ishaq based on some authentic scriptures of history or to assert that Ibn Ishaq was an authentic figure in terms of ahadith. Forget not knowing how he was rejected by Malik ibn Anas and other major collectors of hadith (if I remember correctly Ibn Hanbal may have been one of the people against him as well (I will try to collect some solid books on this), how do you verify Ibn Ishaq's work? Just as you reject fraudster scientists distorting science to appease flat Earthers, you have to respect that a source of history that differs to verified, numerous, uncoordinated accounts along with baseless tafsirs that differ to authentic scripture have to be rejected. This is academic integrity. This rigorous system of academic integrity was practiced by Muslim scholars since the prophet's time to preserve the message. A Muslim has no right to pretend that something that took place didn't occur. However, you have no right to either make up a lie or propagate some fabrication as if it occurred and then act like refussal of scholars ALIVE at the time nearly 1300 years ago all the way until now to accept a baseless, unverified proposition.
It is not good to make things up to fit a narrative. If you have evidence that the preserved Burmingham Qur'an alone was altered, let me know. If you are discussing how the book itself was compiled, we can discuss that too. However, you are going to have to produce reliable sources. Reliable not according to me or you, but according to Islamic scholarship and general, academic scholarship.
The oral recitation and preservation of the Qur'an by over a hundred million Muslims alone is enough to make it impossible to change it, because if someone tried, people who know the Qur'an by heart alone could identify a difference in their memory to what the edit contains. That's not even what we will base this off of.
[quote] 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 [/quote] Common sense alone and the preserved text of the Qur'an refutes this idea but I doubt you have looked into it to verify your claims.
What do you know about alcohol laws in Islam, for example?
Another thing I just remembered before I sleep [quote]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 [/quote] This is also false. The Arab Pagans went to war with Muhammad SAW for not worshiping their gods. Who or where did you get that he had accepted gods other than Allah into the religion of Islam? That isn't only a clear fabrication but an immemse contradiction with what Islam even means. Islam is based on tawheed. How can you accept gods other than Allah when the Qur'an refutes it at the same time? This event would have been stored and recorded as a major historical event by all the scribes and we would have those accounts.
@Babylon I have no interest or intention to argue with you. A given in the discussion of religion is that one will say this is true.....but because another wants to ignore facts and focus on what they choose to believe themselves.....one will always declare what another says is lies. V 20.5 DID EXIST in historical versions of the text...and it is not there now....so pretty obviously....IT WAS removed. That by itself satisfies the question posed in this thread of has the Quran ever been changed.
Coincidentally and oddly enough.....mention of V. 20.5 was omitted from your response. The one specific thing in my response that does prove change took place.
@anythingoes477 it's not by coincidence that I did not address this mysterious verse of Surah Najm that you claim exists. Apart from all the background interpretation you gave behind it that is nonexistent in documented history, you are the one claiming it is a part of the Qur'an, not me. According to what kitab that was properly preserved in history for the past 1400 years do you get this information from? Do you know the first time this argument was mentioned as a tangible proof of poor preservation? I cannot debunk something not present in the Qur'an and its preserved text unless you can demonstrate it existed in the first place. I will give it to you that if this is true that I will accept it, but you cannot just say it and then move on
[quote] A given in the discussion of religion is that one will say this is true.....but because another wants to ignore facts and focus on what they choose to believe themselves.....one will always declare what another says is lies [/quote] Now, which one of us is this guy needs to be addressed. How do you respond to all the historic inconsistencies with what you said? And feel free to substantiate the existence of this verse whenever you can
@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.
@anythingoes477 [quote]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 [/quote] 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.
[quote] 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? [/quote] 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.
[quote] 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. [/quote] 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
[quote] 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 [/quote] 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.
[quote] Is it the Jews killing for God? Or is the problem the Muslims are killing others in the name of Allah??? [/quote] 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 [b]against[/b] Islam, condemned by ALL credible Muslim scholars, non-Muslim academics who have studied Islam, and the general Muslim population is less than [b][u]0.0001%[/u][/b] 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.
