Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

Another Open Challenge to Muslims, Pt. 3

Examining the Modifications, Changes, Alterations and Editing of the Islamic Text

Sam Shamoun

We now come to the third and final part of our challenge (Part 1; Part 2).

Additions and Deletions in the Quran

In the present Quran we find the following verse,

And the creation of the male and the female, S. 92:3

However, al-Bukhari reports that this text has an additional clause which was not recognized and accepted by some of the very men whom Muhammad commissioned to teach and pass on the “revelation”.(1)

Narrated Alqama:

I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, “O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion.” Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), “I hope Allah has given me my request.” The man asked (me), “Where are you from?” I replied, “I am from the people of Kufa.” He said, “Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night: 92)?” I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female.” (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, “BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse IN THIS WAY after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)

Al-Bukhari also narrates a tradition concerning this next citation,

There is no blame on you in seeking bounty from your Lord, so when you hasten on from "Arafat", then remember Allah near the Holy Monument, and remember Him as He has guided you, though before that you were certainly of the erring ones. S. 2:198

According to al-Bukhari’s report this verse initially had an additional clause that is now missing from the extant codices:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Ukaz, Mijanna and Dhul-Majaz were markets during the Pre-Islamic Period. They (i.e. Muslims) considered it a sin to trade there during the Hajj time (i.e. season), so this Verse was revealed:-- “There is no harm for you if you seek of the Bounty of your Lord during the Hajj season.” (2.198) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 44)

We further read in Q. 18:79-80 the following story concerning Moses’ encounter with an unnamed servant of Allah:

As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by force. And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief; S. 18:79-80

Ibn Abbas, however, read it slightly different:

XXXVII: "When they had gone a distance further on, he said to his servant, 'Bring us our morning meal. This journey of ours has made us very tired.' He said, 'Do you see what has happened? When we went to find shelter at the rock, I forgot the fish. No one made me forget to remember it except Shaytan. It found its way into the sea in an amazing way'" (18:62-63)

... The Messenger of Allah said, “Would that Musa had been patient so that He would have told us more about them!”

He said that Ibn 'Abbas used to RECITE, “Before them was a certain king who seized every sound boat by force,” and he used to RECITE, “As for the youth, he was an unbeliever.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir, No. 4450; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The words “sound” and “he was an unbeliever” are omitted from the so-called official text.

Ibn Kathir says that in Ibn Masud’s Quran the last clause of the following reference,

“... and above every one possessed of knowledge is the All-knowing one.” S. 12:76

Read differently,

... `Abdullah bin Mas`ud read the Ayah this way, (وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ عَالِمٍ عَلِيمٌ) “And above every scholar, is the All-Knower (Allah).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Moreover, according to Aisha the following verse,

Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah. S. 2:238

Has a missing clause:

(29). 2982. Abu Yunus, the freed slave of ‘Aishah, said: “Aishah ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: ‘When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat.’ So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: ‘Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.’ She said: ‘I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi – Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 2. Regarding Surat Al-Baqarah, pp. 302-303; underline emphasis ours)

Another example of a passage that has a part of it missing or lost is Q. 33:6 which reads as follows,

“The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers…”

The late Muslim translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali records that Ubayy b. Ka‘b, a companion of Muhammad and considered to be one of the best reciters/readers as we shall see, had an additional clause which was attested by other Muslim readers:

“In spiritual relationship the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer - closer to our real interests - than our own selves. IN SOME QIRAATS, LIKE THAT OF UBAI IBN KA'B, occur also the words ‘and he is a father to them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on with the words, ‘and his wives are their mothers.’ Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zaid ibn Haritha by the appellation Zaid ibn Muhammad (xxxiii. 40): such an appellation is really disrespectful to the Prophet.” (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1104, fn. 3674; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The following renowned Muslim authority and jurist admitted that:

... An unusual reading of the Qur'an includes, “He is a father to them,” but it is no longer recited since it is AT VARIANCE with the version of ‘Uthman. (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad), Qadi 'Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp. 29-30; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Interestingly, the late Muslim scholar and Quran translator Muhammad Asad actually inserted this variant within brackets into his English version:

“The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves, [seeing that he is as a father to them] and his wives are their mothers...”

Here is his reason why he chose to add this to his version:

Thus, connecting with the preceding mention of voluntary, elective relationships (as con­trasted with those by blood), this verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: "None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind" (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them - e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) - hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation[sic], "seeing that he is [as] a father to them"; and many of the tabi in - including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) - did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. (However, see also verse 40 of this surah and the corresponding note.) As regards the status of the Prophet's wives as the "mothers of the believers", this arises primarily from the fact of their having shared the life of God's Apostle in its most intimate aspect. Consequently, they could not remarry after his death (see verse 53 below), since all the believers were, spiritually, their "children". (*; bold and underline emphasis ours)

It gets even worse for the Muslims. According to the second caliph the Quran contained specific verses, such as the command to stone the adulterers, which are no longer found in the extant manuscripts:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” 'Umar added, “Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816)


… In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, “Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father’...” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817; see also Vol. 9, No. 424)

To top it off, Muhammad’s own childbride Aisha admitted that the Quran used to contain certain abrogated and abrogating verses concerning suckling which are no longer present:

'A'isha reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421)

She even claimed that there was also a verse regarding the breastfeeding of adults and that the manuscript which contained it was eaten by a sheep!

1944. It was narrated that ‘A’ishah said: “The Verse of stoning and breastfeeding of AN ADULT ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Hasan) (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Volume 3, From Hadith No. 1783 to 2718, Chapter 36. Breastfeeding An Adult, pp. 113-114; capital and underline emphasis ours)

For more on this controversial topic of adult breastfeeding in Islam we recommend the following article and rebuttal:

The importance of Ubayy bin Kab and Abdullah bin Masud

The readers may be left wondering why are these variant readings taken from the codices of Ubayy b. Ka’b and Abdullah ibn Masud such important witnesses to the corruption of the Quran. The reason is because they are based on the compilation of two of the four men whom Muhammad personally named as individuals that Muslims were required to learn the Quran from!

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

Allah's Apostle neither talked in an insulting manner nor did he ever speak evil intentionally. He used to say, “The most beloved to me amongst you is the one who has the best character and manners.” He added, “Learn the Qur'an from (any of these) four persons: ‘Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubai bin Ka'b, and Mu'adh bin Jabal.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 104)

Narrated Masriq:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: ‘Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu’adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)

Ubayy is also one of four men to have the entire Quran in his possession.

Narrated Qatada:

I asked Anas bin Malik: “Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet?” He replied, “Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 525)


… When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, breathed his last, NOT MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS HAD THE QUR'AN IN ITS ENTIRETY. All of them were of the Ansars and there is a difference about the fifth one. The persons of the Ansars who had collected it in its entirety were Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu'adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayyi Ibn Ka'b, and the person about whom there is a difference was Tamim al-Dari. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. (Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India), Volume II, Parts I & II, pp. 457-458; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In the case of ibn Masud he was also one who had memorized the entire Quran:

Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:

Once 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud delivered a sermon before us and said, “By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle. By Allah, the companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah's Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them.” Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 522)


Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom but that I know about what it was revealed. If I had known that someone had better knowledge of the Book of Allah than I do, and he was at a place which could be reached by camel, I would have ridden to him (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524)


He was followed by 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zayd ibn Thabit, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As. All that is taken from the Companions has excellent preference because they witnessed the revelation and its descent in their language. 'Amir ibn Wathila said, "I saw 'Ali ibn Abi Talib speaking. I heard him say in his khutba, 'Ask me. By Allah, you will not ask me about anything that will happen until the Day of Rising but that I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah. By Allah, there is no ayat but that I know whether it was revealed at night or in the day, revealed on flat ground or on a mountain.'" Ibn al-Kawwa' rose and asked about Surat adh-Dhariyat (51).

'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "If I knew of anyone with more knowledge of the Book of Allah than me, who could be reached by mounts, I would go to him." A man asked him, "Have you not met 'Ali ibn Abi Talib?" 'Yes," he replied, "I have met him." Masruq said, "I found some of the Companions of Muhammad like pools which water one person, some like pools which water two, and some such that if all people had come to it, it would satisfy them. 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud was one of those pools." (Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Introduction: What is reported regarding threats against engaging in tafsir of the Qur'an by means of opinion (ra'y) or being bold in that, and the ranks of the commentators, pp. 38-39: *)


The Qadi did not mention 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfa, although they were among those who knew the entire Qur'an. It is reported that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "I was with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and with him were Abu Bakr and whomever Allah wished. We passed 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud who was praying. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked, 'Who is reciting the Qur'an?' He was told, ''Abdullah ibn Umm 'Abd.' He said, ''Abdullah recites the Qur'an fresh as it was revealed.'"

One scholar said that this meant that he recited the first harf in which the Qur'an was revealed rather than the other seven which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was allowed after the Messenger of Allah, Jibril, recited the Qur'an to him in Ramadan. It is related that Abu Æubyan said, "'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas asked me, 'Which of the recitations do you recite?' I replied, 'The first recitation, that of Ibn Umm 'Abd.' He told me, 'Rather it was the last. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to present the Qur'an to Jibril once a year. In the year that he died, the Messenger of Allah read it to him twice. 'Abdullah was present and knew what was abrogated and changed in that.'" In Muslim, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr stated that he heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Take the Qur'an from four: Ibn Umm 'Abd – and he began with him – Mu'adh ibn Jabal, Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfa."

These reports indicate that 'Abdullah knew all the Qur'an in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, contrary to what was said, and Allah knows best. In Kitab ar-Radd, al-Anbari transmitted that 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I learned 72 (or 73) suras from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I read to him from al-Baqara as far as 'Allah loves those who repent' (2:222)." Abu Ishaq says that he learned the rest of the Qur'an from Mujammi' ibn Jariya al-Ansari. If this is true, the consensus which Yazid ibn Harun mentioned is true and that is why Qadi Ibn at-Tayyib did not mention him among those who knew the Qur'an by heart in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah knows best.

Part of what will indicate the soundness of Ibn Mas'ud's knowledge of the Qur'an is that the people with the readings among the people of the Hijaz, Syria and Iraq all traced their readings which they chose back to one of the Companions who read it to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. 'Asim traced his reading to 'Ali and Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Kathir to Ubayy as did Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala', and 'Abdullah ibn 'Amir traced his to 'Uthman. All of them said that they had read it to the Messenger of Allah. The isnads of these readings are continuous and the transmitters are reliable, as al-Khattabi stated. (Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Introduction: The collection of the Qur'an and the reason 'Uthman had copies of the Qur'an copied out and burned the rest. The memorisation of the Qur'an by the Companions in the time of the Prophet, Section, pp. 57-58: *; bold and underline emphasis ours)

This is the same ibn Masud who spoke out against Uthman’s Quran which Zaid ibn Thabit had compiled:

… Az-Zuhri said: “Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’ – meaning Zaid bin Thabit – and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “It was conveyed to me that some men among the most virtuous Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked this view of Ibn Mas’ud.” (Sahih) (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 9. Regarding Surat At-Tawbah, No. (19). 3104, p. 414; bold and underline emphasis ours)

And, as we saw in part 2, ibn Masud also disagreed with the other memorizers such as Ubayy ibn Kab in that he did not include surahs 1 and 113-114 as part of his codex, whereas Ubayy’s codex had a total of 116!

CDLXXII: The Tafsir of Surat al-Falaq, which begins, "Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak"

Mujahid said that "darkness when it gathers" (113:3) is sunset. It is said that it is clearer than the splitting and separation of dawn. "Waqaba" (113:3) is when it enters into everything and darkens it.

4692. It is related that Zirr ibn Hubaysh said, "I asked Ubayy ibn Ka'b about the two refuge verses and he said, 'I asked the Messenger of Allah and he said, "I was told them and so stated them." We say what the Messenger of Allah said.'"

CDLXXIII: Tafsir of Surat an-Nas, which begins, "Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind"

It is mentioned from Ibn 'Abbas about "waswas" (114:3) that when someone is born, shaytan takes hold him. If Allah is mentioned, he goes. If Allah is not mentioned, he remains firm in his heart.

4693. It is related that Zirr said, "I asked Ubayy ibn Ka'b, ‘Abu'l-Mundhir, your brother Ibn Mas'ud says such and such [about the two refuge verses not being part of the Qur'an].’ Ubayy said, 'I asked the Messenger of Allah and he told me, 'I was told them [i.e. they were revealed] and so I stated them.' Ubayy added, 'We say what the Messenger of Allah, said.’” (Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir; underline emphasis ours)

See also Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan's version of Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 500 and 501.

Hence, Ibn Masud had only 111 chapters in his Quran, ibn Kab had 116, whereas Uthman’s codex contained 114 surahs!

In light of this how do Muslims today know with absolute certainty that the Quran contains only 114 surahs when even Muhammad’s companions couldn’t agree?

An ancient witness to the corruption to the Quran

The fact that the Quran has been corrupted is not some new information just recently discovered since there have been critics even back then that noted the textual perversion of the Muslim scripture. One such example is the Christian apologist Abd al-Masih al-Kindi who wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun, circa A.D. 830, approximately forty years before al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices that circulated shortly after Muhammad's death:

“… Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of 'Ali, which they follow to the present day; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention; one party read according to the text of ibn Mas'ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka'b. When 'Uthman came to power, and people everywhere differed in their reading, 'Ali sought grounds of accusation against him. One man would read verse one way, and another man another way; and there was change and interpolation, some copies having more and some less. When this was represented to 'Uthman, and the danger urged of division, strife, and apostasy, he thereupon caused to be collected together all the leaves and scraps that he could, together with the copy that was written out at the first. But they did not interfere with that which was in the hands of 'Ali, or of those who followed his reading. Ubai was dead by this time, as for Ibn Mas'ud, they demanded his exemplar, but he refused to give it up. Then they commanded Zaid ibn Thabit, and with him 'Abdallah ibn 'Abbas, to revise and correct the text, eliminating all that was corrupt; they were instructed, when they differed on any reading, word, or name, or to follow the dialect of the Quraish.

“When the recension was completed, four exemplars were written out in large text; one was sent to Mecca, and another to Medina; the third was dispatched to Syria, and is to this day at Malatya; the fourth was deposited in Kufa. People say that this last copy is still extant at Kufa, but this is not case, for it was lost in the insurrection of Mukhtar (A.H. 67). The copy of Mecca remained there till the city was stormed by Abu Sarayah (A.H. 200); he did not carry it away; but it is supposed to have been burned in the conflagration. The Medina exemplar was lost in the reign of terror, that is, in the days of Yazid b. Mu'awiah (A.H. 60-64).

“After what we have related above, 'Uthman called in all the former leaves and copies, and destroyed them, threatening those held any portion back; and so only some scattered remains, concealed here and there, survived. Ibn Mas'ud, however, retained his exemplar in his own hands, and it was inherited by his posterity, as it is this day; and likewise the collection of 'Ali has descended in his family.

“Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of the Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of 'Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as 'Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between 'Ali and Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman is well known; how each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity?" (Alphonse Mingana, “The Transmission of the Koran”, The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], pp. 108-109: *; bold emphasis ours: see also the following)

The author, Mingana, concludes with the following statement from al-Kindi:

“Then al-Kindi, addressing his Muslim friend, says: ‘All that I have said is drawn from your own authorities, and no single argument has been advanced but what is based on evidence accepted by yourselves; in proof thereof, we have the Kur'an itself, which is a confused heap, with neither system nor order.’” (Ibn Warraq, pp. 109-110: * ; bold emphasis ours; see also the following)

With that said it is now time to take a look at what scholars have stated concerning the way the Muslim scripture was gathered and edited.

The editing and unintelligibility of the Quran

Scholars and critics have pointed out for centuries that the Quran has been poorly edited and that it contains grammatical mistakes and irregularities. Already in the 9th century the Christian writer al-Kindi had noted the Quran’s rather poor and chaotic structure and took this as evidence for textual tampering:

“And the result of all this is patent to thee who hast read the Scriptures, and seest how in thy book histories are all jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding to the text, or cutting out therefrom whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a Revelation sent down from heaven?

“Furthermore, thy Master was an Arab, living amongst the Bedouins; and to them, and in their language, he submitted his lucubrations. Now it is notorious that the Arabs as a nation are incorrigibly heathenish and graceless; how then could such a people receive from him the secret of the Lord, or truths proper to be revealed to a prophet? Thou knowest the enmity subsisting between Aly and Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othmân; now each of these entered in the text whatever favoured his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And how about the losses caused by Hajjâj? Thou well knowest what kind of faith that tyrant held in other matters; then how canst thou make him an arbiter as to the Book of God,—a man who never ceased to play into the hands of the Omeyyads whenever he found opportunity? And besides all this, the Jews also had a hand in the business; and foisted in what they thought would further their own seditious and rebellious ends.” (The Apology of Al Kindy – Written at the Court of Al-Mamun In Defense of Christian against Islam, edited and commented by Sir William Muir [Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK), Second Edition, London, 1887], Various Readings in the Coran, pp. 77-78; underline emphasis ours)

Al-Kindi is not alone since even modern Islamic scholars such as Richard Bell and W. M. Watt view the chaotic structure of the Quran as proof that it has been altered:

“There are indeed many roughnesses of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed – hidden rhymes, and rhyme-phrases not woven into the texture of the passage – there are the following: abrupt changes of rhyme; repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses; the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous; a differing treatment of the same subject in neighboring verses, often with repetition of words and phrases; breaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis; abrupt changes in the length of verses; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on; the juxtaposition of apparently contradictory statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different date, with the intrusion of late phrases into early verses. In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately precedes, but with what stands some distance back.” (Bell & Watt, Introduction to the Quran [Edinburgh, 1977], p. 93 – cited by Ibn Warraq in Why I am not a Muslim [Prometheus Books; Amherst NY, 1995], pp. 112-113)

Al-Kindi also pointed to the foreign words and grammatical irregularities as evidence against the Quran being supernatural or miraculous:

“If the claim be that (apart from all other tongues) the Coran is an unparalleled and miraculous model of Arabic (according to the text, Verily, We have sent down the Coran in the Arabic tongue, if perchance ye may comprehend); then, why do we find in it foreign words, as namâric from the Persian, and mishkât from the Abyssinian, vocabulary?2 Here is a defect either in the messenger or the message. If there be in the Arabic language no words to express the ideas, then the medium of communication, and therefore the message itself, is imperfect; if otherwise, the messenger." That not the former, but the latter, was the case, Al Kindy enforces by the congenial argument that there were poets, such as Imrul Cays, and men of eloquence and oratory, without number before Mahomet, whose productions surpassed his, both in conception and language. This was cast in the Prophet's teeth by the Meccans; for he turned round and called them 'a contentious race.' And, indeed, Mahomet himself admits as much when he attributes their compositions to magic.1 The introduction then of foreign expressions into the Coran must be owing to one of two things; either to the poverty of the Arabian vocabulary, while confessedly it is the richest and most copious of all tongues, or to the fact that different persons had a hand in the work; and our Author leaves his Friend on the horns of this dilemma.

“If, again, the claim put forth be that there is in the Coran a supernatural harmony and cadence of language, and beauty of conception; that will be determined by the accuracy of the measures, the purity and fitness of the composition, and the point and charm of thought and imagery. But thy book throughout is broken in its rhythm, confused in its composition, and in its flights of fancy unmeaning." (Muir, The Coran: Its Style and Purport, pp. 79-81)

Again, al-Kindi is not alone here since the later Iranian Muslim scholar Ali Dashti raised the same issues in his classic book:

“The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an's eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings.” (Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, translated from Persian by F.R.C. Bagley [Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA 1994], pp. 48-49)


"To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find explanations and justifications for these irregularities.

"Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari (467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‘This grammar-obsessed pedant has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor'an as it is and make the Arabic grammar conform to the Qor'an.’

"Up to a point this argument is justifiable. A nation's great speakers and writers respect the rules of its language in so far as they avoid modes of expression which are not generally understood and popularly accepted, though they may occasionally find themselves obliged to take liberties. Among the pre-Islamic Arabs, rhetoric and poetry were well developed and grammatical conventions were already established. The Qor'an, being in the belief of Moslems superior to all previous products of the rhetorical genius, must contain the fewest irregularities.

"Yet the Moorish author's censure of Zamakhshari is open to criticism on the ground that it reverses the usual argument. This is that the Qor'an is God's word because it has a sublime eloquence which no human being can match, and that the man who uttered it was therefore a prophet. The Moorish author maintained that the Qor'an is faultless because it is God's word and that the problem of the grammatical errors in it must be solved by changing the rules of Arabic grammar. In other words, while most Moslems answer deniers by citing the Qor'an's eloquence as proof of Mohammad's prophethood, the Moorish author, having taken the Qor'an's divine origin and Mohammad's prophethood for granted, held all discussion of the Qor'an's wording and contents to be inadmissible." (Pp. 50-51; underline emphasis ours)

He further stated that,

“The Qor’an contains many instances of confusion between the two speakers, God and Mohammad, in the same verse… Among these many passages are some, like the above, which can be easily explained, but also others which present great difficulty… The presence of confusions between God and the Prophet in the Qor’an cannot objectively be disputed. Sometimes God speaks, giving to the Prophet the command ‘say’ (i.e. to the people). Sometimes the sentence structure proves that it is the Prophet who speaks, expressing devotion to God. The impression conveyed by the Qor’an is that a hidden voice in Mohammad’s soul or subconscious mind was continually impelling him to guide the people, restraining him from lapses, and providing him with solutions to problems.” (Pp. 150-151)


“Confusion between God’s and Mohammad’s words is again apparent in two verses of sura 10 (Yunos). ‘And if your Lord so wished, all the dwellers on the earth would believe together. Are you going to compel the people to be believers?’ (verse 99). ‘It is only (possible) for a soul to believe with God’s permission. And He inflicts vileness on those who are intelligent’ (verse 100). In verse 99 the words are from God and addressed to the Prophet, but in verse 100 the words appear to be Mohammad’s, a sort of self-consolation followed by an explanation of the obduracy of the polytheists who would not heed his teaching.” (P. 152)

It gets a lot worse. According to another renowned Islamist every fifth sentence of the Quran makes no sense whatsoever!

“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or ‘clear.’ But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can’t even be understood in Arabic—then it’s not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.” (Gerd Puin, quoted by Toby Lester in “What Is the Koran?,” The Atlantic, January 1999; underline emphasis ours)

Interestingly, there are some modern Muslim writers admitting that the Quran's grammatical structure and irregular shifts in gender and subject have caused many an exegete and scholar tremendous difficulties in understanding and interpreting the text. Farid Esack is one such Muslim who says that this,

“… poses difficulties for those engaged in critical scholarship and these texts have been invoked in support of the notion that the Qur'an is not entirely the product if [sic] a single entity. There are also several cases where the speaker alternates between singular and plural forms adding to the notion that the Qur'an was compiled in an incoherent manner… Besides God, though, numerous ayat suggest that the Angels or the Prophet himself are the direct speakers and it is only the interpolations of translators or the comments of the exegetes that suggest otherwise. Ayat such as 19:64-65, for example, if read without interpolation of the translator, clearly suggest that the Angels are the speakers… In a few ayat, such as 27:91, the obvious speaker seem to be the Prophet and then a sudden switch occurs when he becomes the one being addressed… The fact that these ayat are often characterized by a later addition of ‘say’ (qul) suggests that the entire section may have been preceded by the unarticulated instruction ‘say’. Muslims have always understood it in this manner. In other words, the fact that they are the direct words of the Prophet or of the Angels does not detract [sic] from the other-worldliness of the Qur'an. They were merely repeating words that in the first instance came from God.” (Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002] pp. 74-75; underline emphasis ours)

Even more astonishing is the fact that Muhammad’s own companions such as the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan and Aisha admitted that were grammatical mistakes in the Quran! For the sake of brevity we will only include a few examples:

“Ibn Abbas recited this verse [Q. 13:31] as ‘AFALAM YATBAIN ALLATHEENA’. He was told that it is ‘AFALAM YAY-ASI ALLATHEENA’ to which Ibn Abbas replied: “The writer has written YAY-ASI but I think that he may not have been wakeful at that time of writing this word.” (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1, p. 238)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, wrote concerning the above that:

“And Tabari and Abd bin Hamid narrated with a Sahih chain containing all the narrators from the rijal of Bukhari, from Ibn Abbas that he recited “AFALAM YATBAIN” and said that the writer had written it [YAY-ASI] when he was drowsy.” (Fateh al-Bari, Volume 8, p. 373)

(Side remark: This is part of the evidence against the claim that the whole Quran was memorized by a multitude and preserved that way. Clearly the faulty writing got the better of the alleged superior memory. Frankly, people are memorizing the Quran based on a written text, not writing the Quran based on memory.)

Another example is:

Abu Ubaid narrated in his (book) al-Fadail and Saeed bin Mansur, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn al-Munder and Ibn al-Anbari in the Masahif from Kharsha bin al-Hur that he said: ‘Umar bin al-Khattab saw me carrying a tablet written in it ‘{when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah} (FAISAAAW ILA THIKRI ALLAH)’. He (Umar) asked: ‘Who dictated this to you?’ I replied: ‘Ubai bin Kaab’. He said: ‘Ubai recited the abrogated (part), he (Umar) recited it ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI ALLAH.’” (Tafsir Dur e Manthur, Surah Jumaa, Volume 6, p. 219)

Ibn Hajar comments:

“Narrated by Saad bin Mansur and he clarified the medium [narrator] between the [narrator] Ibrahim and Umar who is Kharsha ibn al Hurr therefore the chain is Sahih.” (Fateh al-Bari, Book of Commentary of Quran, Surah Jumaa, Volume 8, p. 496)

Here is a third example:

Ibn Bashar narrated from Muhammad bin Jafar from Shu'aba from Abi Bashir from Saeed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas about this verse ‘{O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission (TASTA/NISOO) and saluted their inmates}.’ He said: ‘It is a mistake by the scribe. ‘{until you have asked permission (TASTAZINO) and saluted their inmates}.’ (Tafsir al-Tabari, Q. 24:27, Volume 18, p. 146)

In his Taqrib al-Tahdib Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said that Wahab bin Jarir and Shu'aba are thiqah (trustworthy, reliable) while Muhammad bin al-Muthana, Abu Bashr Bayan bin Bashr and Saeed bin Jubair are thiqah thabt (“the affirmed trustworthy”).

Our fourth example is:

Abu Bakr bin Abdoos and Abu Abdullah bin Hamid narrated from Abu al-Abbas al-Asim from Muhammad bin al-Jahm al-Samri from al-Fara from Abu Mu'awiyah from Hisham bin Urwa from his father that Aishah was asked about Allah’s statements in Surah Nisa (verse 162) LAKINI ALRRASIKHOONA and WAALMUQEEMEENA and the Almighty’s statement in Sura Maidah (verse 69) INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON and His statement (Taha, 63) IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI. Aishah replied: “O my nephew, this is due to mistakes committed by the scribe.” (Tafsir al-Thalabi, Volume 6, p. 250)


Abu Ubaid stated in Fadail Quran that Abu Muawiyah narrated from Hisham bin Urwah from his father that Aisha was asked about the following mistakes in the Quran ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ and His statement ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALATA WAALMU/TOONA ALZZAKATA’ and His statement ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’. She replied: “O son of my nephew, this is due to the act of the scribes of the Quran who committed a mistake whilst transcribing them.” The chain of this tradition is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaikhain. (Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1, p. 210)

As-Suyuti went on to write that,

“There is no strength with the replies that are advanced against the above cited reply of Aishah, namely that it contains a weak chain. The chain is Sahih.” (Ibid., Volume 1, p. 212)

Moreover, the names mentioned in the hadith from al-Thalabi are considered to all be reliable and trustworthy.

1. Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdoos. Muslim scholar al-Dhahabi wrote, Imam (“leader”) (Siyar a’lam al-nubala, volume 17, p. 58).

2. Abu Abdullah bin Hamed al-Warraq. Al-Dhahabi stated, “Shaykh and Mufti of Hanbalis” (Siyar a’lam al-nubala, volume 17, p. 203).

3. Abu al-Abbas al-Asim. Al-Dhahabi noted that he is thiqah (“trustworthy,” “reliable”) (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, volume 3, p. 860).

4. Muhammad bin Jahm al-Samri. Al-Dhahabi said, “Darqutni said that he was thiqah” (Siyar a’lam al-nubala, volume 13, p. 164).

5. Al-Fara bin Yahya. Al-Dhahabi affirmed him being thiqah (Siyar a’lam al-nubala, volume 10, p. 119).

6. Abu Mu’awiyah Muhammad bin Khazem. Al-Dhahabi wrote that he is thabt (“affirmed”) (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, volume 1, p. 294).

7. Hisham bin Urwa. Al-Dhahabi said, Hujja (“proof”) (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, volume 1, p. 144).

8. Urwa bin al-Zubair: al-Dhahabi stated, Thabt (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, volume 1, p. 62).

With that out of the way we now turn to our final example. The third caliph agreed with Aisha that there are mistakes in the Quran:

“There is disagreement over 'ALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALAT'. Aishah and Aban ibn Uthman said that was written in the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its correction is essential and it should be written as 'ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT'. Similarly in Surah Ma’idah 'AALSSABI-OONA' and in Surah Taha 'IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI' have also been written due to the mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes in the Quran and Arabs would correct them through their language and they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa.” (Al-Baghawi, Tafsir Ma’ alam al-Tanzil, Volume 3, p. 361, Q. 4:161)


Aban bin Uthman recited the cited verse [IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI] before his father Uthman. Uthman said, “It is incorrect.” Someone asked him, “Why don’t you correct it?” Uthman replied, “Leave it there, it doesn’t make any difference in respect of what is Halal and Haram.” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Q. 20:63, Volume 11, p. 212)

We recommend the following article for those interested in seeing a lot more Islamic narrations admitting mistakes and errors in the Quran:

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion we want to mention and emphasize the fact that the Quran is unlike the New Testament in that the latter is a collection of 27 books written by different authors at different times and in different places. Thus, it is only natural that debate arose over the inclusion of some of these books since not every Church or father would have received the information regarding a particular book and would naturally have certain doubts about its authenticity.

However, since Muslim tradition asserts that a single man transmitted the Quran to his followers we therefore wouldn’t expect to find any confusion regarding the contents and arrangement of the Quran. Yet our examination demonstrated that there was mass confusion concerning the exact contents and order of the Muslim scripture! What makes this all the more amazing is that the people who were confused were those who knew Muhammad personally and had taken the Quran directly from him! If anyone should have known the exact arrangement and contents of the Muslim scripture surely it would have been Muhammad’s close companions. And yet, unfortunately for Muslims, it was these same companions who wrote down conflicting Qurans and who were disagreeing with one another concerning its precise order and number of surahs and verses. This clearly demonstrates the vast superiority of the NT over the Quran.

More importantly, imagine what Muslims would say if Christians told them that the books of the Bible were transmitted in seven modes, the exact meaning of which no Christian scholar knows till this day. Imagine their reaction if they were further told that Paul decided to standardize one mode and destroy the rest. Now think what their response would be if they were told that this one mode was transmitted in multiple versions, none of which were identical in wording, and that Christian scribes in the second or third centuries chose only ten readings from all of them since they were somehow able to trace these versions to the time of Christ’s disciples. It is safe to assume that the Muslims would react in the same way that non-Muslims do when they are told that this is precisely the situation with the textual transmission of the Quran!

With that just said what we find truly amazing and miraculous about Islam is not its book (since it is far from being a miracle in any sense) but the fact that there are Muslims who actually think that the Quran is supernatural in origin and continue to erroneously believe that it has been perfectly preserved. Now to us that is a miracle!

We wish to conclude by giving the following advice to the Muslim Dawagandists. Those living in glasshouses shouldn’t be picking up stones and hurling them at others. In light of the textual history of the Quran you have no business questioning the textual veracity and preservation of the NT, especially the four Gospels of our risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Related Articles

The following are links to articles and books which provide ample evidence to the reliability and preservation of the NT documents, especially in regards to the authorship of the Gospels:

Moreover, there is a lote more data from the Islamic sources that the Quran has suffered textual corruption by way of missing surahs (chapters) and verses, as well as additions and changes to the text. The interested readers can go here for this massive amount of information:



(1) Just to show our readers how feeble and desperate the Muslim replies to the textual corruption of the Quran truly are, note what Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi had to say concerning this particular variant:

Therefore, as we can see this is only one narration by a certain individual who believed that he heard the Prophet recite the verse the way he thought. However, how come there was no one else who also supported Abu Darda'a? How can ALL OF THE UMMAH be wrong while only he was right? Obviously he was speaking from bad memory and human error. More on this topic could be read here. (Zawadi, The Alleged Addition To Surah 92)

This exposes the fact that neither Zawadi nor his sources bothered to read the narrations carefully since this wasn’t simply the belief of a single individual. Rather, as an accurate and careful reading of the narratives themselves show, this was actually the way the entire community who had learned the Quran directly from Abdullah ibn Masud read it!

Narrated 'Alqama:

I went to Sham and offered a two-Rak'at prayer and then said, “O Allah! Bless me with a good pious companion.” So I went to some people and sat with them. An old man came and sat by my side. I asked, “Who is he?” They replied, “(He is) Abu-Ad-Darda.” I said (to him), “I prayed to Allah to bless me with a pious companion and He sent you to me.” He asked me, “From where are you?” I replied, “From the people of Al-Kufa.” He said, “Isn't there amongst you Ibn Um 'Abd, the one who used to carry the shoes, the cushion (or pillow) and the water for ablution? Is there amongst you the one whom Allah gave refuge from Satan through the request of His Prophet? Is there amongst you the one who keeps the secrets of the Prophet which nobody knows except him?” Abu Darda further asked, “How does 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) recite the Sura starting with, ‘By the Night as it conceals (the light)?” (92.1) Then I recited before him:

'By the Night as it envelops: And by the Day as it appears in brightness; And by male and female.' (91.1-3) On this Abu Ad-Darda' said, “By Allah, the Prophet MADE ME recite the Sura in this way while I was listening to him (reciting it).’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85)


Narrated Ibrahim:

The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) AS 'ABDULLAH RECITES IT?" They replied, “All of us.” He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama, Alqama recited:

By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, “I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468)

Thus, we have countless number of witnesses who were personally taught the recitation of the Quran by one of the very men commissioned by Muhammad himself testifying that Abu ad-Darda’s reading was correct!

So contrary to Zawadi’s assertion there were multiple witnesses (perhaps running in the hundreds, if not thousands) that supported Abu ad-Darda’s version over against Uthman’s (that is, Zaid’s version of the Quran).

Besides, if Zawadi is going to be consistent will he accept the fact that the present reading of Q. 33:6 is incomplete since several companions and their followers including ibn Masud, Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas, Muawiyah, Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan attest that there was an extra clause which is now missing from the present text of the Quran? See the above for the details.

Finally, this again shows the willingness on the part of Muslim propagandists like Zawadi to cast doubt on what is supposed to be their most authentic collection of narrations whenever they can’t adequately deal with or address the problems that such sources pose for their beliefs. And yet they expect us to accept these very same hadith collections without question!