Where did lay Muslims get the idea that the 1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an is an unchanged 'Textus Receptus' going back to Muhammad himself? Protestants? Textual variants, even within the Uthmanic tradition, are well documented, and Uthman's codex is likely not identical to Muhammad's revelations—as per lbn Mas'ud

Admitting this doesn't necessarily undermine Islamic doctrine nor scriptural veracity—except perhaps in questioning how similar Uthman's recension is to Muhammad's. Most known variants within the Uthmanic Qur'an are theologically minor, being closer in nature to New Testament textual variance than to the Old

So what caused this apologia to emerge?

Not a Muslim but Islam’s core tenet includes remembering the Quran in its entirely verbally. So when Moshe Shekelstein releases a Quran manuscript with a single word different millions deny it all together at once.

>>17843054
>Islam’s core tenet includes remembering the Quran in its entirely verbally
Within which there are variations depending on geography and history. Most/all in use are Uthmanic, numerous local qira'at being replaced by the Cairo version, but the actual recitations (e.g., vowels used for the Uthmanic consonantal skeleton) aren't all identical

>>17843112
Well yeah because you can't expect people living within such a wide area to speak the same shirt or pronounce it the same way. But the core message is retained and the oldest manuscripts we have the Quran proves this. Compare this to the gospels where its pretty much historically garunteed that the Apostles didn't even write half of them and the only ones we’re sure were written by the guy who is claimed to of written them (Paul) was obviously acid tripping.

>>17843214
>garunteed
lefthand wiper typed this
a lefthand wiper who is unaware of manuscript DAM 01-27.1

>>17843243
The promise of preservation applies to the final, revealed text, not the process of compilation or early companion codices.

>>17843214
I'm not sure why you brought the New Testament into this, my comparison to it was there simply to illustrate the similarity of the types of variation. Who wrote it doesn't detract from my point that we know the Qur'an has variants—in both the textual tradition and in Qira'at—of which have real (albeit minor) changes from Uthman's standard that refutes the modern, common, lay apologia that the Qur'an has remained static. Hence, my question—whence comes this apologia?

>Admitting this doesn't necessarily undermine Islamic doctrine
It directly undermines modern Sunni orthodoxy which specifically says there is no textual corruption

>>17842710 (OP)
>Textual variants, even within the Uthmanic tradition, are well documented
Okay, but they're variations differing by a single letter or so, in words that could be spelled multiple ways. The fact of the matter is, the Qur'an is WAY better preserved than something like the bible. There is no Johannine comma or longer ending of Mark equivalent to the Qur'an.
>Uthman's codex is likely not identical to Muhammad's revelations—as per lbn Mas'ud
Few dispute this, that is to say, this is virtually impossible to know. What most Muslims claim is that the Qur'an from Uthman onwards has been preserved perfectly, or so near perfectly as to the meaning being completely intact.

Imagine all the textual variances of the bible amounting to misspellings of common words, in a time before standardised spelling. In such a world it would be fair to call the bible "perfectly preserved", even if you could argue semantics on the word perfectly there, it's clear what one means when they say this.

I'm not Muslim btw, Islam has not solved the problem of evil and thus I cannot possibly see it as true, though unlike Christians they at least address it so props for that.

>>17843674
>The fact of the matter is, the Qur'an is WAY better preserved than something like the bible
It absolutely is not and the fact you cite something like the comma johanneum (a late addition to the Latin tradition which is wholly absent from the Greek manuscript tradition) as an example of the bible "not being preserved" illustrates that you have no idea what you're talking about

>>17843680
What the fuck do you mean, how does that not count? There is almost an entire continent where they STILL use the king james version, which STILL features this textual corruption. Not only that, look up what the official position of the catholic church is on the matter, the answer will shock you!

Your standard for what counts as preservation seems to be that for something to be preserved well, the original text needs to simply exist... somewhere. Not just in the text that is deemed authoritive and standard, but in some text out there somewhere. Not only that, your standard seems to say that the original doesn't even need to be identified as the original by most lay followers, just academics, that is to say, if 99% of people have access to the corrupt version and are told that that's the original, then that's fine, so long as 1% knows that.


NOT ONLY THAT, according to your standard, corruption like this is retroactive, because remember, for most of history, scholars didn't have access to all the manuscripts we have today, and so for most of history, most Christians (who are not greek orthodox) held the corrupt version as authority. But retroactively, we now know better, just barely, because by luck someone preserved the version without the change. How many changes like that have slipped through the cracks? Impossible to know. Meanwhile, there is AND WASN'T anything like that to the Qur'an. There was no massive error that was only fixed with modern archeology and scholarship.


The Qur'an passes your incredibly low standards for what counts as perfectly preserved with flying colours, and is doing laps around the bible, so I don't see what your issue is.


I will reiterate, there is no equivalent of the Johannine comma, long ending of mark, Goliath's height discrepancy or anything of that sort in the Qur'an, because unlike the bible, the Qur'an is perfectly preserved from uthman onwards (or so near perfectly that the meaning stays completely intact)

>>17843698
>wall of text spouting indefensible ridiculous bullshit
I'm not interested in the axe you have to grind with Christ, weirdo

>>17843702
Indefensible how?
What is the Quranic equivalent to the Johannine comma, a textual corruption that was onlyidentified recently with modern archaeology and scholarship, that a very large amount of not most of the lay followers still see as authentic?
If the Qur'an is AT LEAST as corrupt as the bible, which is what you are trying to argue here, then you should have no trouble finding one.

>>17843698
>the Qur'an is perfectly preserved from uthman onwards (or so near perfectly that the meaning stays completely intact)
Oh I got it, you're "not a muslim" in the sense you're practicing taqiyya
If the comma johanneum is a problem, then I can create a "problem" for biblical preservation by writing in crayon inside my bible right now. The original does not need to be identified by anybody in order to exist, it just needs to exist.

>>17843710
>Oh I got it, you're "not a muslim" in the sense you're practicing taqiyya
You're mentally ill. What, you think I'm afraid of getting banned from 4chan or something?
And yes, retard, if you rewrote the bible right now, added your own material, then passed that around and got bothc Catholics and most protestants to adopt your new version as their new standard, THAT IS A TEXTUAL CORRUPTION, THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS YOU RETARD

>>17843054
>Not a Muslim but Islam’s core tenet includes remembering the Quran in its entirely verbally.

There was never a single quran
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B_IZ8B3BOdc

>>17843716
>then passed that around and got bothc Catholics and most protestants to adopt your new version as their new standard
This is also a fantasy "most Catholics and Protestants" do not accept the comma you weirdo

>>17843716
>And yes
>yes, writing inside a bible circa 2025 means we don't know what the original said

>>17842710 (OP)
>and Uthman's codex is likely not identical to Muhammad's revelations—as per lbn Mas'ud
I don't disagree but isn't this also a way bigger problem for Christians? I mean the gospels aren't even written in the same language that jesus spoke. I can believe that the event described took place, I can believe short quotations of Jesus that amount to catchphrases to be accurate like "the meek shall inherit the earth", but something like the sermon on the mount being preserved, word for word, orally, for 70 years, across different languages and a massive sea?

>>17843674
>Okay, but they're variations differing by a single letter or So, in words that could be spelled multiple ways.
No, they differ by entire words, of which the meaning can be changed (to some degree). The only unifying factor is the consonantal skeleton—that which makes the textual type Uthmanic—and even that differs in many areas, again, being only "unified" by Cairo in 1924
>there is no Johannine comma or longer ending of Mark equivalent to the Qur'an
Arguably, Q1 is such (alongside a number of surat I can't recall), as per Ibn Mas’ud. Nonetheless, remove both interpolations and the underlying message of the New Testament remains. Likewise, remove all any textual variants and the underlying message of Qur'an remains. The only problems are in the low-church protestant understanding of the Textus Receptus and the lay Islamic equivalent of an identical, utterly unchanged Qur'an

>>17843724
Most Christians in the USA still use the king James version
The catholic church has been "looking into the matter" since the 40s, while their bibles still include it.
Suffice to say, at the very least, it's fair to say there is a large portion of Christians that still see it as authentic.
>>17843725
What do YOU think a textual corruption is then? Do you think there is some magical date past which corruptions can't be introduced? Tell me how you define a textual corruption, then name an example in the Qur'an that doesn't have an equivalent in the bible.
>>17843728
Agreed. Uthman, AT THE VERY LEAST, had access to people that were actually there and spoke the same language.

>>17843738
Why don't you explain why taking a bible right now and writing random stuff inside it magically destroys our knowledge of the biblical text

>>17843728
>isn't this also a way bigger problem for Christians
Only for those Christians holding an analogous textus receptus view and/or sola scriptura. For the everyone else, it doesn't matter—likewise, it doesn't matter for any educated Muslim. Textual variance doesn't affect truth

>>17843747
Explain what you think sola scriptura has to do with any of this

>>17843743
I just did though? Do you not understand that the next step would be to get people to accept your corrupt version as authentic?

>>17843755
No, because 1. convincing enough people of the existence of the tooth fairy would not conjure her into being, and 2. this continues to be fantasy and the act of reading a King James bible does not mind control you to affirm the authenticity of the comma. You are trolling

>>17843749
Sola scriptura generally relies on a sort of text preserved by God from the time of the Prophets and Apostles till now, being the ultimate authority of doctrine and dogma. Anglicans, certain Lutherans, and liberal Christians don't have this problem however

>>17843763
Now explain who misled you to think the existence of textual variants impugns that

>>17843761
Peopel who read the king James bible, in 99.99% of cases, read it without knowing it's corrupt. If this wasn't the case, Christians would only read it as their second or third read. You are trolling.

Imagine a world with no internet. You're in America. The only bible you have access to is the king James version. Everyone around you from your pastor to your friends, say this version is authoritative. That is a version with textual corruption being used. Most American Christians don't use their internet access for biblical scholarship. That IS the world we live in.


Again, how do YOU define a textual corruption? Because to me it seems like you're saying textual corruptions are impossible, even if we burn all the copies of the book that aren't corrupt. How can the Qur'an be corrupt then?

>>17843767
Outside of a textus receptus, it doesn't. Within the context of such existing *within* it, it impugns it. See the seething that emerges from the KJV-onlyist crowd at the existence of

>>17843733
Okay, yes, there are some early variants that have 1 word changed or even added here or there. But they predate uthman.


If we assume that uthman had the diligent work of scholarship to mould a proper and uncorrupted version of the Qur'an during his day, which IS an assumption, but it's not something that's impossible or would require a miracle either given the short time between him and Mohammad, from there onward, the Qur'an does seem to be perfectly preserved IMO (you know what I mean by perfectly)


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and post some post-uthman variances.

>>17843723
>shorts
not clicking

>>17843775
So in other words, sola scriptura has nothing to do with this.

>>17843783
Perhaps it would have been better for me to have written "certain interpretations of sola scripture", but I'm drinking at the moment, so I'm somewhat careless

>>17843391
>Hence, my question—whence comes this apologia?
>>17842710 (OP)
People keep missing the actual point of the thread. The apologia comes from, suprise, the Qur'an. I got this from my local mosque's website, they see verse 15:9 of Surah Al-Hijr as stating that Allah himself will protect the Qur'an (from corruption). If the Qur'an really is free from corruption, then that could be seen as a prophecy being fulfilled, a miracle or some such.

You can see how this could have started, I mean if the Qur'an says something won't be broken and then it still isn't broken, then that seems to be a strong point to the Qur'an being right about things, hence why it's popular with apologists.

>>17843787
I don't know of a view of sola scriptura where it would be relevant. The difference between KJVonlyism and orthodox Protestantism is not a difference on sola scriptura (although they often have an unorthodox understanding of sola scriptura too, such that biblical interpretation is to be done in complete isolation from the rest of the Church and Christian history, however this is obviously not relevant to textual criticism).

>>17843787
Also I would note KJVonlyism isn't even really analogous here, because they will typically acknowledge the existence of textual variants, they just attribute them to Satan or Constantine or something.

>>17843798
The textual variants I'm thinking of are ones specifically within the KJV---the textus receptus as mentioned earlier, perhaps the longer ending of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery. These are textual variants within the KJV that KJV-onlyists posit are inherited from the original gospels, as many lay Muslims posit the 1924 Cairo edition is inherited at least from Uthman
>>17843794
It isn't necessarily a view that is logical. What I had in mind is a specific form of low-church, unlearned sola scriptura (in hindsight of which, the term "sola scriptura" likely isn't accurate, considering its existence in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy). In which one holds that if any sort of variance is present, that calls into question the entirety of the scriptures or at least infallibility/inerrancy, upon such the faith of this believer rests
>>17843780
Apologies for just pointing you toward Wikipedia, but I can't find what I was reading earlier today and the Wikipedia article seems to be good enough. Nonetheless, it goes over not only differences in the vocalisations of the rasm but of the rasm itseld between the qira'at---the rasm being the consantal roots that Uthman standardised and what Cairo likewise standardised again in 1924

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at

>>17843054
Holy based!

>>17843723 That's a filthy lie, atheist. By logic you can discard this bullshit, but atheists can't reason, can they?