Has the Quran been changed? - Nabeel Qureshi

Nabeel Qureshi - Has the Quran been changed?

[reuti]

Im athiest and I study history and this is true. Damn, didnt know such peiple existed who proved the quran to not be like how its followers say. There is no book in history that is not edited atleast once. Saying the quran had never been changed is ignorance of reality.

[atananggroe]

Manuscript preservesation is not the only one preservation.
There is also memorization of many people of friend of prophet muhammad saw.

If they memorize different from each other on the verse. Yes qur'an is changed

But
They all memorize the same thing every single verse from what they get from prophet muhammad saw.
Which is every single qur'an is unchanged.

[albukharisss]

The manuscripts that he claims to be changed are not changed but completly add up. Look it up, for example the oldest found quran by Birmingham University. Its at least 1370 years old and not a single word has been changed

[djwilson]

Bible says in the beginning HE created the heavens and the earth.

In the 1st page in every book every author introduce themselves to take credit for there book.

1 Corinthians 14:33 God is not the author of confusion.

My only question is why the 1st page of the Quran don't say in the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth?

[lololololol]

The writer of the book of Hebrews is literally anonymous.

[g.e.k]

He gives proof yet Islam’s refuse it and ask their father the devil to give them patience.

[danyalkashf]

The Sana'a manuscript is one of the oldest known copies of the Quran, dating back to the early 8th century. The manuscript contains some differences and variations in the text compared to the standard Uthmanic text of the Quran that is commonly used today. However, it is important to note that these differences are minor and do not affect the fundamental beliefs and teachings of the Quran.

While there are some scholars who have studied the differences between the Sana'a manuscript and the standard Uthmanic text, there is no complete list of differences that can be considered authoritative or comprehensive. This is because the Sana'a manuscript is not a standardized text, and there are variations in the text between different pages and sections of the manuscript.

In general, the differences between the Sana'a manuscript and the Uthmanic text are primarily related to spelling and grammar, rather than meaning. For example, there may be differences in the placement of diacritical marks, the use of certain letters, or the arrangement of words and phrases. However, these differences do not affect the overall message and teachings of the Quran.

It is worth noting that the Quran has been transmitted orally and in writing through various channels since the time of Prophet Muhammad, and there have been minor variations in the text over time. However, Islamic scholars have developed a rigorous system of textual criticism and verification to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of the Quranic text.

In conclusion, while there are some minor differences between the Sana'a manuscript and the standard Uthmanic text of the Quran, these differences do not affect the fundamental beliefs and teachings of the Quran. Islamic scholars have developed a rigorous system of textual criticism and verification to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of the Quranic text, and the differences between the Sana'a manuscript and the standard Uthmanic text are considered minor and inconsequential.

[Hose-A]

Luke 18:19 saying “why do you call me good, no one is good except god alone”. John 14:28 saying “MY father is greater than I”. John 10:29 saying “MY father is greater than all”. Luke 6:12 saying Jesus “continued all night in prayer to god”. Hebrews 5:7 “during the days of Jesus’ life on Earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent SUBMISSION”. Mathew 26:39 saying Jesus “fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father’ “. Acts 2:22 saying “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by god”. Mathew 12:18 saying “Jesus was a servant of god”. Acts 3:13 saying “The God of Abraham… has glorified his servant Jesus”. Acts 3:26 saying “God raised up his servant”. Luke 2:52 saying “Jesus increased in wisdom. Mark 13:32 saying “no one know… nor the Son, but only the Father”. Mathew 27:46 saying Jesus said “MY God, MY God, Why have you forsaken me?”. Mark 12:29 saying Jesus said “OUR Lord is One”.

[danyalkashf]

1 – The proof that the copies of the Holy Qur’aan that we have before us is not just one or two pieces of evidence, rather it is proven by a vast amount of evidence that no fair-minded person can study without becoming convinced that it is exactly as Allaah revealed it to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

2 – There have been generations coming one after another, reciting the Book of Allaah and studying it, memorizing it and writing it down. They have not omitted a single letter, and no one can change even the vowel point of a single letter. Writing is just one means of preserving it; basically it is preserved in their hearts.

3 – The Qur’aan has not come down to us on its own, such that the so-called alterations could be made. Rather the interpretation of its verses, the meanings of its words, the reasons for its revelation, the grammar of its words and the commentary on its rulings have all been transmitted. When such care has been given to this Book, how could sinful hands find a way to distort even one letter of it, or add a word, or take away a verse?

4 – The Qur’aan speaks of matters of the unseen, in the future, which Allaah revealed to His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to show him that they came from Allaah. If a human being wants to write a book, he can describe an event or express a point of view, but if any human being were to speak about matters of the unseen, in this field he can only base that on speculation and lies. But the Qur’aan told of the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, at the time when there was no means of communication to inform the Arabs of this event. The same verses also foretold that they (the Persians) would be defeated after a certain number of years. If what the Qur’aan said was not accurate, then the kaafirs would have had a great opportunity to criticize the Qur’aan.

5 – If you read any verse of the Qur’aan, then you go to America or Asia or the jungles of Africa, or to the deserts of Arabia or any place where there are Muslims, you will find that all of them have the exact same verse, memorized by heart or in their books; not a single letter of it will have been altered.

So what is the importance of this unknown manuscript in Yemen which we have not seen, and in which some ignorant may have altered, in recent times, one verse or one word?

Does this argument carry any weight when properly researched and discussed? Especially when the people claim to be fair-minded and objective in their research.

What would be their response if we went to one of their most trusted books by a well-known author, a book of which there are many copies in the world, all of them exactly the same, and we claimed that there was a copy of this book in some country or other in which there was extra material and alterations, and it was different from what is in their copies? Would they pay any attention?

Their answer would be the same as ours.

6 – The manuscript copies which are in the Muslims’ possession cannot be proven to be authentic in this simplistic manner, for we have experts who know the history of calligraphy and we have principles and guidelines through which we may determine whether a manuscript is genuine, such as the names and signatures of the people who heard it and read it.

We do not think that these features are present in this so-called copy of the Qur’aan in Yemen or in others.

7 – We are happy to conclude our answer with this true story that happened in Baghdad during the ‘Abbasid era, when a Jew wanted to find out how true are the books attributed by their followers to God, namely the Torah among the Jews, the Gospel among the Christians and the Qur’aan among the Muslims.

He went to the Torah and added and took away a few minor things that were not very obvious, then he gave it to a scribe from among the Jews and asked him to make copies of it. It did not take long before these copies were placed in the synagogues of the Jews and were in circulation among their major scholars.

Then he went to the Gospel and added and took away a few things as he had done with the Torah, and he gave it to their scribes and asked them to make copies of it. It was not long before it was being read in their churches and was in circulation among their scholars.

Then he went to the Qur’aan and added and took away a few things as he had done with the Torah and the Gospel. Then he gave it to a Muslim scribe to make copies of it.

When he went back to get his copy, the scribe threw it in his face and told him that this was not the Qur’aan of the Muslims!

From this experiment the man came to know that the Qur’aan is the true Book of Allaah and that all other books were the works of human beings.

If the scribes of the Muslims could tell that this copy had been tampered with, then how could it go into circulation among the Muslim scholars undetected?

If the questioner wants to repeat this ancient experiment nowadays, all she has to do is to do the same as that Jewish man did, who later became Muslim; she can add and take away things from these three books and see what happens as a result.

But we do not tell her to show her copy of the Qur’aan to a scribe, rather we tell her to show it to Muslim children, and they will tell her where the mistakes are in her copy!

Some Muslim states have printed Mus-hafs in which there were mistakes, and young children found them before the grown-ups did!

And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path.

[TalemwaCaleb-zo]

Isiaiah 9:6 to us a child is born, to us a son is born the government will be on his shoulders, And he will be called wonderful counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father and prince of peace . This was said by prophet Isiaiah hundreds of years before Jesus was born . And Jesus proved to be God several times in the bible during his lifetime, choosing not to see this is choosing to be blind 🦮❤❤❤

[bitiousad]

Interestingly, all the hadiths showing different circumstances which happened when the Quran was being compiled only proofs its genuineness and different events that occurred but we clearly and obviously cant say that for the bible,

First of the main characters in the bible spoke Aramiac or Hebrew but the bible was written in Greek and most of the manuscripts found are based upon those Greek manuscripts...

2ndly, No one knows who the actual authors of the bible are and the names attributed to the bible are as a result of later works.

3rdly, these books were written 50-120 years after the said authors as in the case of the NEW TESTAMENT.. we do not know the circumstances which arised as a result of creating those books..


So now, you Christians come here using explanations on how the Quran was compiled by those who lived and heared from prophet Muhammad PBH as an excuse to write off the authenticity of the Quran when these details are clearly missing from your history!



Conclusion

Books found by unknown authors, now called the bible,

How were they written and compiled? and by this i mean from the Aramiac, Hebrew to the greek who were obviously Idol worshippers ...again not found in its history!

And boom! A New Testament emerged with anonymous authors!

Again, letters written by paul who clearly wasn't a follower of Jesus when he was alive is a much more reliable source? Of which there are claims some of these letter were not even written by the said Paul.


And then you Christians come out as open opponents arguing with Muslims about the authenticity of the Quran.


Infact, these stories about how the Quran was compiled and its ups and downs only strengthens my believe in Islam and also takes me to a deeper understanding on Zillion of ways the bible actually went wrong!

Alhamdullilah I'm a Muslim! May Allah guide everyone!

[dreamkid]

Why does the quran has to be rewritten bevsuse of laungage... don't make sense.. God Allah wound not give you verses and then you have to correct the written.

[lilkurdi]

Before talking about quran or hating it, i prefer you to try to explain its miracles first. How the book could predict a lot of information.

[veteranclips]

Hafs or warsh & where the scriptures that the goat eaten, where the scriptures that Uthman burned, the word king & word owner are not the same letter to letter word for word 😂

[damantrip]

Haha you are taking too much efforts to discredit quran. When someone purportedly reciting quran nobody reciting the same after him meaning that not the quran. The quran never been revealed exclusively only to one person .

[danyalkashf]

Some critics of Islam raise an objection that Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud did not consider Surah al-Fatihah and the Mu‘awwidhatain (last two chapters of the Holy Quran) as part of the original text of the whole Quran, causing his hypothetical manuscript to be made up of 111 chapters instead of 114 chapters. We call it hypothetical because he never compiled an official manuscript as opposed to mush‘af-e-umm and never declared or formally announced that his manuscript should be considered a standard instead of any other manuscript.

Regardless, it is indeed true that some narrations mention this opinion of Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud that he did not wish to include these three chapters in his manuscripts of the Quran. For instance, it is narrated in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Masnadul Ansar, as follows:

حدثنا محمد بن الحسين بن أشكاب ثنا محمد بن ابي عبيدة بن معن ثنا أبي عن الأعمش عن أبي إسحق عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد قال: كان عبد اللّه يحك المعوذتين من مصاحفه ويقول: ان هما ليستا من كتاب الله تبارك و تعالي، قال الأعمش و حدثنا عاصم عن زر عن أبي بن كعب قال: سألنا عن هما رسول الله صلي الله عليه و سلم قال (فقيل لي) فقلت

“It is narrated by Abdur Rahman bin Yazid that Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud used to erase the Mu‘awwidhatain from his manuscripts and used to say, ‘They are not from the book of Allah [i.e. the Holy Quran].’ One narrator, A‘mish, narrates that Asim narrates from Zirr, who in turn narrates from Hazrat Ubayyra bin Kaab [who said], ‘We asked the Holy Prophetsa about them [i.e. Mu‘awwidhatain], and he said, “This is how I have been commanded”, and so I convey [this to others].’”

A similar narration appears in Sahih al-Bukhari as follows:

عَنْ زِرٍّ، قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أُبَىَّ بْنَ كَعْبٍ قُلْتُ يَا أَبَا الْمُنْذِرِ إِنَّ أَخَاكَ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ يَقُولُ كَذَا وَكَذَا‏.‏ فَقَالَ أُبَىٌّ سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ لِيْ قِيْلَ لِيْ‏‏ فَقُلْتُ، قَالَ فَنَحْنُ نَقُولُ كَمَا قَالَ رَسُولُ اللّٰهِ صلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّم‏‏

“Zirr bin Hubaish narrates, ‘I asked Ubayyra bin Kaab, “O Abul Mundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas‘udra said so-and-so [i.e., the Mu‘awwidhatain do not belong to the Quran].” Ubayyra said, “I asked the Holy Prophetsa about them, and he said, ‘They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran).” Ubayyra added, “So, we say according to what the Holy Prophetsa said.”’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tafsir, Hadith 4977)

First, it must be clear from these narrations that Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud is only expressing an opinion about the last two chapters of the Quran. Other narrations mention that he thought these were merely prayers revealed to the Holy Prophetsa to seek protection from Allah on behalf of his grandsons, Hazrat Imam Hassanra and Hazrat Imam Hussainra. Commenting on similar objections about Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud, the Promised Messiahas writes:

“These ignorant people say that Ibn Mas‘udra requested a prayer duel, which means that it is permissible for Muslims to do prayer duels. However they cannot prove that Ibn Mas‘udra did not retract his opinion, and they also cannot prove that a prayer duel took place resulting in Divine punishment for those in error. The truth is that Ibn Mas‘udra was an ordinary person, not a prophet or messenger. If he made a mistake out of passion, does that mean that we should consider his statement part of:

اِنْ‭ ‬هُوَ‭ ‬اِلَّا‭ ‬وَحْيٌ‭ ‬يُّوْحٰي

[It is nothing but pure revelation that has been revealed by God] [Ch.53: V.5]?” (Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, pp. 421-422)

The Promised Messiahas is arguing here that no matter what the case, the status of Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud is not so high that we should consider him immune from errors in judgement. His words and statements do not have the same status as the words of the Holy Prophetsa, regarding whom it is clearly stated in the Quran that what he said for religious guidance was pure revelation from God. At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt that he was a great teacher of the Holy Quran and one of the most revered companions, and among the earliest converts to Islam, and every Muslim must respect him. A simple error in judgment about three of the chapters of the Holy Quran does not diminish his high status in the eyes of any Muslim. Our prayer for him has always been and continues to be, “Radhiyallahu ‘anho”, may Allah be pleased with him.

Secondly, the narrations themselves clearly refute the error of Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud as Hazrat Abdullahra bin Ubayy – another revered teacher of the Holy Quran – is reported to have checked with the Holy Prophetsa about the Mu‘awwidhatain and he told him that they were part of the Quran.

Similar to this narration, there are many other well-authenticated ahadith that quote the Holy Prophetsa as clearly stating that Surah al-Fatihah and the Mu‘awwidhatain are part of the Holy Quran and not separate from it.

An interesting point is that other narrations state that Ibn Mas‘udra did not include the Mu‘awwidhatain in his manuscript, or they were missing from the manuscript of Ibn Mas‘udra, but these narrations do not record his statement that they are not a part of the book of Allah. This is a subtle difference which means that there is some confusion as to the real reason why Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud did not include these two chapters in his manuscript. It may have been the opinion of Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud or it may have been the opinion of the person narrating this about him. In either case, these are just their opinions which are clearly refuted in these narrations as well as many other narrations from authentic sources.

As Ahsanullah Danish Sahib puts it, on the one hand, we have the opinion of the companions of the Holy Prophetsa supported by historical evidence, the united opinion of the entire ummah, the united opinion of the memorisers or huffaz of the Holy Quran, and on the other hand, there is the opinion of the person narrating this from Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud, or perhaps the opinion of Hazrat Abdullahra bin Mas‘ud himself. What does our rational mind tell us?

Accept the doubt of one or two people or the clear-cut statements of the Holy Prophetsa that plainly state that both Surah al-Fatihah and the Mu‘awwidhatain are part of the revealed Holy Quran.

The evidence for the excellent preservation of the text of the Holy Quran is quite extensive.

A recent discovery of a manuscript of the Quran gives further evidence for this. It was found in the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom and scholars have said that it is perhaps the oldest manuscript of the Quran in the world. It dates from the period of 568 CE to 645 CE which makes it a possible manuscript from the time of the Holy Prophetsa himself. Retrieved 5 April, 2017], [Retrieved 5 April, 2017)])

It contains parts of chapters 18 to 20 of the Holy Quran and a comparison with a present-day publication of the Quran reveals that they are identical, without any differences. Despite all this evidence, if some critics object to the preservation of the Holy Quran, it can only be due to bias. An honest researcher in this field has no option but to affirm that the prediction of the Quran regarding its perfect preservation has indeed been fulfilled.

[abdulrahmanashour]

WTF this is very ignorant when Arabic grammar the most complicated language on Earth, is taken from the Quran and you Pakistani who speaks Urdu is trying to mistake the Arabic synonyms to prove that the Quran is very amusing, you know there are half a billion Arabic speakers in the world and they did not fall into this naive mistake

[danyalkashf]

Did Ibn Mas'ud (RA) have 111 Surah and Variances like these nasara claim? How about Ubayy ibn Ka'b didn't he have extra two Surah?? The answer is NO

Christians keep bringing up the same old busted argument, which to be honest sounds really pathetic It's become so old and boring it's become a joke . Since Christians have found out that the bible doesn't have any originals manuscripts and throughout time it's been altered and corrupted, abused by Unknown mens. they have become so frustrated and upset they've seem to have made a vow to attack Islam especially the authenticity of the Quran and the preservation. This is nothing new for Christians they Normally stoop to any level, since they've made an allegation let's examine it and bury these claims for good.

Christians claim Ibn Mas'ud (RA) had 111 Surah (Chapters) and alleged Variances in his Quran? In order to make such a claim one has to also provide its evidence. The Question is DO CHRISTIANS HAVE A COPY OF IBN MAS'UD QURAN WITH THEM? It will be nice to see that COPY. Secondly they use Hadiths to prove their point regarding alleged variances yet none of the references mention of a (Mushaf) of Ibn Mas'ud rather it used the word (Qara'a) READ. Since there's no mention of a Mushaf we can conclude he wasn't reading from a written copy.

This is what M.M Al-Azami wrote in his book and I quote:

While none of Ibn Mas'ud's peers mentions a Mushaf of his bearing a different different sura arrangement, quite a few of them seem to have sprung up after his death. An-Nadim quotes al-Fadl bin Shadhan, " I found the sura arrangements of Ibn Mas'ud's Mushaf as follows: al- Baqara, an Nisa, Ali Imran.... [i.e no al- Fatiha], " following this with his own commentary an-Nadim days that he has personally seen numerous Mushafs ascribed to Ibn Mas'ud but has been unable to find any two in agreement with each other, adding that he has also come across one copied during the second century of Hijra which includes Sura al- Fatiha
( An- Nadim al- Fihirst, p.29.)

Even for arguments sake if we accept he left out 3 Surahs this doesn't mean that he wasn't aware of those Surahs as part of the Quran. We know Ibn Mas'ud RA was aware of the Surah we have Evidence: Quoting Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Dhurays, Ibn Munzar and Ibn Mardwiyah, al-Suyuti gives us the following narration;

It is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud, regarding the word of Allah, ‘We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses’ He said: “[It is] Fatiha al-Kitab.” (Durr Manthur 5/94, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut)

This plainly confirms that the al-Fatiha was indeed a part of the Qur’an in the view of Ibn Mas’ud just like the rest of Muslims.

How about al-mu’awwazatayn Quoting from al-Daylami, Shaykh Ali Muttaqi, in his gigantic Hadith collection, records a very interesting narration.

Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu’awwazatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/Nos. 113 & 114) ...” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 2743)

Here in most explicit terms Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- refers to al-mu’awwazatayn as two surahs, showing he did believe in their divine origin and Qur’anic authority.

Again the above evidences are sufficient to destroys those claims about Ibn Mas'ud's Quran having 111 Surah.



We also have Prophet Muhammed Pbuh Statement regarding Ibn Mas'ud Recitation again this is found in M.M Al-Azami's book and I quote:

"Next we turn to Ibn as-Sabbagh's harmonisation. Many Companions such as Fatima, Aisha, Abu Huraira, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud, report that the Prophet used to recite the Quran with Archangel Jibril annually during Ramadhan, doing so twice in the year of his death. In that final year Ibn Mas'ud was a participant. He also twice recited the Book of the Prophet, who extolled him with the words laqad ahsanta ( 'you have done well') Based on this incident Ibn Abbas considers Ibn Mas'ud's reading to be definitive."

(For details see Ibn Hanbal, Musnad hadith nos. 2494, 3001, 3012, 3422, 3425, 3469, 3539 and 3845. Of particular note are 3001 and 3422.)



Conclusion

Christians have to show the Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud to prove that Ibn Mas'ud RA had 111 Surah in his Quran. Since no Christians can show us of such a Mushaf then this claim is no longer valid of 111 Surah please stop it. Secondly we have provided evidence that Ibn Mas'ud was well aware of the 3 Surah al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/Nos. 113 & 114. also Prophet Muhammed Pbuh extolled him for this recitation



How about Ubayy ibn Ka'b didn't he have extra 2 Surah in his Mushaf? Again this has also been covered by M.M Al-Azami wrote in his book and I quote:

Hamad b. Salama reported that Ubayy's Mushaf contained two extra sura, called al-Hafad and al- Khala. This report is completely spurious because of a major defect in the chain, as there is an unaccounted-for gap of at least two to three generations Between Ubayy's death ( d. ca. 30 A.H)and hammand's (d. 167 A.H) scholarly activity. Besides this, we must remember that a note written in a book doesn't make it part of the book. But let us accept that a few extra lines were scribbled inside Ubayy's Mushaf for arguments sake. Would these lines ascend to the position of the Quran? Certainly not. The complete Uthmani Mushaf, disseminated with instructors who taught after the manner of the relevant authorities, forms the basis of establishing whether any given text is the Quran - not the unsubstantiated squiggles of an illigimate manuscripts.
( Ibn Durais, Fada'il al-Quran, p.157)

The above academic research is sufficient to destroys the claims made by Christians however to go a step further suppose for arguments sake we agree what these Christians said! Did Ubayy ibn Ka'b extra TWO SURAH? Or were they supplications. The following has been taken from brother Waqar Akbar and his team


"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b were the Fatihal-kitab (the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma innaa nasta'iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal' meaning 'O Allah, we seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu (the opening words of Suratul-Hafd meaning 'O Allah, we worship you')". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.153)





Hafiz Suyuti has himself recorded the wording of these alleged surahs.

اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّا نَسْتَعِينُكَ وَنَسْتَغْفِرُكَ وَنُثْنِي عَلَيْكَ وَلَا نُكْفُرُكَ وَنَخْلَعُ وَنَتْرُكُ مَنْ يَفْجُرُكَ
اللَّهُمَّ إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَلَكَ نُصَلِّي وَنَسْجُدُ وَإِلَيْكَ نَسْعَى وَنَحْفِدُ نَرْجُو رَحْمَتَكَ وَنَخْشَى عَذَابَكَ إِنَّ عَذَابَكَ بِالْكُفَّارِ مُلْحَقٌ.
O Allah! We beg help from You alone; ask forgiveness from You alone, and praise You and are not ungrateful to You and we part and break off with all those who are disobedient to you.
O Allah! You alone do we worship and pray exclusively to You and bow before You alone and we hasten eagerly towards You and we fear Your severe punishment and hope for Your Mercy as your severe punishment is surely to be meted out to the unbelievers.
See, al-Ittiqan 1/227

The above are not Surah's rather they are Supplications, we have evidence from Hadith :

“While the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was supplicating against the Mudhar, Gabriel came to him and signaled him to remain silent, so he became silent. Then Gabriel said, “O Muhammad, Allah has not sent you to disparage or condemn, rather he has sent you as a mercy. And he has not sent you to bring torment. ‘Not for you, [O Muhammad, but for Allah], is the decision whether He should [cut them down] or forgive them or punish them, for indeed, they are wrongdoers.’ [Qur’an 3:128] Then he taught him this supplication, ‘O Allah! We beg help from You alone …’” (Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 3142)


“‘Umar bin al-Khattab- may Allah be pleased with him- used to recite this in the prayers. And the Messenger –peace and blessings on him- taught it to Ali to recite this in the prayers! Yes this is true. But it’s not that it was from the Qur’an, rather it is a supplication to Allah.

Words of these two alleged surahs are part of the ‘qunoot’ supplication. The Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah on him- used to supplicate with this in the prayers, and taught this to ‘Umar, ’ Ali and others from amongst the companions –Allah be pleased with them all. They all used to beseech Allah with these words in the prayers. And the Muslims heard and reported it from them and mentioned it in the books.”

(Al-Qur’an wa Naqd Mata’in al-Ruhban, Dar al-Qalam, Damascus


It is narrated from ‘Ata that when Uthman bin Affan got the Qur’an written in Masahif, he sent for Ubayy, so he dictated the text to Zaid bin Thabit. Zaid wrote it and with him was Sa’id bin al-‘Aas who perfected its form. This (standard) Mushaf was according to the recitation (qir’at) of Ubayy and Zaid.

(Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 4789 Mo’ssas al-Resalah, Beirut, 1981 vol.2 p.587)



So clearly the Mushaf that we recite today, which includes 114 surahs, was dictated by Ubayy and is according to his recitation- may Allah be pleased with. This kills even the remotest idea of Qur’an, according to him, having something additional to what is known today.

Also Muslims have Memorised Dua Qunoot either way we have it available again Christians have lost another battle

Shame!!


Ibn Mas'ud (RA) 111 Surah argument busted.

[NoobieInvestment]

Well, I start with a matter of rationality. You say Osman burned other version of Quran and that’s why no deviation exists now. Yes Osman burned other Qurans but you need to know what were they? And why that didn’t cause any disagreement between Muslims and all accepted that, in the time so many kept Qur'an in the heart, many written version were present in parchments, stones, wood... !!! Because all agreed with the changes, the changes were related to adding details in a way to read words uniquely, early versions were written only with skeleton words. Also, the agreed and kept version adopted the original qurashi accent. That's why everyone agreed and just one version remained without argument between Muslims. Now that discovery of early versions of Quran in Sanaa Yemen dating back to Prophet Muhammad time reveals all same words... Birmingham Quran dating back to 1300 years ago shows no difference...
Look at history and think rationally, if it was a place of debate there should be more versions today (as we see branching in Shiaa, Sunni, ...). There was absolutely no place of argument or debate related to Quran versions over any time and all Muslims of all time agreed on the.

[RUWAAYADOVIDEOS-b]

Subhaanalaah what a lie is this
Why are you lying the reason is simple because there is no muslim there