Comments by "" (@sura_65.4) on "He Said This Scholar Was Paid $2,000,000 To Find Mistakes In The Quran." video.

Scholar Marijn van putten believes the qurans are based on fairy tales: Western scholars unanimously agree that Dhul Qarnayn is the legendary Alexander of Christian lore. Not the other way around. Most Muslim scholars denied that he is Dhul Qarnayn due to conclusion that he is a polytheist of the traditional Greek mythology. Today many muslims deny Dhu l-Qarnayn is Alexander, but in the medieval tradition the identification is not at all uncommon. Many tafsirs and early traditions transmit this in quite a lot of detail. Detailing "He was a Roman", "His name was Alexander", "He buitl Alexandria in Egypt". These opinions can be found in Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir (who strongly denies this opinion), al-Baghawi, Ibn al-Jawzi.
28
According to the words of scholar Marijn van putten the name of allah is from a pagan god: To recapitulate: 6th century Christian Arabic speakers do not call their God Aḷḷāh, but al-ʾilāh. Pagan Arabic speakers around 1st c. BCE-1st c. CE know a minor deity in their pantheon named Aḷḷāh, and it is unclear if they equated him to the Jewish God.
16
@j2shoes288 Scholar Marijn van putten doesn't believe the qurans are perfectly preserved: What do you mean by "The Quran today"? There are 10 different reading traditions with 20 sub-narrations adhered to today. They are different from one another. About 500 years ago, yes we more-or-less have the same 10 readers with 2 transmissions each. But go back a little further, to al-Qabāqibī who dies 849 AH/1445 CE we have fourteen reading traditions, 4 of which have completely fallen out of use. Go even further back to al-Huḏalī's al-Kāmil (he dies 465 AH/1072 CE), and he has 50 reading traditions, forty of which are no longer in active use. And of the ten the he has, there are countless sub-narrations that are no longer adhered to today. This problem really only compounds the further you go back. If you include manuscripts from before Ibn Muǧāhid (d. 324/936), you will find countless readings that do not fit with any of the canonical ten and not even with any of al-Huḏalī's fifty... None of these traditions are in living use, many of them have wordings that are unique to them and no longer present in any of the recited forms of the Quran. And of course, ultimately, the text of Uthman is a bottleneck for most of these traditions. Uthman commissioned his standard text about 20 years after the death of the prophet. We know for a fact that the companions of the prophet had version of the Quran that differed much, much more than the amount of variation that you find in Uthmanic text. Whole words and phrases replaced and added or reordered, in codices such as those of Ibn Masʿūd and ʾUbayy.
10
According to Marijn van putten the chains of narrators of the qurans don't go back to muhummud: The chains cannot really be independently verified (nor can any chain back to the prophet for any of the canonical readers). Hythem Sidky presented a nice paper on the topic at IQSA last year, comparing what is reported for Hafs against what is reported for al-Sulami. Didn't inspire a lot of confidence that he's significantly transmitting data from al-Sulami. But Dr. Sidky hasn't published the paper yet
9
Scholar Marijn van putten believes the qurans are based on fairy tales: Western scholars unanimously agree that Dhul Qarnayn is the legendary Alexander of Christian lore. Not the other way around. Most Muslim scholars denied that he is Dhul Qarnayn due to conclusion that he is a polytheist of the traditional Greek mythology. Today many muslims deny Dhu l-Qarnayn is Alexander, but in the medieval tradition the identification is not at all uncommon. Many tafsirs and early traditions transmit this in quite a lot of detail. Detailing "He was a Roman", "His name was Alexander", "He buitl Alexandria in Egypt". These opinions can be found in Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir (who strongly denies this opinion), al-Baghawi, Ibn al-Jawzi.
7
Scholar Marijn van putten believes there is a grammatical error in sura 5.69 or the possibility of a scribal error: The reason why is actually easy to show here, This verse has near doublet in Q2:62 and Q22:17, where the wording is basically identical but the case inflection is as expected: ʾinna llaḏīna ʾāmanū wa-llaḏīna hādū wa-n-naṣārā **wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾīna** man ʾāmana bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri ... (Q2:62) ʾinna llaḏīna ʾāmanū wa-llaḏīna hādū **wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾūna** wa-n-naṣārā man ʾāmana bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri ... (Q5:69) ʾinna llaḏīna ʾamanū wa-llaḏīna hādū **wa-ṣ-ṣabīʾīna** wa-n-naṣārā wa-l-maǧūsa ... (Q22:17) The particle ʾinna should trigger the accusative, but for some reason it doesn't in Q5:69, while in the other two verses it does. Since these are doublets, I don't think you can make a plausible case that a different meaning is intended, it's clearly the same wording. This verse is also well-known from a hadith attributed to ʿĀʾišah which calls this a scribal error in the Quran.
7
Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
6
Scholar Marijn Van putten doesn't believe the qurans are perfectly preserved: The companion readings of Ibn Masʿūd and ʾUbayy clearly deviated much more radically from the Uthmanic text (for the obvious reason that the Uthmanic text did not exist to deviate from). But neither reading has come down to us in a complete description. You could not recite the Quran today according Ibn Masʿūd. But we nevertheless have many plausible reports of specific readings attributed to them that do not follow the Uthmanic text. Just like the "two lost Surahs", there is really no good objective way to reject those readings as also Quran. But they are nevertheless, definitely not preserved in their entirety.
6
Words of Scholar Marijn Van Putten prove the qurans are not perfectly preserved: But if one says that any two muṣḥafs are word-by-word identical, that is clearly incorrect. Even between the two most popular transmissions today, Ḥafṣ and Warš, they do have different words in certain places in the Quran. Yes. Because formulated like that, it is absolutely wrong, and the Quran is not preserved. (when asked if the quran was preserved word for word) I've seen Muslims claim that the muṣḥafs with variant readings that Jay Smith, for example, has polemically proffered were nefariously photoshopped by him. That's of course not true.
6
@shibahtash4700 one quran says "you", another says "I". Dawah script: "they are different accents" 🤣🤣🤣
5
Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
4
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag Stop your al taqi-yya. The Birmingham manuscript doesn't have diacritical marks and is only 2 pages long
3
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag You don't even have to look at the Birmingham manuscript. Even the modern hafs and warsh qurans have different words. Read the words of scholar Marijn van putten: But if one says that any two muṣḥafs are word-by-word identical, that is clearly incorrect. Even between the two most popular transmissions today, Ḥafṣ and Warš, they do have different words in certain places in the Quran.
3
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag But you don't even have uthman's quran 🤣 By the way, can you tell me which of hafs, warsh and doori match uthman's quran? 😂
3
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
3
 @Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag I just quoted marijn van putten who lists the differences between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans 😂
3
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag Words of Marijn van putten prove you are lying: When the 3rd caliph ʿUṯmān b. ʿAffān tasked the committee led by Zayd b. Ṯābit to write the official Mushaf, he is said to have told them "write it in the language of the Quraysh, for it has been revealed in their tongue." This seems incompatible with the canonical readings. While today there are 10 accepted canonical readings, with 2 transmissions each which can differ quite significantly in their linguistic details, not a single one of them agrees with the universally agreed upon linguistic features of Hijazi (or more specifically Qurashi) Arabic.
3
Scholar Marijn van putten doesn't believe the qurans are perfectly preserved: What do you mean by "The Quran today"? There are 10 different reading traditions with 20 sub-narrations adhered to today. They are different from one another. About 500 years ago, yes we more-or-less have the same 10 readers with 2 transmissions each. But go back a little further, to al-Qabāqibī who dies 849 AH/1445 CE we have fourteen reading traditions, 4 of which have completely fallen out of use. Go even further back to al-Huḏalī's al-Kāmil (he dies 465 AH/1072 CE), and he has 50 reading traditions, forty of which are no longer in active use. And of the ten the he has, there are countless sub-narrations that are no longer adhered to today. This problem really only compounds the further you go back. If you include manuscripts from before Ibn Muǧāhid (d. 324/936), you will find countless readings that do not fit with any of the canonical ten and not even with any of al-Huḏalī's fifty... None of these traditions are in living use, many of them have wordings that are unique to them and no longer present in any of the recited forms of the Quran. And of course, ultimately, the text of Uthman is a bottleneck for most of these traditions. Uthman commissioned his standard text about 20 years after the death of the prophet. We know for a fact that the companions of the prophet had version of the Quran that differed much, much more than the amount of variation that you find in Uthmanic text. Whole words and phrases replaced and added or reordered, in codices such as those of Ibn Masʿūd and ʾUbayy.
3
Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
3
@Akhgy Scholar Marijn van putten doesn't believe the qurans are perfectly preserved: What do you mean by "The Quran today"? There are 10 different reading traditions with 20 sub-narrations adhered to today. They are different from one another. About 500 years ago, yes we more-or-less have the same 10 readers with 2 transmissions each. But go back a little further, to al-Qabāqibī who dies 849 AH/1445 CE we have fourteen reading traditions, 4 of which have completely fallen out of use. Go even further back to al-Huḏalī's al-Kāmil (he dies 465 AH/1072 CE), and he has 50 reading traditions, forty of which are no longer in active use. And of the ten the he has, there are countless sub-narrations that are no longer adhered to today. This problem really only compounds the further you go back. If you include manuscripts from before Ibn Muǧāhid (d. 324/936), you will find countless readings that do not fit with any of the canonical ten and not even with any of al-Huḏalī's fifty... None of these traditions are in living use, many of them have wordings that are unique to them and no longer present in any of the recited forms of the Quran. And of course, ultimately, the text of Uthman is a bottleneck for most of these traditions. Uthman commissioned his standard text about 20 years after the death of the prophet. We know for a fact that the companions of the prophet had version of the Quran that differed much, much more than the amount of variation that you find in Uthmanic text. Whole words and phrases replaced and added or reordered, in codices such as those of Ibn Masʿūd and ʾUbayy.
2
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag First qurans??? So how many qurans are there? You just debunked yourself 🤣
1
@Wazir.Akbar.Khan.wardag So a scholar like marijn van putten is lying??? Wow what a childish argument. No wonder you are an abdul 🤣
1
@Error76808 According to Scholar Shady Nasser of Harvard University there were over 50 different readings of the qurans in the 10th century: “Abū al-Qāsim al-Hudhalī (d. 465/1072–1073) compiled al-Kāmil fī al-Qirā’āt al-‘Ashr wa-l-Arba‘īn al-Zā’idah ‘alayhā in which fifty variant Readings of the Qur’ān were collected and documented. This book is considered to be one of the most extensive books on Qirā’at.” -Shady Hekmat Nasser, The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qur’ān: The Problem of Tawatur and the Emergence of Shawadhdh
1
@Error76808 Scholar Marijn van putten doesn't believe the qurans are perfectly preserved: What do you mean by "The Quran today"? There are 10 different reading traditions with 20 sub-narrations adhered to today. They are different from one another. About 500 years ago, yes we more-or-less have the same 10 readers with 2 transmissions each. But go back a little further, to al-Qabāqibī who dies 849 AH/1445 CE we have fourteen reading traditions, 4 of which have completely fallen out of use. Go even further back to al-Huḏalī's al-Kāmil (he dies 465 AH/1072 CE), and he has 50 reading traditions, forty of which are no longer in active use. And of the ten the he has, there are countless sub-narrations that are no longer adhered to today. This problem really only compounds the further you go back. If you include manuscripts from before Ibn Muǧāhid (d. 324/936), you will find countless readings that do not fit with any of the canonical ten and not even with any of al-Huḏalī's fifty... None of these traditions are in living use, many of them have wordings that are unique to them and no longer present in any of the recited forms of the Quran. And of course, ultimately, the text of Uthman is a bottleneck for most of these traditions. Uthman commissioned his standard text about 20 years after the death of the prophet. We know for a fact that the companions of the prophet had version of the Quran that differed much, much more than the amount of variation that you find in Uthmanic text. Whole words and phrases replaced and added or reordered, in codices such as those of Ibn Masʿūd and ʾUbayy.
1
@Akhgy Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
1
@tanzilmuslehudd9403 I just quoted you the words of Marijn van putten. Isn't that good enough?
1
@tanzilmuslehudd9403 Words of scholar Marijn van putten showing the variants between the Birmingham manuscript and the current qurans: In the Birmingham manuscript we find the following: * Q10:45 naḥšuruhum which is the reading of all readers except Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim. * Q10:58 taǧmaʿūna which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ruways ʿan Yaʿqūb. All others read *yaǧmaʿūna*. * Q18:26 tušrik which is a reading unique to Ibn ʿĀmir. The rest has *yušrik*. * Q20:13 ʾaḫtartuka which is the majority readnig. Only Ḥamzah has *ʾaḫtarnāka*. * Q21:80 li-tuḥsinakum which is the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar and Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as opposed to *li-nuḥṣinakum*. * Q21:87 naqdir which is the reading of everyone but Yaʿqūb. Yaʿqūb has *yuqdar*. * Q21:104 naṭwī which is the reading of everyone by ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar has *tuṭwā*. * Q22:45 ʾahlaknāhā which is the majority reading. ʾAbū ʿAmr and yaʿqūb read *ʾahlaktunā*. * Q22:47 taʿuddūna which is the majority reading. Ibn Kaṯīr, Ḥamzah. al-Kisāʾī and Ḫalaf read yaʿuddūna. * Q23:21 nusqīkum or *nasqīkum*, which is the majority reading. Only ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar reads *tasqīkumū*.
1