This paper will be responding to the claim that Marks Gospel contains
geographical
errors. For the most part, I will simply be quoting the responses of other Christian
writers who have already taken up the task of refuting these alleged errors. The only
difference being is that I will include additional material which will focus more on
the Muslim attempt of finding errors in the Gospels, since the original responses were
aimed at atheists and liberals. This will be done primarily to expose the double standard
and hypocrisy prevalent in Muslim apologetics.
The authors (UM for short) begin their assault on the NT documents by appealing to
German author Kmmel.
UM:
It is well known that Mark contains numerous geographical errors. This is summed up
in Kummel's classic Introduction to the New Testament:
[T]he considerations against this
assumption [that John Mark, companion of Peter, wrote the gospel of Mark] carry weight.
The author obviously has no personal knowledge of Palestinian geography, as the numerous
geographical errors show. He writes for Gentile Christians, with sharp polemic against the
unbelieving Jews. He does not know the account of the death of the Baptist (6:17 ff)
contradicts Palestinian customs. Could a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem miss the fact
that 6:35 ff and 8:1 ff are two variants of the same feeding story? The tradition that Mk
was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable. The reference to I Pet 5:13
("The elect of Babylon and my son Mark also greets you") does not account for
the tradition, but only the subsequent linking up of the author of Mk with the preaching
of Peter. Accordingly, the author of Mk is unknown to us.[1]
RESPONSE:
Alleged geographical errors may be well known amongst those seeking to undermine
the veracity of the NT. Yet, amongst those affirming the historical accuracy of the NT
it is also well known that, for the most part, these charges have little, if any,
substance behind them.
Author J.P. Holding of www.tektonics.org, responds to Kmmel's claims
that Mark contains geographical errors:
Geographical errors in Mark. Kmmel [Kumm.Int, 97] accuses Mark of "numerous"
geographical errors, but names only three: Mark 5:1 (the Gerasene swine), 7:31 (having to do
with Tyre/Sidon and the Decapolis), and 10:1 (re the region of Judea). He indicates that a lack
of knowledge of the geography of Palestine is against Markan authorship. In reply we may note:
The "errors" are a product of the imagination. Let's look at Kmmel's three ("numerous")
citations, along with a couple of others.
Mark 5:1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to
a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a
sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks
locale was precisely located! The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional
location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more
erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed
in the "region" of Milwaukee.
Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down
to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.
This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that
Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed
be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and
THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they
went through to get there," but, "where they went also." Glenn Miller has passed on to me this
quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the
First Century," has noted:
Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis
depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as
evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible.
Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in
Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a
city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed
east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis,
following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or
Hippos. [GLA:59-60])
Skeptic Dennis McKinsey adds that he thinks that there was no place known as Decapolis
until the time of Nero. No source is cited for this assertion, but he is apparently unaware
that the Gospel of Mark was penned by someone who lived during and perhaps after the time of Nero.
Here's one from Anderson [Ander.GM, 31]:
Mark 8:10 he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of
Dalmanutha.
So what's wrong here? Well, Anderson complains that Dalmanutha is not referred to anywhere
else in any extant literature! Considering how little literature we DO have from the first century,
this is rather silly, and very much an argument from silence! (Some have regarded this as being
the same as the village of Magdala, however.)
Finally, from Kmmel:
Mark 10:1a Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
across the Jordan.
??? - I am confounded again by Kmmel's confusion. Here again we have a very general
statement of a "region" and perhaps what is probably an itinerary: 1) the region of Judea; 2)
across the Jordan. Is Mark not being specific enough for Kmmel's tastes? If so, why should this
be a problem? Other than that Peter's audience would (again) not care about such minor details,
we may add that Mark was a native of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), and thus an urbanite. As such,
we would not expect him to make an exact fix on certain places that were either far from his
home or out on the country somewhere. Not even I, acquainted as I am with atlases and road
maps as part of my library work, can get more precise than this when referring to boondock
areas only 100 or so miles from where I live! (Source:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html#geo)
Responding to the claim that the Baptist's death contradicts Palestinian customs,
Holding writes:
Historical errors. I've found only one of these so far. Kmmel [ibid., 98] objects
that the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) "contradicts Palestinian custom." In reply I basically
ask: "Eh?" Kmmel does not specify what he means, so I cannot be specific here; but it is
foolish to assume that custom had some iron-fisted control that kept Palestinian people from
making any variations. The grip of "custom" is no more made of iron today than it was 2000 years ago.
(For details on this and the passage following, see here.)
(Source)
For additional responses to some of the claims made by Kmmel please read
the following articles:
To give an example, we read in the gospel according to Mark the following account:
"As they approached Jerusalem and came to
Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to
them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt
there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you,'Why
are you doing this?' tell him, 'The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.'"
They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it,
some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" They
answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the
colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks
on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead
and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the
highest!" Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at
everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve."
(Mark 11:1-11)
In Mark 10:46 however, we read that Jesus was in Jericho. The sentence above shows
that Jesus and his group were travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and then
Bethany. This however is quite impossible. Bethany is further away from Jerusalem than
Bethphage is. The Biblical theologian, D.E. Nineham, comments:
The geographical details make an impression of
awkwardness, especially as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in
which travellers from Jericho would reach them...and we must therefore assume that St Mark
did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road...[2]
The missionaries would obviously deny the above glaring error in Mark with their
multiferous explanations. However the author of Matthew fully realised that Mark, who
was supposedly "inspired", had made a gross factual error. Matthew,
who copied Mark changed this passage to remove the error:
"When they had come near Jerusalem and had
reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives..." (Matthew 21:1)
Note that Matthew had removed the reference to Bethany completely from Mark's account.
Again the most likely explanation is that Matthew noticed Mark's error and tried to
correct it. As Randel Helms informs us:
Mark writes on the basis of a vague knowledge of
Judaean geography, not knowing that one approaching Jerusalem from the east on the road
from Jericho would reach first Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse order he
indicates. However, the important location is the Mount of Olives; typology, not history,
is at work here. The typological fiction continues on the basis of Zech. 9:9 LXX:
'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem;
behold, the king is coming to thee, just and a Saviour [sozon, "saving"];
he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal [polon neon, a "new (unridden)
foal"].'
It is only with this passage that we can understand why Mark has Jesus specify that his
diciples obtain a "colt [polon] which no one has yet ridden" (Mark 11:2). Mark
ignores the danger and unlikelihood of riding on an unbroken, untrained animal, assuming
its miraculous tractability; typology rather than history is operative here.[3]
Who is correct, Matthew or Mark? Was Mark "inspired" or was Matthew
"inspired" as far as the above passage is concerned?
RESPONSE:
First, the authors assume that Matthew was correcting Mark, instead of simply
summarizing Mark's account (that is, of course, assuming that Matthew was in fact
using Mark as a source). The authors base this on their erroneous presuppositions that
the four Gospels are not the inspired records of the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus
Christ. This assumption is itself based on the authors' beliefs that the Quran is the
revealed word of God. Since these Gospels contradict the essential teachings of the Quran,
the authors therefore assume that the Gospels must be in error. It is little wonder that
the authors read the Gospel accounts with a critical approach which does not allow for
the possibility of harmonization and are able to find "errors" and alleged
"corrections" within the narratives.
Yet, this same approach can be applied more forcefully against the Quran. The Quran
retells the same story with major verbal variations and contradictions. Due to space,
we will limit ourselves to one example:
At length when the messengers arrived among the adherents of Lut, He said: "Ye
appear to be uncommon folk." They said: "Yea, we have come to thee to accomplish
that of which they doubt. We have brought to thee that which is inevitably due, and
assuredly we tell the truth. Then travel by night with thy household, when a portion of
the night (yet remains), and do thou bring up the rear: let no one amongst you look back,
but pass on whither ye are ordered." And We made known this decree to him, that the
last remnants of those (sinners) should be cut off by the morning. The inhabitants of
the city came in (mad) joy (at news of the young men). Lut said: "These are my
guests: disgrace me not: But fear God, and shame me not." They said: "Did
we not forbid thee (to speak) for all and sundry?" He said: "There are my
daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so)." Verily, by thy life (O Prophet), in
their wild intoxication, they wander in distraction, to and fro. But the (mighty) Blast
overtook them before morning, And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on
them brimstones hard as baked clay. S. 15:61-74
According to this passage, God sent angels to inform Lot that the sinners amongst his
people would be cut off. Afterwards, the inhabitants tried to have their way with the
guests. This leads Lot to defend his guests by offering his daughters in their place.
Yet, one is left wondering why Lot felt the need to save the angels, especially since
the angels informed him of their mission? Wasn't he aware that the angels had the power
to protect themselves? Evidently not. But the story doesn't end there:
When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him,
he began to plead with us for Lut's people. For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of
faults), compassionate, and given to look to God. O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of
thy Lord hath gone forth: for them there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned back! When
Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless
(to protect) them. He said: "This is a distressful day." And his people came
rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He
said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now
fear God, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single
right-minded man?" They said: "Well dost thou know we have no need of thy
daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!" He said: "Would that
I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some powerful support."
(The Messengers) said: "O Lut! We are Messengers from thy Lord! By no means shall
they reach thee! now travel with thy family while yet a part of the night remains, and let
not any of you look back: but thy wife (will remain behind): To her w ill happen what happens
to the people. Morning is their time appointed: Is not the morning nigh?" When
Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones
hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,- Marked as from thy Lord: Nor are they ever
far from those who do wrong! S. 11:74-83
This passage has the angels identifying themselves and informing Lot of the impending
disaster ONLY AFTER Lot tried to protect them. This last version makes more sense, since
there would have been no need for Lot to offer his daughters if in fact he had already
known their identity.
As they stand, these accounts pose major problems for the authors since they do not
believe that multiple authors wrote the Quran, unlike the four Gospels which were written
by different persons. Rather, they believe that there was only one author, namely God.
Yet, if God had dictated the Quran to Muhammad we would not expect to find major verbal
variations and contradictions in these parallel accounts. Instead, we would think that God
would have repeated the same event in exactly the same way. That this is not what we find
only proves that the Quran is not from God, but is the work of multiple writers. This
means that the final compilers of the Quran did a very poor job of editing the book
since traces of these conflicting sources can still be seen today. We wonder what
"multiferous explanations" the authors will give to defend these gross errors
from their all-knowing "deity".
For more examples of parallel Quranic accounts which conflict please read
the following articles:
Secondly, the authors' claim that Matthew "FULLY REALISED" Mark's alleged
error is more an indication of the authors' real motives than it is of Matthew. The
only way the authors could know FOR CERTAIN whether Matthew thought that Mark was in error
is to have been present during the time Matthew wrote his Gospel. Since this is not
possible, the claim that Matthew "FULLY REALISED" there was an error is purely
mythical to say the least. Apparently aware of this, the authors contradict themselves,
since they write:
... Again THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION is that Matthew noticed Mark's error
and tried to correct it ...
The authors now go from claiming that Matthew "FULLY REALISED" Mark's
error to claiming that it is MOST LIKELY that Matthew noticed the error, a contradiction.
Thirdly, the authors' argument also takes for granted that Matthew used Mark as
one of his sources, which may quite well be the case. Yet, scholars are divided over
whether Matthew used Mark, or whether Mark used Mathew, or whether Matthew and Mark
had a common source from which they derived their information. This in itself should have
cautioned the authors from making a hasty generalization. Taking for granted that Matthew
did use Mark, this still wouldn't prove that the former "corrected" the
latter's alleged "mistakes". All it proves is that in certain instances
Matthew simply summarized the material found in Mark.
Fourthly, the authors need to insert words into the text of Mark in order to make their
claim stick. Note what they wrote:
... The sentence above shows that Jesus and his group were travelling from Jericho
to Jerusalem via Bethphage AND THEN Bethany ...
Since Mark nowhere says that Christ and his followers went to Bethpage AND THEN to
Bethany, we see that the authors are really trying to desperately find an error. This
again exposes their underlying motives in trying to undermine the Gospels any way they
can, even if it means adding words to the text. J.P. Holding addresses this in his
response to Helms:
To be quite candid, Helms here is just doing his usual schtick...quoting liberal
NT scholars uncritically. There are several things to note here before we go charging
Mark with an error:
First, it is far from certain that "and Bethany" ought to be part of the text
in the first place. While the phrase is found in almost all manuscripts, it is absent
in three of them. It is also missing from the parallel verse in Matthew 21:1, though
not from the parallel verse at Luke at Luke 19:29. This is enough for some liberals
to withhold judgment of error; but we'll assume here that the text is genuinely from
Mark. (The wording of the verse is also awkward, but this may be simply typical of
Mark's less sophisticated grammar.)
Second, Helms and the liberals are simply playing the old game of making verses
say more than they actually do. Simply because the cities are listed a certain way
does not mean that Mark (or Luke) is saying that this is the order that they are
approached; no more so does approaching Minneapolis-St. Paul from the St. Paul side,
or Dallas-Ft. Worth from the Ft. Worth side, mean we have to reverse the order of
the cities to make it clear what direction we are coming from. As long as Mark does
not say, "we went from Jericho to Bethphage, and then to Bethany" he is not in error
(unless the disciples were taking an unusual route for a purpose).
Finally, it is far more likely that Mark is listing the approach to Jerusalem
in reverse order, in order to stress the importance of their Jerusalem destination.
The order of Bethphage and Bethany is simply being determined by their relationship
to Jerusalem.
In short, no error here, except due to the usual problem of skeptical overreading.
(Source)
The Muslim writers continue:
UM:
Bruce M. Metzger makes mention of several internal and geographical errors within
the New Testament in which later scribes attempted to clear away:
A few scribes attempted to harmonize the
Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing 'sixth
hour' of John xix. 14 to 'third hour' (which appears in Mark xv. 25). At John i. 28
Origen 1 altered
in
order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant
today in MSS. 33
69 and many others, including those which lie behind the King James version. The statement
in Mark viii. 31, that 'the Son of man must suffer many things...and be killed and aftee:
three days rise
again', seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase
to the more familiar expression, 'on the third day' . The author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. ix.
4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxx. 1-6).
The scribe of codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the
account by transferring the words to ix. 2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is
itemized.[4]
Conclusion
We have thus shown that the scribes of the New Testament were certainly aware of the
presence of errors, in this case geographical errors, within the New Testament text. That
is why they had proceeded to clear up whatever obvious errors that recur within their
texts. Many of such errors were thus "corrected" over the passage of time
whereas others that escape "correction" are vehemently defended by current-day
missionaries with the preference to use a number of highly-imaginative mental gymnastics.
And only God knows best!
RESPONSE:
First, as far Origen is concerned let us highlight Metzger's words in order to
carefully note what he said:
At John i. 28 Origen 1 altered in order to remove
WHAT HE REGARDED as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS.
The fact that Origen regarded John 1:28 to be an error is not a reflection
on the inspired author's accuracy. It is simply an error on Origen's part for
assuming such. Second, the authors quote Metzger's section on variant readings to
cast doubt on the accurate transmission of the text, but fail to quote Metzger in context:
"LEST THE FOREGOING EXAMPLES OF ALTERATIONS SHOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION
THAT SCRIBES WERE ALTOGETHER WILLFUL AND CAPRICIOUS IN TRANSMITTING ANCIENT COPIES OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT, it ought to be noted that other evidence points to the careful and
painstaking work on the part of many faithful copyists. There are, for example,
instances of difficult readings which have been transmitted with scrupulous fidelity.
Thus elthen at Gal. ii. 12 yields no good sense and can scarcely be the form
intended by the author. Nevertheless, the scribes of the earliest manuscripts? refrained
from correcting it to elthon. Another instance of a manifestly erroneous
reading is ei tis splagchna kai oiktirmoi at Phil. ii. 1, which could have arisen
when the original amanuensis misunderstood Paul's pronunciation of ei ti splagchna ...
However the solecism may have originated, the significant point is that all uncials and
most minuscules have transmitted it with conscientious exactness.
"Even in incidental details one observes the faithfulness of scribes. For
example, the scribe of codex Vaticanus copied quite mechanically the section numbers which
run in one series throughout the corpus of the Pauline Epistles, even though this series
had been drawn up when the Epistle to the Hebrews stood between Galatians and Ephesians
and is therefore not suitable for the present sequence of the Epistles in Vaticanus.
These examples of dogged fidelity on the part of the scribes COULD BE MULTIPLIED,
AND SERVE TO COUNTERBALANCE, TO SOME EXTENT, THE IMPRESSION WHICH THIS CHAPTER MAY
OTHERWISE MAKE UPON THE BEGINNER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM." (Metzger,
The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 206;
bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
"One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New Testament a
process which has so often been found essential in the restoration of the right text in
classical authors. On the other hand, the amount of evidence for the text of the New
Testament, whether derived from early manuscripts, early versions, or patristic
quotations, is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author
that the necessity of resorting to emendation IS REDUCED TO THE SMALLEST DIMENSIONS."
(Ibid., 185; emphasis ours)
As Metzger's comments above imply, the fact of the matter is that ALL ancient
documents have come down to us with variant readings and scribal corruptions. Yet no
honest textual critic would deny that these documents have been transmitted accurately
in spite of variant readings. That is unless, of course, one's a priori
assumptions won't allow for the MSS evidence and the results of textual criticism,
which establishes the authenticity and preservation of the NT documents, to speak for
themselves.
Furthermore, the Quran itself has thousands of variants and scribal corruptions.
Here are a few examples:
Addition to Sura 92
Surah 92:3 reads:
YUSUFALI: By (the mystery of) the creation of (wama khalaqa)
male and female;-
PICKTHAL: And Him Who hath created male and female,
SHAKIR: And the creating of the male and the female,
Yet according to the following hadiths, the phrase "by Him who created (ma
khalaqa)" is an addition to the text that some like Ibn Masud said shouldn't be
there:
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)?" Irecited:--
"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)
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."How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail
(The Night)?" 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; see also Volume
5, Book 57, Number 85)
Missing Part On Muhammad's Fatherhood:
Yusuf Ali records that S. 33:6 in the text of Ubay b. Ka'b read differently from the
Uthmanic text. The Uthmanic text presently reads:
"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are
their mothers."
Yet Ubay's codex read:
"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and he is a
father to them, and his wives are their mothers."
Hence, Yusuf Ali states:
"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 – Translation and Commentary, p.1104, f.3674)
Missing Part On Asr Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim that Abu
Yunus, the mawla of A'isha, umm al-muminin said, "A'isha ordered me to write out a
Qur'an for her. She said, When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers
carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah." When I reached it I
told her, and she dictated to me, Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and
the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah. A'isha said, I heard it from the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." (Malik's Muwatta,
Book 8, Number 8.8.26)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Amr ibn Rafi said, "I was
writing a Qur'an for Hafsa, umm al-muminin, and she said, When you reach this ayat,
let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient
to Allah." When I reached it I told her and she dictated to me, Guard
the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient
to Allah." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.27)
Compare it with today's present text:
"Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer,
and stand up with devotion to Allah." S. 2:238 Pickthall
Missing Verse On Suckling
Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful,
then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle
(peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur'an
(and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421)
Missing Verse On Stoning
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 revealed the Holy Book to him,
and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person
(male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse
and understood 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)
Notice that this hadith mentions an additional verse, besides the one on stoning,
which is not found in the Quran!
Missing Bismillah
Ibn 'Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place surat al Anfal, one of the
mathani, with Bara'a, one of the mi'in, join them with no bismillah between them and place
them among the seven lengthy suras. `Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite
long revelations. He would call for one of the scribes and say, Put these verses in the
sura in which so-and-so occurs. Anfal was among the first of the Medina revelations and
Bara'a among the last. Since its contents resembled those of Anfal, `Uthman took it to
belong with it, for the Prophet had died without explaining that it was part of it. (p.
164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an,
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this bismillah. The beginning of
Bara'a fell out and its bismillah fell out with it. (p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul
Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo,
1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)
Missing Part On "Valley of Riches"
Anas b. Malik reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there
were two valleys of gold for the son of Adam, he would long for another one, and his mouth
will not be filled but with dust, and Allah returns to him who repents. (Sahih Muslim,
Number 2284)
Ibn'Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there were
for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it,
and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. And Allah returns to him who returns
(to Him). Ibn 'Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an or not; and in the
narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an,
and he made no mention of Ibn 'Abbas. (Sahih Muslim, Number 2285)
The following list of variant readings is taken from Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 30, Dialects
and Readings of the Qur'an (Kitab Al-Huruf Wa Al-Qira'at). We are using the
translation done by Prof. Ahmad Hasan (Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers &
Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984), Volume III. Some of these ahadith can also be found
at this online
hadith database
Shahr ibn Hawshab said: I asked Umm Salamah: How did the Apostle of Allah (may peace be
upon him) read this verse: "For his conduct is unrighteous" (innahu 'amalun
ghayru salih)? She replied: He read it: "He acted unrighteously" (innahu
'amila ghayra salih). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 3972)
Ibn al-Musayyab said: The Prophet (may peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, Umar and
Uthman used to read: "maliki yawmi l-din (master of
the Day of Judgment)." The first to read maliki yawmid-din was Marwan.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 3989)
Shaqiq said: Ibn Masud read the verse: "Now come thou" (haita laka).
Then Shaqiq said: We read it, "hi tu laka" (I am prepared for thee).
Ibn Masud said: I read it as I have been taught; IT IS DEARER TO ME. (Sunan
Abu Dawud, Number 3939)
We wonder what highly-imaginative mental gymnastics the authors will employ to explain
away the corruption and variant readings of their false book. In fact, we wonder what
"multiferous explanations" the authors will employ in reconciling the following
Quranic contradictions:
As the saying goes, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. As far as the
authors glass house is concerned, it came crashing down a long time ago, along
with their false book. This is especially so when we take into consideration that their
false prophet confirmed the Holy Bible as the pure Word of God:
41 The Book of Poetry
(2) Chapter: The Prohibition Of Playing Nardashir
According to the sunnah of Muhammad and the opinion of his followers, playing chess or badgammon is a sin which is condemned:
Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle said:
He who
The Holy Bible sternly warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations lest they end up worshiping their gods/goddesses:
“Be sure to keep what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
in order to remove WHAT HE REGARDED as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS.
