Ghoniem attempts to deal with my response to his paper, but as we shall see has failed to deal with the real issues. Instead, he chases straw men and red herrings in order to avoid the obvious implications of the evidence, namely that Muhammad was a false prophet and was ignorant of the contents of the previous scriptures.

Response:

It may sound ridiculous to Ghoniem but maybe that is so, because he has not understood what was actually discussed, why we chose to give this answer, and what its implications really are..

Response:

Had Ghoniem actually read what I said he would see why I took this route. Let us see what I did actually say in my introductory remarks and see whether Ghoniem has been able to handle the real points which I had raised:

It becomes obvious to the reader that my whole intent was to show that if the Quran and the Hadith affirm the purity of the text of the Torah this serves to discredit Muhammad. The reason why it discredits Muhammad's prophetic claims was stated in the paragraph which immediately followed:

So the real issue is how could Moses follow a man who affirms the authority of Moses' writings and yet goes on to contradict the very core message of those writings? Furthermore, would God reveal a message to one prophet and then proceed to reveal a contradictory message to another prophet? Of course not, which serves to prove that Muhammad was both confused and consumed with envy. He was confused since he affirmed the authority of the previous writings and yet proceeded to contradict them. He was also envious in that he burned with anger at the thought that one of his followers would embrace Moses' teachings over his. This shows weakness on Muhammad's part and clearly affirms that he was not a true prophet of God, since if he were he would not have reacted the way he did.

Response:

First, I did not quote the traditions to "refute" the one cited by Ghoniem. I quoted it to affirm that the text of the Torah at the time of Muhammad was the uncorrupt word of God. This implies that Ghoniem chases a straw man and does not read carefully. I challenge Ghoniem to please document anywhere from my paper where I used Ishaq and Bukhari to "refute" the tradition on Moses following Muhammad. Here is what I actually said:

Ghoniem is simply being evasive when he claims that, "The above two ahadīth simply affirm what a Muslim believes, i.e., the Torah is the revelation from God.

Ghoniem does not believe that the present day Torah is the same as that of Moses and that which was in use at the time of Muhammad. Hence, he denies the very thing that these traditions prove, namely that the Torah of Moses has never been corrupted, the very thing he does not believe.

Ghoniem has failed to interact with any of the points I have raised.

Second, Ghoniem quotes Hudhaifa out of context, since when read in its intended context the entire hadith serves to debunk the purity of the Quranic text:

[Side remark: Mr. Ghoniem has not given a reference for his claimed quotation of Hudhayfa, but if the above hadith is his source, then it should be clear that the quotation is extremely free, to say the least. In a discussion about corruption that is a rather serious mistake to make. The above hadith only states the following request: "Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." It recognizes that the Christians seemingly had some differences "regarding their book" but it is not said that they differed about the text of that book. This is an interpolation on part of Mr. Ghoniem which he tries to force on the reader by inserting "the text of" into the quotation. Most differences reported in church history between various Christian groups are not at all about the text, but about interpretation of the text. And those differences have lead to substantial disunity, that is sadly true. Hudayfa is afraid that disagreement will divide the Muslims and the disunity will distroy them. He does not necessarily say that the reasons for the disagreements about the books are exactly the same. He only recognizes that those disagreements are a danger and that the Christians have been affected by disagreements. Does Mr. Ghoniem try to give a stronger argument against the Bible by corrupting the text of the hadith? (Jochen Katz)]

The Mishkat records:

These traditions clearly affirm that the Syrians had readings not known to the Iraqis and vice-versa. These readings had nothing to do with dialectal variations since variations in dialect would not result in the parties not having heard verses contained in the other codices. Other traditions that affirm that the Quran has suffered a loss in its contents include:

This is why Ibn Umar would say:

Ghoniem, much like Saifullah, chases after the red herring that different Christian denominations have different canons. Before we respond, let us first see if the canon of the Quran was something universally agreed upon by Muslims.

According to the traditions, Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy b. Kabb were considered to be two of the four top reciters of the Quran:

Ibn Masud had boasted that there was not a single verse in the Quran in which he did not know when or why it was revealed:

Yet, despite this fact Masud still felt he was not the best Quranic reciter

The honor of being the best Quranic reciter went to Ubayy:

Astonishingly, these men differed over the actual number of Suras that formed the canon of the Quran:

Hence, Masud excluded three Suras from his codex, implying that Masud's Quran only included 111 Suras. Bukhari records:

Ubayy's comments are noteworthy in light of the fact that he was considered to be the best reciter of the Quran and yet disagreed with Masud over the canon of the Quran. In fact, not only did Ubayy include the two charm Suras, but included two additional Suras as well:

Here are the Suras in their entirety:

Surat al-Hafd

You (alone) we worship, and to You (alone) we pray and lie prostrate, and to You (alone) we proceed and have descendants. We fear Your torture and hope for Your mercy. Truly Your torture will overtake the infidels.

Surat al-Khal'

O Allah, You (alone) we ask for help and forgiveness. We speak appreciatingly of Your goodness. Never do we disbelieve You. We repudiate and disbelieve anyone who follows immorality.

Al-Suyuti records that these two surahs were also included in both the codices of Ibn Abbass and Abu Musa. (Al-Itqan, p.154)

So we now ask Ghoniem which canon of the Quran does he believe to be the word of God?

Ibn Masud- 111 Suras

Ubay b. Kabb- 116 Suras

Caliph Uthman- 114 Suras

If Ghoniem believes it is the 114 Suras of Uthman can he please produce one single verse from the Quran indicating that only 114 Suras are that which form the canon of the Quran? If he cannot, then what right does he have to even question the integrity of the canon of the Holy Bible?

As far as the canon of the Holy Bible is concerned we take it on faith that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are those writings which God sovereignly chose to form the canon of his word. We can no more prove this than Ghoniem can prove that the 114 chapters of the Quran is that which Allah decreed would form the canon of his book. Secondly, no matter what canon one looks at you would still get the historic Christianity faith as opposed to Islam.

Thirdly, Ghoniem must have forgotten or did not care to read the very article appearing at the Islamic Awareness cite which quotes Bruce M. Metzger's work on the formation of the canon:

The preceding quotations can be found at this site.

These citations affirm that the canon of the Holy Bible had already been settled by the fourth century, nearly three centuries before Islam. Hence, whatever book that was in the hand of the Judeo-Christian communities which the Quran came to confirm as the uncorrupt word of God had already been decided upon centuries prior to Islam.

Finally, to differ over the text does not imply corruption to the text. If it does, then the Quran is corrupt since the Muslims to this day differ over the meaning of the Quran as well as its true content. An example of such difference is the modern Muslim debate on whether S. 9:128-129 are actually part of the original text. An excellent article that deals with this issue can be found here: At this site.

In summary, the science of textual criticism, manuscript evidence, the Quran and hadiths affirm the reliability and preservation of the biblical text. In turn, both textual criticism and Islamic traditions affirm that the Quran has suffered by way of transmission and fails to compare to the Holy Bible in terms of preservation.

Sam Shamoun

Responses to Islamic Awareness
Answering Islam Home Page