Is this the debate aftermath? No. It is simply a quest to eliminate misinformation being put forward by Christian apologists and prevent it from becoming a future canard being passed on by unwitting Christians.
The Back DropThe Christian apologist, Nabeel Qureshi, was
caught presenting a faulty translation of a narration
despite having been previously warned by
Bassam Zawadi regarding the faulty translation.
However, upon being informed of the
blog post rebuking Nabeel Qureshi for his misleading actions, Qureshi came out and offered a desperate conspiracy theory to defend his use of the incorrectly translated narration. His curt response:
Yahya--
I have seen the narration from Ibn Sad with my own eyes. If someone wants to argue that a Muslim translator made it up and put it into the English version, that makes no sense to me.
On the other hand, if a Muslim publisher wants to take it out of an Arabic publication, that makes all the sense in the world, and is much more likely what happened.
If you can find an ancient MS of Ibn Sa'd (at least a very early one) and show me that the line is missing, then you have an argument.
Clearly you have never studied textual criticism. I suggest you study before speaking up so much. Cheers,
-Nabeel Nazam got wind of this and quizzed Bassam Zawadi (who originally informed Qureshi of the inapplicable and fallacious nature of the translation in question). Zawadi offered a real in depth email response which blows further uncertainty upon Qureshi’s scholarship, integrity and desire for the truth.
This blog post will see Bassam Zawadi’s email response published in its entirety and then a summary and commentary as well as a verification of Zawadi’s pronouncements using two well-versed Arabic speakers who are pretty well known in the Muslim cyber-community.
Bassam Zawadi’s Email Response to Qureshi’s CommentsAssalamu Alaykum Nazam,
Thanks for your email.
It’s surprising to see that Nabeel is continuing to push forth this argument after I have warned him in our debate last year in July, 2009 that the phrase “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an” does not exist in the original Arabic text. I am assuming that Nabeel is relying on a faulty translation by Muhammad ibn Sa’d and Syed Moinul Haq published in 1967.
I told Nabeel that relying solely on translations is not sufficient and that we must go back to the original Arabic text. His refusal to do this could open the door for Muslims to follow his logic and blindly insist that the Jehovah Witness translation of John 1:1 is accurate regardless of what the Greek text says, while Nabeel wouldn’t have any right to object if he wants to remain consistent!
It’s amazing to see Nabeel saying to the Muslim brother “Clearly you have never studied textual criticism”, yet Nabeel is not doing any textual criticism himself, for he is completely ignoring what the original Arabic text says and stubbornly insists on relying on a translation, which he has been warned to be faulty.
The least Nabeel could have done was ask a Christian friend who knows Arabic to verify whether the Arabic text has been accurately translated. He has not done so.
Last year after the debate Nabeel informed me that he only had three days to prepare for the debate. I thought to myself “Why debate a topic you are not well prepared for? That is not an excuse!” Also, right after the debate he told me that he would consult (or interact) with me on this topic, however until now I haven’t received a single email from Nabeel talking to me about any issues regarding the topic. One would think that he would at least be curious enough to ask me to provide the actual Arabic text of the narration and provide him with the correct translation! So more than a year later we still see that Nabeel hasn’t properly studied his arguments and seems to have found his “three days of preparation” last year to have been sufficient!
It appears that Nabeel has reintroduced this argument with no apparent desire of seeking the truth. This is upsetting to know, especially since Nabeel in his videos portrays himself as someone sincere for knowing the truth.
Now let us get to the matter at hand. Allow me to provide you with the actual Arabic text of the narration. First of all, the reference that I have is Volume 2, page 344 and not page 444. Perhaps this is the reference in the edition that Nabeel has. No big deal. Here is the Arabic text:
فغلوا المصاحف فلأن أقرأ على قراءة من أحب أحب إلي من أن أقرأ على قراءة زيد بن ثابت فوالذي لا إله غيره لقد أخذت من في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بضعا وسبعين سورة وزيد بن ثابت غلام له ذؤابتان يلعب مع الغلمان
The funny thing is that this Arabic text is even available in the Arabic translation of one of John Gilchrist’s articles on the Answering Islam website: www.answering-islam.org/Arabic/Gilchrist/Jam/jam3-2.html. They should have warned John Gilchrist about the faulty translation!
The translation provided by Nabeel perfectly matches the Arabic text except for the words highlighted in red:
فغلوا المصاحف فلأن أقرأ على قراءة من أحب أحب إلي من أن أقرأ على قراءة زيد بن ثابت فوالذي لا إله غيره لقد أخذت من في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بضعا وسبعين سورة وزيد بن ثابت غلام له ذؤابتان يلعب مع الغلمان
The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".
The Arabic words فغلوا المصاحف (
faghullu al masaahif) have been falsely translated into “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an".
The Arabic word al masaahif, simply means manuscripts. Not a big deal.
The focus is on the word faghullu. The translator found this to imply deceit in the text of the Qur’an itself, which is completely false. The word
faghullu (فغلوا) comes from the Arabic word
al ghulool (الغلول). In this context it means “the taking of something without any right” and this is a form of betrayal. Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 3:161 talks about how the word
ghalla (one of the derivatives of the word
ghulool) means خان (
khaana) in Arabic, which means betrayal. Indeed, Ibn Mas’ud did initially feel betrayed by Uthman’s decision to standardize the texts.
This word was commonly referred to those who use to take from the war booty before it was justly distributed. We even see the use of one of its derivates in Surah 3:161.
We understand this word in this narration the same way we understand as it’s derivative in Surah 3:161. Why? Because Ibn Masud in another narration in regards to the whole matter goes on to quote this portion from Surah 3:161:
waman yaghlul ya/ti bima ghalla yawma alqiyamati
and he who acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaithfully on the day of resurrection
So going back to the narration, what is it actually saying? Well Ibn Masud is saying that the manuscripts are being taken away from them unjustly (i.e. Uthman demanding all the manuscripts to be burnt) and he feels betrayed by this. He did not say that there is
deceit in the manuscripts of Uthman. The words from the English translation “in the reading of the Qur'an”
do not even exist in the text. This is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis.
This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation.
However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.
Just as I have explained in my debate with Nabeel, Ibn Mas’ud was initially against the standardization of Uthman (it was during this phase where he uttered the above),
but he never once accused the Uthmanic manuscripts of containing errors in them. Then Ibn Masud agreed with Uthman’s standardization. The reading we have of Ibn Masud is like what we have today just as Ibn Hazm and Imam Al Baqillani have said.
I advise you and others to watch the debate again and refresh your memories. Unfortunately there are people who continue to repeat their allegations while completely ignoring or failing to understand our responses to them. They think that the presence of variants compromises the perfect preservation of the Qur’an and use their textual history of the New Testament as an analogy. Unfortunately, this only demonstrates that they have not grasped the subject matter that well enough.
In conclusion, the translation that Nabeel is using is horrendously wrong. Last year, no one could have really blamed Nabeel for relying on a faulty translation. However, after it was brought to his attention he still persists on using the narration without even verifying with someone who knows Arabic whether the narration is actually translated properly! Now that is extremely problematic and speaks loads about Nabeel’s academic honesty. I know he doesn’t trust us Muslims because he thinks we are a big bunch of liars who just practice taqqiyah for a living, but he could at least ask an Arab Christian to provide him with a word by word translation of the text!
I will say again what I said in my debate with him last year:
If Nabeel is planning to present this narration as an argument, he better show me the original Arabic text and if he doesn’t I’m just going to reply back and say that this phrase does not exist and would challenge him to show me the original Arabic source.
Furthermore, let’s say that the translation is correct. So what? We have shown that Ibn Mas’ud eventually agreed with Uthman’s reading and that the readings we have from Ibn Mas’ud transmitted down to us
agree with the Uthmanic manuscripts. So again, this argument of his is not really that significant in terms of implications to the argument for the preservation of the Qur’an. It’s not essential to point out that Ibn Mas’ud
at some point in his life disagreed with Uthman’s readings,
but whether he died believing that. The latter is what matters and is impossible to show. Furthermore, one would have to provide evidence for Ibn Masud being right, while everyone else was wrong!
Kind Regards,
Bassam
--------------------- End of Bassam's Email to Nazam-----------------------Summary and a Spot of CommentaryFirstly, I want to state the textual criticism jibe brought into play by Nabeel Qureshi is nothing but a superficial misdirection in order to distract Qureshi’s supporters and even critics from the real issue; the real issue being one of Qureshi’s lack of research and lack of regard for accuracy.
As confirmed by Bassam Zawadi, Qureshi had over a year to research the faulty translation and the actual Arabic source material. Qureshi did not bother to do so and utilised a translation which he effectively knew to be inaccurate.
Qureshi has not done one iota of research and is wrongly keeping this bout of misinformation alive. Qureshi’s conspiracy theory of Muslims doctoring the Arabic text in order to remove the
problematic statement is myopic and smacks of desperation to save face. Sadly for Qureshi, even his conspiracy theory falls flat on its face as the translation which he utilised is the 1967 translation; is Qureshi really expecting us to believe Muslims began doctoring the text after 1967?
To pour further scorn and refutation on Qureshi’s conspiracy theory the actual Arabic text is even displayed on Qureshi’s fellow missionary website – as confirmed by Bassam Zawadi. I have checked Zawadi’s link and I can confirm the Arabic text is present. Check for yourself.
So Qureshi’s conspiracy theory is irrelevant and can be dismissed for the desperate face-saving and misdirecting attempt it was designed to be. However, the more astute would ask whether Zawadi’s translation is correct or not – Qureshi should have done this rather than remain dormant for a year and surface with the same claim and append an incongruous conspiracy theory in order to justify the use of the “narration” AFTER being caught out!
Is Bassam Zawadi Correct?Bassam Zawadi’s response has an ennobling feel to it and does encourage further research. Zawadi wrote:
This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation. However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.
OK, even I can see this is correct thus rendering Qureshi’s translation noticeably faulty. You can check the Arabic text for yourself or get somebody who knows Arabic to verify this statement for you.
Strong Arabic Speakers Agree with Bassam ZawadiOn top of this I made inquiries with two individuals who know Arabic well.
1MoreMuslim from YouTube is the gentleman who recently
rebuked Dr James White for using a faulty amateur translation of a Quranic Verse. 1MoreMuslim stated on the translation used by Qureshi:
“The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched”I have appended all of 1MoreMuslim’s email in appendix 1
Both 1MoreMuslim and
IslamResponses are in agreement on the fact that the translation Qureshi used is incorrect and they both offer the view the first two words should be translated as
“hide the Masahif (manuscripts)”
IslamResponses offers a correct translation for the relevant part of the narration:
“Hide the manuscripts, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”
Actually, in IslamResponses’ breakdown of the usage of the word in question (ghullu) you can see how the translator (S. Moinul Haq) wrongly came to the word “deceit” and Zawadi explains the rest of the English translation
“ is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis”. Therefore if we piece together the information put forward by Zawadi and IslamResponses we can see how the mistake came about. IslamResponses’ analysis is in appendix 1.
So, is Bassam Zawadi correct?
Yes, two other strong speakers of Arabic agree that the translation used by Qureshi is indeed faulty and thus should not be utilised to support an argument.
The positive to come out of this saga is the further publicising of the incorrect nature of the English translation used by Qureshi and others who seek to attack the preservation of the Quran. Effectively, we realise the argument espoused by the critics is invalid and obsolete – it should NOT be used by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.
Full Circle with Nabeel QureshiWe have come full circle and return to Nabeel Qureshi’s missive,
“I suggest you study before speaking up so much”.
Well Nabeel, it appears as though people who have a regard for the truth (Nazam, Bassam, 1MoreMuslim and IslamResponses) conducted more research and study in half an hour than you did in a whole year. Had Qureshi stuck to his word of getting back to Bassam Zawadi after the debate in an attempt to iron out the flaws in his own understanding he would have saved us all time and even saved himself from developing a reputation of unreliability and lack of concern for accuracy.
NOTE: I have another video, yet to be uploaded related to another aspect of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Qureshi stemming from his now infmaous double-team attack video against Quranic preservation. God willing, it will be uploaded after some further checks and/or refinements
An Appeal to Nabeel Qureshi, James White and Antonio Santana (mbi3030)Antonio is a friend of mine and unfortunately he featured Qureshi’s offending video on his site and continued to feature it despite my objections being put forward to him. Antonio, is far from versed in Quranic preservation and is certainly incapable of defending the offending material. Why feature material which you are unable to defend and is shown to be faulty. Surely the wise move would be to remove to material from circulation.
James White has featured Qureshi’s video on his blog; I hope to send White an email on this subject. White should do the right thing too, that is to remove the misinformation from his blog.
Nabeel Qureshi, please have a rethink of your use of this material in the future. Moreover, you should set the example and remove your video from circulation immediately. Please do the checks recommended to you by Bassam as well. Sir, pride always comes before a fall. Your response to me was not only inadequate but was full of pride. Please think about it.
Good people do not sit on their hands when misinformation presents itselfMay Allah reward Bassam Zawadi, Nazam, IslamResponses and 1MoreMuslim for their work in putting to bed misinformation and this particular inapplicable argument.
Muslims are called to holiness and honesty. Mufti Taqi Uthmani recognises mistakes made by Christians AND Muslims which render the subsequent arguments inapplicable. Uthmani even labels the results of the misunderstanding of Christianity on the part of Muslim refutations and Christians as “evils”. It is excellent to see the eminent scholar, Mufti Taqi Uthmani, is encouraging a thorough understanding of the subject in hand. [1]
I particularly make mention to this for the purpose of Antonio, when Antonio stated he would not remove Qureshi’s misinformation from his site a Christian commenter agreed with Anotnio’s decision and seemingly justified his agreement based on the mistakes made by Muslims in the past with relation to Christianity, This “our misinformation vs. your misinformation” attitude NEEDS to stop immediately.
Islam does not allow presenting misinformation about somebody else’s faith and Uthmani encourages a full understanding of Christianity on the part of Muslims – presenting misinformation about somebody’s faith is not clever
Does Christianity allow Christians to present misinformation and inapplicable arguments against Islam?
Food for thought, Antonio and Nabeel.
Lessons learnedI have found Bassam Zawadi’s debate material very inspirational and realised there is a need for individual Muslims to understand the material being put forth by Zawadi and others. I have personally found the study of Quranic preservation extremely enjoyable (though initially daunting).
Personally, I have Al Azami’s book on the subject and Von Denffer’s book as well as having access to material from Yasir Qahdi and Dr Mohamed Mamdou. An internet friend of mine has put forward a humble video presentation on the subject and refutation of some of the polemics being used by some Christian missionaries. There is also a useful online book which I have recently downloaded, written by Hamza Bajwa.
There is a lot of study material out there which BOTH Christians and Muslims can benefit from
However, the fastest way to deal with a polemic is by revisiting Bassam Zawadi’s informing pronouncements in his debate with Qureshi. See
Nazam’s YouTube page. An Invitation to IslamFinally, if you are not Muslim please give Islam a chance. Visit your local Islamic centre, befriend a few pious Muslims in order to learn about the faith and read a translation of the Quran. You have nothing to lose, I invite you to research Islam and become Muslims. Pray to God and ask him to guide you to the Truth whilst you research Islam.
Thanks - May Allah guide us all
General Feedback:
yahyasnow@hotmail.comReferences[1] What is Christianity, Mufti Mohammad Taqi Uthmani, Darul Ishat, 1995 pg 35
Appendix 1 – Presenting IslamResponses and 1MoreMuslim in full1MoreMuslim:Salam ,
The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched.
Most of the Arabic words beginning with the letter "GH", imply a meaning of hiding from sight. Like for example the word " Ghurub" (sunset) or the disappearance of the sun, and the word "ghaba" : to be absent and away from sight.
The word "ghalla" in its most basic form means to hide something, to keep out of sight. But the context defines what is the precise meaning: It means to hide a booty when the context is war, it means deceit when it's about hiding a bad plan, it means also Hidden hatred or antagonism.
In the context of Ibn Masuud, he said simply to hide the Masahif.
I presume this is what Bassam concluded in his email to you. Here is IslamResponses:
Re: Arabic translation??
Wa alikum al salam wa rahmato Allah wa barakato
Al goolul ( الغلول )has many meanings:
1- it means the congested food.( الطعام والشراب الذى يدخل الجوف أى المخفى وليس الطعام والشراب الموجود على مائدة وخلافه)
2-God says:(وَمَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَغُلَّ وَمَن يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ تُوَفَّى كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لاَ يُظْلَمُونَ : آل عمران - 161
أى ما كان لنبى أن يخون أو يخفى غنيمة حصل عليها فى الغزوات والحروب أو يتخلى عن رسالته
verse (3:161):
(مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَغُلَّ وَمَن يَغْلُلْ )
means:
it is not permissible for any prophet (to deceive) to cheat his community regarding booty; it is also possible that the meaning is: it is not permissible for a community to deceive its prophet. (Whoso deceiveth) as regards any of the booty (will bring his deceit with him) carried on his neck (on the Day of Resurrection
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=161&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
3- :God says:
وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُواْ بِمَا قَالُواْ بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاء : المائدة - 64
أى اتهموا الله تعالى بأن عطاؤه محدود . غلت أيديهم أى أمسكت عن فعل أى خير
verse(5:64)
(وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ ) it means:
the Jew (say: Allah's hand is fettered) and cannot give. (Their hands are fettered) they neither do good nor spend in good causes (and they are accursed) they are punished by the imposition of the capitation tax on them (for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty) His hands are wide open for both the righteous and the sinner. (He bestoweth as He will) if He wishes, He gives, and if He wishes, He withholds. (That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord).
4-أما معنى : غلوا مصاحفكم أى لا تظهروها وأخفوها
the meaning of (فغلوا المصاحف ) is to:
hide the manuscripts and do not show them to anybody .
so the translation of this hadith is:
(Hide the manuscripts,I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I had learned more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth"
ذؤابتان: means two plaits (queues) or 2 locks.
wa al salamu alikum.
A 
View on Peter Lumpkins' Mockery of James White
