,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I find it amusing that ex-Muslims will jump up at any attempt to discredit the Qur'an by endorsing the Sana'a copy simply because it goes against the standard text.
Abdullah asks: "Is this just a bad copy?" If he bothered to study the text he'd realize that it was just that.
Abdullah asks: "Is this just a bad copy?" If he bothered to study the text he'd realize that it was just that.
See p. 61 of the study that quotes Al-Tawba. On this page alone:
81 says: Al-Naru Jahannam النار جهنم (instead of Naru Jahannam). Bad grammar.
85 is completely missing.
88 says: Wa 'ula'ika huwa al-muflihoon وأولئك هو المفلحون (instead of وأولئك هم المفلحون). Bad grammar.
81 says: Al-Naru Jahannam النار جهنم (instead of Naru Jahannam). Bad grammar.
85 is completely missing.
88 says: Wa 'ula'ika huwa al-muflihoon وأولئك هو المفلحون (instead of وأولئك هم المفلحون). Bad grammar.
These three catastrophic mistakes on this one page alone should make you realize how incompetent the copyist was. Please put some more time into researching these matters before arguing that this text holds more weight than the standard agreed upon text.
