After introducing and describing the 6 major early Qur’anic manuscripts (the Topkapi, Samarkand, Ma’il, Petropolitanus, Huseini, and Sana’a manuscripts), Jay and Al Fadi zero in on the Sana’a MS; the manuscript Al Fadi is working on for his doctorate, and point out how there are different dates even between the two pages pictured on the slide. They then introduce the two best known Muslim scholars, Dr Tayyar Altikulac, and Prof Dr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who worked on and studied all of these 6 manuscripts between 2002 and 2007 AD. In their book on the subject, ‘Al Mushaf al Sharif’, both maintained that none of these earliest manuscripts are from the time of Uthman, nor are they complete, nor do they agree entirely with each other, nor entirely with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ Qur’an. Dr Dan Brubaker in his doctoral thesis looked at these 6 manuscripts as well and found 7 types of early Consonantal corrections scattered right through these manuscripts, pointing out that these variants are not the later ‘diacritical’ or vowellization corrections at all, but are corrections to the basic Arabic script itself, known as the ‘Rasm’, a salient point which Muslims are constantly confused by. The 7 types of Consonantal Corrections Dr Brubaker found include: 1) Insertions: Words or letters which are inserted above the line, or between other letters, after the text had been finished. These could be attributed to clumsiness, or ineptitude on the scribe’s part, and often can be considered mere ‘copyist errors’, or ‘scribal errors’. 2) Erasures: Words or even sentences and verses which have been erased with nothing to replace them. These are more damaging because they show an intentional correction by a later scribe, censoring the text so that it corresponds with the current 1924 ‘Hafs’ canonical text. 3) Erasures, written over top: Words, or phrases which have been erased and then other letters, words and phrases written over top. This is even more damaging, because it demonstrates an intentional correction with the hope by the later scribe of standardizing the text. 4) Overwriting without erasures: Here the scribe hasn’t even tried to hide what they are correcting but has quickly (and often awkwardly) written over top of the existing text with new words or phrases, in order to standardize the existing text with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text. 5) Coverings: Like the erasures, this is an intentional censorship to the text by a later scribe who places elongated paper or animal skin patches over a word, or a phrase, or a verse, in order to hide what obviously disagrees with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ canonized text. 6) Selective coverings overwritten: Here the scribe covers over an existing text with these paper or an ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHAhueqS0Mw

Lloyd De Jongh’s Complete Archives can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BGrC1fxB-ym-ZQ64TtfYEG0vQtYCOIL6 Lloyd now moves into one of the strongest injunctions of Shariah, that which is best known as "Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong". According to a well known Arabic phrase, "Al-Wala wal-Bara" Muslim are to Hate anything and anyone who stands against Islam, and its prophet. This phrase can also mean "Loyalty and Disavowal", or "loving and hating". In the Sha'afi manual, "Reliance of the Traveler", Book Q, it points out that Muslims, in order to 'Command that which is right', are obliged to tell people what to do, and it splits it up into 2 categories of obligations: 1) Fard al Ain = Personal Obligations, and 2) Fard al Kifayah = Communal Obligations. It is the latter obligation which is the most important, as it dictates what Muslims are to do with those who don't do what is right, but instead do what is wrong. If a Muslim refuses to follow these communal obligations, than Allah will abandon them. Lloyd goes into 8 obligations, which are: 1) Muslims must first know what is wrong 2) They must then explain what is wrong to those who don't know 3) They then forbid that which is wrong using slander if need be 4) If the person desists, they then must censor them using harsh words 5) If they still continue, then they must right the wrong with their hands 6) From there they must use Intimidation 7) This is followed by an assault against the person 8) And finally, they can use force if need be These can especially be in the context of going into someone's home and destroying their wine, or any crosses they may find, or destroying any musical instruments they may hear being played; anything Islam considers Haram (forbidden), even in the West. Al Ghazzali, one of Islam's foremost philosophers said, "Commanding the right is the most fundamental of ones' religion, and without it Islam would cease". Even the Qur'an supports it in Surah 3:104, where it "confronts vice and supports virtue". When Muslims say that this can only be carried out in a Muslim context, Lloyd reminds them that it must be done by ALL Muslims, not just those in a Muslim context, which means even Muslims in the West are obliged to carry out these injunctions. He then went into 5 levels of censuring those who do wrong: 1) Explain their wrong to them 2) Tell them that they have wronged 3) revile them, using verbal abuse and hateful language 4) Forcibly stop the act, and 5) Intimidate the person to the point of hitting them with your hands. Lloyd continues that even in the West these injunctions are to be obeyed and followed. Further, it says in Book Q that Muslims are not to inform on other Muslims to the police, or foreign authorities. Ironically, in Book Q it also says that they are to stop the wrong as long as they can win, and they themselves don't get hurt, so that they are obliged to correct what they deem is wrong, providing they don't cause the others to retaliate, and in doing so, hurt them; rather cowardly, don't you think? These injunctions help explain why so many radical Muslims in the West are so aggressive and downright rude and often hateful in public. They aren't interested in appealing to us, or winning us over with a loving witness. They know these texts intimately, and so understand that they are obliged to dominate us, intimidate us, and to eradicate anything they find distasteful, such as Hatun's T-shirt, or her 'Holey' Qur'an. No wonder so many Muslims that we meet in the West come across as such 'jerks'. It's not their fault at all. It is their Shariah law which makes them so aggressive and so impossible to be around. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2022 (66,120) Music: "Epic Heroic Conquest" by Musiclfiles, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UACbdep5RM

Muslims have been told their whole lives that the Qur'an is complete and unchanged; that not a letter, nor a word, nor a sentence has been accreted nor deleted, and that the Qur'an they read in Arabic is exactly the same all over the world. That was until my colleague Hatun Tash, a 5 foot 2 inch woman accidentally found 26 different Arabic Qur'ans while traveling in Africa and the Middle East, and brought them back to London. So, we decided to take Hatuns 26 different Arabic Qur'ans to Speaker's Corner to show them to the world on August 7th, 2016, and the Muslims almost went berserk. Watch as they tried to rip examples of the differences printed on our laminated papers out of our hands, attacked our camera-man, and then tried to grab the Qur'ans from our bags, and even attempted to stop our exit when we left This is the kind of reaction one would expect when they hear for the first time that everything they have been told about the book which is the very foundation of everything they believe turns out to be a lie. Also watch Mohammed Hijab, one of the leading Muslim YouTube gurus today, who was in the crowd filming us back in 2016. Upon seeing what we were showing the world he quickly retreated to the outskirts and called all the Muslims to stop looking at what we were showing, and stop listening to what we were saying; that he would explain everything to them. Then almost 4 years later, the same Mohammed Hijab had an infamous Zoom interview, on June 8, 2020, with Dr Yasir Qadhi, probably the leading authority on the Qira'at readings of the Qur'an, with a PhD on the subject from Yale University. The interview, now coined the "Standard Narrative has holes in it" interview was an honest explanation by Dr Yasir Qadhi concerning the burning question posed by Mohammed Hijab; namely, which of the 30 Qira'at readings is the original Qur'an? Which was the eternal one in heaven, or the perfect Qur'an revealed to Muhammad, or the final version written down by Uthman in 652 AD? Was it the 'Hafs' or the 'Warsh', or the 'Qalun', or the 'Kisai'. In response Dr Qadhi made 12 points: 1) He began by saying that this problem of the Ahruf & Qira’at is the most difficult topic for Muslim scholars to answer 2) Thus for that reason Muslims don’t tell the new converts to Islam about the 30 Qira’ats 3) Only with the more advanced students of Islam do they do a “deep dive” on the issue 4) Muslim Scholars for the past 1,000 years have not solved the Qira’at problem 5) Muslims have a “respect” for the Qur’an, and put a ‘red-line’ beyond which they do not go; unlike here in the West, where there are no red lines, which caused him a 'crisis of knowledge' at Yale 6) Pointing to Hijab he said “The Standard [Islamic] Narrative has Holes in it” due to this issue 7) Western academics have jumped ‘leaps and bounds’ on this issue in the last 100 years 8) Because of what they now know, they look at the Muslims like an ‘emperor with no clothes’ 9) As a result Qadhi bragged that he "never lectured on this subject, nor ever will, except in his class” 10) He went on to say that this subject should never be brought up in Public 11) That is why Hijab shouldn't ask him to say what should be written on the ‘blank Mushaf’ 12) But when asked finally "Which of the Qira’ats is the real Qur’an?" He responded, "They are ALL the Qur’an!" You start with 'Hafs', and add a little bit of 'Warsh', and 'Qalun', or 'Kisai'...mix them all up, and "Voila" you have the Qur'an". What he didn't know in 2020 was that there are 93,236 differences between these 30 different Arabic Qur'ans. Thank God we don't have the same problem with our Bible, because we would never make the same claims Muslims make about their Qur'an. Can you now see how a small woman, only 5 foot 2 inches tall, has almost single-handedly brought the Qur'an to its knees. Never again will Muslims be able to publicly claim that there is only 1 Qur'an, which came from heaven, and was perfectly preserved, so that "Not one word or one letter, or even one dot has changed in the last 1400 years"...and all because of Hatun Tash. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, June 30, 2023 (81,550) Music: "Feeling the Caribbean Sun" by Horst Hoffman, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-JgI-I08Q

When we look to the Qur'an as the best model to follow, it is clear that it points to the prophet, who is not named, but most Muslims believe it must be Muhammad. In Surah 53:3 we find that this model is a good example for mankind. In Surah 33:21 this prophet is considered a good example to follow, and in Surah 68:4 he is supported with having an exalted character. Because he is such a good example and of such high character, Surahs 4:80 and 47:33 stipulate that all believers are to obey him. Yet, we see problems with his model. According to Sahih al Bukhari, volume 7, hadith numbers 64 and 88 we find that Muhammad married Aisha (his favorite wife) when she was only 7 years old, and then consummated it when she was a mere 9 years old, and he was 53! Would this be a good model to emulate today? Should we now permit 53 year old men to marry 9 year old girls? I think not! This same Aisha, in Sahih al Bukhari, volume 6, book 60 and in hadith number 311, then turns around and questions Muhammad's manipulation of his rota of wives (around 12) that he was to sleep with, suggesting that he went against what had previously been agreed, to say nothing of the fact that by having 12 wives he went against the stipulation in the Qur'an (Surah 4:3) that Muslim men could only have 4 wives. There seems to be one law for Muhammad and another for all other believing men. Is this a good model to follow? In Al Tirmidhi, Hadith number 964, Muhammad says that a good woman is the one who completely obeys her husband at all times, and in Ibn Dawud, book 11 and Hadith number 2135 Muhammad maintains that if anyone should bow down to someone, it should be a woman to her husband. The question we need to ask concerns whether these examples by Muhammad are appropriate for today, or any day, for here or anywhere, or for anyone; and should we, who have a much better example in Jesus Christ, follow and obey such an example? With just these few examples, it seems obvious to me that I would rather follow Jesus any day. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2019 (26,010) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbjvRX6g0o