Zawadi lets go over a few facts established that you still haven’t been able to refute.
Firstly Companions may have believed that VERSES can be abrogated by ruling. But you have not provided evidence that companions believe AHRUF (and/or) QIRAAT can be abrogated.
Secondly, you have NOT provided evidence Abrogation’s can be REMOVED from the Quranic Codex itself. Hence all we know is Abrogation’s are Abrogation of rulings NOT abrogation’s of RECITATION. The references you gave (Saheeh Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421, Malik Muwatta, Book 030, Hadith Number 017) do not show any clear of an abrogation of recitation of 5 sucklings, only an abrogation of ruling. And this is despite the evidence I had already provided in my article earlier, this evidence remains uncontested:
“In the first place it's noteworthy to mention that Uthman the compiler of the Quran himself had not heard of these concepts. For him what was abrogated, wasn't removed altogether, it stayed in it's place:
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53: Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by another Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. " O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place ."
Another translation reads:
He replied, “O my nephew, I will not remove anything from its original place.”
So not only do your references not provide evidence, there is KNOWN evidence to the contrary. Your response to this was what we call “interpolation” or “eisegesis”:
“When the man said that the verse is abrogated he meant – IN TERMS OF ITS RULING – and not recitation. The man was basically asking “if it’s ruling is not applicable anymore, why keep it written down then?”, so Uthman basically replied back saying that he won’t move anything from its place unless there is evidence to do so.”
Hence your interpretation of the hadith is a plain fabrication. But hey if you don’t like that hadith, and the testimony of Uthman, how about Umar, the witness of two is always better than one right?
“4719. It is related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Umar said, “Ubayy was the one of us with the best recitation, yet we leave some of the words of Ubayy. Ubayy said, ‘I took it from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah and will not leave it for anything.’ Allah Almighty says, 'Whenever We abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it.' (2:106)” (Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur'an, VIII: The reciters among the Companions of the Prophet: )”
But let’s presume your answer was correct for a minute. Your answer makes Uthman look even worse because it still doesn’t answer the question. Why are there missing verses and surahs of the left out of the Qur’an when other abrogated passages were kept in the Qur’an? If Uthman’s answer was as you put it “we don’t remove anything from its place unless there is evidence” Firstly this simply doesn’t answer the original question: “If its ruling isn’t applicable why keep it written down?” Uthman therefore must have omitted the truth since he did leave abrogations in the Quran written down; many abrogations have been left written down. In fact we would expect Uthman to say “well we remove some and keep others, based on the evidence”, but clearly such a response doesn’t exist, nor can it even be implied from the text itself.
Your second response was:
“Secondly, obviously Uthman knew about the concept of abrogation since he was in charge of the collection of the Qur’an AND WE HAVE VERSES, WHICH WERE ABROGATED AND NOT INCLUDED INTO THE QURAN If Uthman believed that they should be included, then he would have enforced their inclusion into the Qur’an.”
Firstly this is just factually wrong. It was Abu Bakr who was IN CHARGE of the collection. Second you are begging the question. How do you know Uthman knew of such verses that were abrogated and not included in the Quran? Show evidence of Uthman believing in the concept of abrogation by recitation otherwise this is just the fallacy of composition. Presumably you reason like this because you think the references where you attempt to show abrogation by recitation are clear. Unfortunately for you they are ambiguous or flat out contradict each other. The supposed examples you give are:
“'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time in the Holy Quran.”
However here is what the very next narration says:
“'Amra reported that she beard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings) . “
According to this narration“There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings and then five clear sucklings”. Here it is clear that these verses were revealed in the Quran without having been removed from the text, simply “ten then five” with no recognition that either of these texts had been removed, a clear simple flow and continuity both are revealed in and apart of the Quran. This means if we look at both these narrations side by side these first two narrations are contradictory.
But note according to the first narration 10 sucklings was abrogated and removed by 5, showing 10 use to be in the Quran. Therefore we ought to still have the verse of 5 suckling’s in the Quran. But Zawadi may dispute this and say the “not being found in the Quran” was referring to the 5 sucklings. This wouldn’t be a good idea, because the very next narration he quotes prove that it is the 5th suckling in view:
"Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings' . When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what IS NOW recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this."
As you can see contrary to Zawadi’s opinion that the 5 suckling verse was also abrogated, according to this narration the 5 sucklings were at the minimum abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and this is AFTER Mohammeds death. The last part of this verse makes it clear: “it was what is NOW RECITED of the Quran” and “one does NOT ACT on this” simply could imply it is the RULING that has been abrogated, but the verse itself remained in the Quran even after Mohammed’s death. Of course as a side note I should mention “one does not act on this” does not have to be evidence of abrogation of ruling, but evidence of disobedience to the 5 suckling’s verse that still remains in the Quran after Mohammed’s death.
So Zawadi is stuck, if he takes these reports as authentic he must concede all THREE leave us with the conclusion that 5 sucklings still remain in the Quran even after the prophets death. So we must therefore ask the question, since the 5 sucklings verse was not abrogated by recitation, who removed it from the Quran?
Notice Zawadi’s explanations provided here( http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_) don’t work since they don’t interact with the cold hard facts provided in the hadith, they are not an exegesis rather they provide eisegesis and interpolation similar to what Zawadi had done earlier with the narration regarding Uthman.
It therefore has clearly floated above Zawadi’s head, that the reason the verses are not included in the Quran are not because they are “abrogated by recitation” since it’s clear Uthman will not remove anything from its original place, and these reports are contradictory and create even more problems for Zawadi.
Here is a small summary of the issues with the hadith Zawadi has given then:
- These particular hadith are internally inconsistent and contradictory and not to be trusted
- Zawadi and his Imam’s are misinterpreting the hadiths in question, plain eisegesis
- There is still no evidence Uthman was aware of any verses being abrogated out of a codex!
- If we accept these hadith, it is clear that Uthman has not included the verse of the 5 sucklings (which ought to have been in the Quran), as it was still Quranic even after the prophet had died
- If we accept the these hadith they contradict the Bukhari report given by Uthman
Moving on lets get to some of your claims:
“I keep sounding like a broken record here. The FACT THAT THE COMPANIONS (including Abu Darda) accepted Uthman’s codex IS PROOF that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading MUST HAVE BEEN included into the “end Qur’an” so that it could be considered preserved. Can’t you get that already? Hence, what you need to do is provide positive evidence to the contrary.”
As I said two references (that in of themselves provide no evidence) and an argument from silence are not proof, especially when I have shown specific exceptions.
But here is my challenge to you:
Show ANY exception to the claim that companions thought that Ahruf and Qiraat could be abrogated. In other words show any evidence that abrogations of recitations of ANY verse (meaning ANY VERSE in the entire Quran, not just merely rulings) could be abrogated.
Me and you both know that UTHMAN did this AGAINST the rules. Meaning it was according to you and your scholars impressible to abrogate a recitation of an attribute, or story of fact.
This is how you responded to me:
Quoting me:
“Unlike the other abrogation’s of recitation and ruling and abrogations of recitation but not ruling, this is not in fact a Law but rather a description of Allah's creative attribute meaning it cannot be abrogated.”
Your response:
“I don’t think you have fully grasped what Bilal Phillips was saying. He was speaking about Allah’s Attributes, stories of prophets, etc. which are STORIES OF FACT. Meaning for example…… Allah will not say that He spoke to Moses in the cave and then all of a sudden say that this story is abrogated and never happened. Or that Allah is the All Knowledgeable, but now that is abrogated and doesn’t apply anymore, etc. etc. That’s what he means.”
But clearly all three of us understood what Phillips is saying. And you had no answer. According to your site:
“When reading the Hadith we see that the companion Abu Darda believed that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abdullah ibn Masud recite
Surah 92:3 as...
And by male and female
Besides how we have it today, which is:
And by the creation of the male and the female,”
NOW HERES A QUESTION FOR YOU. Is this AN ATTRIBUTE (e.g. CREATOR) or a LAW/COMMAND?
Clearly we have Allah SWEARING by “male and female” or “the CREATION of the male and female”.
Can a verse containing ALLAH SWEARING by something by ABROGATED or removed by Uthman?
No because this is a PURE STATEMENT OF FACT. Allah SWORE by such and such. Now I challenge you to produce ANY companion or the prophet himself who believed A STATEMENT of FACT, An attribute of GOD, a story recited and given by God can be CANCELLD out of the Quranic Codex and abrogated out of the Quranic recitation by UTHMAN!
Later you say:
“It doesn’t HAVE TO BE because his reading was abrogated. This is only a theory. There is no harm in claiming ignorance on this. It could be that this reading from a particular harf wasn’t incorporated into the Uthmanic codex (we already admit that the majority opinion states that not all the harfs were preserved).”
So it was Uthman who had the POWER to abrogate recitation that did not fit into his codex, but that contradicts the UNANIMOUS rules of ABROGATION.
Let’s highlight the rules again shall we?
“Bilal Philips in his book Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur'aanic Explanation, lay it out for us
CONDITIONS FOR NASKH (abrogation)
For naskh to have taken place, the following three conditions must have been fulfilled:
1. The law which has been replaced has to have been a divine law...2. The proof used to replace the old law has to be a divine command which was revealed after the revelation of the old law...
The law which is to be replaced cannot have a specific time limit attached to it from the time of its revelation. If it has a limited time period, it simply becomes void when the time period ends, and such a process is not considered as naskh...
It should be noted that naskh only occurs to divine commands and prohibitions. Naskh cannot occur to statements of fact, because such statements are either true or false, so to say that a previous report has been abrogated really means it was either a deliberate lie or an error, both of which may not be attributed to Allaah.21 Therefore, descriptions of Allaah’s attributes, the stories of the previous prophets and their peoples, parables and descriptions of the hereafter are all excluded from the category of naskh. 165-166”
DO YOU GET IT NOW? Uthman VIOLATED the conditions and ABROGATED THE MOST POSSIBLE QIRAAT THAT EVER EXISTED? He abrogated ALL Qiraat that would not fit into his CODEX violating the rules of ABROGATION.
Now I challenge you to show ANY companion during and post Mohammed’s death, who accepted ABROGATION OF RECITATION of verses containing facts, attributes, stories etc!
You also said:
“WHAT MATTERS is that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading must be inserted into the ‘Uthmanic codex in order for the codex to be considered perfectly preserved. We know this especially because as Ibn Hajar states in Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of “Exegesis of the Qur’an”, Chapter 442, Number 3966 that we have the Qur’anic recitation of this verse transmitted from Abu Darda and his reading matches that of Uthmani’s codex.”
This of course this fails to address the above post. I clearly pointed out he relinquished his reading based on pressure from the people of Sham, clearly showing evidence that his reading wasn’t abrogated. What we have then is a STATEMENT of fact MENTIONED in the Quran was LOST due to PRESSURE. It’s not even clear that this reading VIOLATED the codex of Uthman. Therefore we have DIRECT evidence that Darda’s lost recitation was human made, not even approved of by Uthman. Uthman was bad enough but not we have individual cases like this? So much for pretending the illegitimate cancellation by Uthman accounts for all the lost verses. This also violates Quran 15:9 and the divine promise of protection.
As I said elsewhere:
“According to the Quran:
15:9 “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.”
Now this is a passage in the very Quran itself. Presumably when it says it will protect itself it is not referring to one harf of itself, rather it’s complete self.
If it is referring to itself in the sense of the Quran as it stand s in heaven, then it is only referring to the heavenly Quran being protected, contradicting the Muslim view that the Quran they possess on earth is protected by Allah.
This also creates a divide; there is one Quran in heaven, and one Quran on earth. And only one is being protected.
However if we say that the verse “15:9” is referring to a singular harf then which harf is it referring to? And how we do know which one it means? Then of course this invokes the whole task of splitting the passages of the Quran to identify whether it’s referring to All of itself (all seven Ahruf) or parts of itself (one harf or another), this makes a shambles out of the Quran.
Of course this is even made further problematic by the problem that Shafaat has already pointed out earlier. The Quran makes no mention of these seven Ahruf at all. Which we would expect to since it does mention the clear and ambiguous passages, then we would expect it to reveal the other mysteries of itself.”
Here’s another question for you Zawadi.
How did God fail to protect the Quran from the number one destroyer and abrogator of all recitations, namely Uthman? Let’s assume you are right.
Uthman preserved as much of the Ahruf (modes) as the Mushaf would allow him to. The Ahruf that contained recitations that were not compatible were abrogated (including entire surahs and verses, with attributes of God, stories given by God, statements of fact etc) by Uthman.
Here’s another challenge"
Please give me a statement made by God or the Prophet, where both or one of them allowed exceptions, meaning ‘abrogation’s of recitations alone’. Show prove that Uthman or any other companion can abrogate recitations that contain attributes of God, stories of fact etc?
Show evidence that any Ahruf (and the recitations contained therein) are allowed to be abrogated. Note it is not good enough to quote “each harf is sufficient to read” for a particular group of people. Since that only demonstrates that the Ahruf were revealed for the purpose of easing reading for specific distinct groups, yet Uthman deliberately sabotaging the specific plan of God to have one harf for distinct groups shows again God failed. Nor does this hadith prove an entire HARF is the FULL AND COMPLETEL QURAN. As I mentioned this only makes more theological dilemmas with 15:9. But you also have to contend with the fact that no hadith supports your position. No hadith says “one harf is the Quran”. The hadith you recited supports my position that one harf is sufficient for reading, but never states that one harf is the Quran. Here let me add what I said to someone else:
“The tablet contains the Quran in all seven modes, the full Quran. But I don’t even need to use the example of the tablet. The clear unequivocal truth is that according to Islam the Quran is eternal, and it is not eternal in the sense that it was part of God’s foreknowledge, rather it is the literal kalema(word and speech) of God.
The eternal Quran consists of seven Ahruf which means the full Quran is only and can only be the Quran that has all seven Ahruf. This Quran was the very same Quran revealed by Gabriel to Mohammed, the very Quran that Uthman destroyed.
Now apart from the uninspired Uthman acting in treason (notice if a kufr destroyed a Quran it wouldn’t be acceptable), you also have to contend with the fact that Uthman destroyed the Eternal Speech of God. How is it possible an unchanging, eternal word of God can be abrogated and burnt by Uthman?
I’ll leave that one for your scholars. Since they can’t use the old canard “We gave the Jews the responsibility”, no they must account for the fact that the eternal word of God the Quran itself that cannot be changed, was actually destroyed by a Muslim.”
Similarly you have to interpret 15:9 for us. You have three choices. When God says he will protect the Quran does he mean 1) The tablet in heaven 2) The Quran as an attribute of God 3) The Quran revealed on earth? 4) or All three of them? And when you figured that out tell me… if he does mean he preserves the Quran revealed on earth, what Quran does he mean, does he mean, an earthly Quran that contains 1) All seven Ahruf 2) One Harf 3) Some of every Ahruf 4) Some parts of some Ahruf (1 ,2 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7)? Also let me know how many Qurans there are.
Now, here is the next challenge:
Please give me a statement where God or the prophet lay out the format of the preservation process of the Quran. Show evidence of God’s conception of his preservation of the Quran, and then prove that the companions of the prophet fulfilled these exact specifications.
You also said:
“We already know that Ibn Masud and others were pressured into letting go of their readings and accepting the Uthmanic codex.” And also said: “Instead what you are doing is showing that there were companions who were against Uthman’s decision to standardize the Qur’an (something we already know and concede) and that the Qur’an was revealed in different ahruf (something we already know and concede) and other facts already well known and accepted by the Muslim side. “
Yet if the companions were against his standardization and changed their minds afterward, we have to ask under WHAT GROUNDS WERE THEY AGAINST IT BEFORE HAND? And that’s because as I already said there were NO RANDOM verses of the Quran that COULD BE ABROGATED BY RECITATION. They had to be LAWS (before and after), and even the LAWS were not removed from the Quran according to Uthman and Umar themselves!.
The mere fact is, IF that they changed their mind and accepted the Uthmanic codex afterward then they are sell outs and become discredited to the original version of the Quran provided by God, the Angel and the Prophet.
Of course the evidence that they unanimously approved of the Uthmanic Codex is weak so that’s no problem.
But of course you try to respond to this problem, but your response ends up contradicting your former remarks, you said:
“- First of all, the Muslims in their theology were required to only obey the ruler if he didn’t order them to do something Islamically forbidden. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: There is no obedience to the creation if it constitutes disobedience to the Creator.” If the “Muslims even suspected that Uthman was ordering them to do something wrong, they wouldn’t have complied, just as Ibn Mas’ud INITIALLY did not .”
But this is exactly what you confirmed: ““Instead what you are doing is showing that there were companions who were against Uthman’s decision to standardize the Qur’an (something we already know and concede)”
So clearly your first criterion is false.
Your next criterion says:
“- Secondly, the Muslims wouldn’t only have not complied, but they would have argued back and fought against Uthman if they believed that he tampered with the Qur’an, since in Islam Muslims believe that if the Muslim ruler were to commit clear apostasy then he must be overthrown.”
It is not at all clear the Muslims didn’t argue with him in private. And at least in a few knowable cases in public. As you yourself concede.
You next say:
“- Thirdly, the very Muslims who were disputing with each other over the Qur’anic variations and then eventually agreed with Uthman’s decision are the very members of Uthman’s army himself! It is Uthman’s very army whom he was seeking to correct and needed their approval, therefore how could Uthman have used his army to force people to comply?”
The key word here is they EVENTUALLY AGREED with Uthman’s descion, despite the sedition. But yet it is not at all clear that we don’t have private and a few public battles.
“ Your friends Wood and Qureshi say that Ibn Masud went very very public with his objections.”
I think they were referring to Ibn Masud, but I’m sure we don’t agree on everything.
In response to me you say:
“He didn’t need to be omniscient. He’s saying what was public knowledge at the time. What was public knowledge at the time was that no one opposed Uthman’s codex. So what now? People need to be omniscient now to make these sort of claims?”
I don’t know how you deduced it was “public knowledge”. How could it possibly be public knowledge that not a SINGLE person disputed with Uthman even IN PRIVATE? This is an absolute claim and you need more compelling evidence.
“My criterion has to do with companions who believed that their reading MUST HAVE been included into the Qur’an and that their exclusion would resulted in a corrupt Qur’an. You haven’t shown this anywhere.”
Correct, I allege this criterion is in-falsifiable. But I also have pointed out the HUGE problems with this criterion, sine the companions believed everything they recited was apart of the Quran (including the ABROGATED by ruling) VERSES. The abrogation of reciting applied to ANY random verse of the Quran was not even a construct.
“ Instead, you are showing examples of companions who were upset that Uthman didn’t incorporate their harfs completely. But the Qur’an lacking all the harfs doesn’t mean that the Qur’an is considered corrupt in Islamic theology.“
This isn’t about Islamic Theology, this is about being objective, the two are not one you know?
The Quran LACKING any harf, however IS still problematic. As I’ve explained above. But surely you have applied no skepticism at all.
You said:
“Ohhhh…. Sooooooo now you are interested in asking me to abide by Islamic criteria huh? Yet, you don’t bother to apply them in other cases (like knowing the authenticity of a narration).”
Actually we haven’t disputed any narration. But I am not obligated to accept any Islamic criterion, you on the other hand MUST, it’s compulsory! A case of comparing apples and oranges.
Finally going back to the original issue:
“1)Show companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.”
Apart from the latter part being a bogus criterion. Meaning there was no thought of a “future preserved Quran for all generation” distinct from “the Quran they were reciting for their entire life”, this is ad hoc and false. Zawadi only makes this bogus distinction because he knows Uthman destroyed and abrogated as MUCH of the Ahruf that would not fit into his codex. Zawadi knows Uthman destroyed the Authentic Quran as revealed by God, the Angel and given by the Prophet and Uthman had no authority to do this whatsoever. But here is actually a more reasonable formulation of a legitimate falsification criterion:
“Show companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of Qur’an were lost.”And this has been proven over at AI:
“According to one report by the son of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, the present text of the Quran is incomplete since much of it has disappeared:
`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)
We find this same narration cited in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an:
Said Abu ‘Ubaid:
Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Ibn Warraq, Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book [Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 1998], Part Two: The Collections and the Variants of the Koran, 9. Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran, by Arthur Jeffery, p. 151: bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
The Shia apologists over at the Answering Ansar website have provided another source for this narrative along with its chain of transmitters, demonstrating that this is a reliable report:
One of the early Sunni scholars Qasim bin Salam (d. 222 H) records:حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم ، عن أيوب ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ، قال : « لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله ؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ، ولكن ليقل : قد أخذت منه ما ظهر منه
Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayub from Naf’ee from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Verily among you people one would say that he has found the Quran whilst he is unaware of what the total quantity of the Quran was, because most of the Quran has been lost. Rather one should say that verily he has found the Quran that has appeared.’
Ismail bin Ibrahim: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 1, p. 242), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1 p. 90). Ayub al-Sekhtiani: Dahabi said: ‘The master of scholars’ (Siar alam alnubala, vol. 6, p. 15), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt Hujja’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1, p. 116). Naf’ee: Dahabi said: ‘The Imam of Tabayeen’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 2, p. 315), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 2, p. 239). (Fadhail al-Quran by Qasim bin Salam, Volume 2 p. 135) (Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, Chapter Eight: Sunni reports about deletions from the Quran; underline emphasis ours
They also mention three other Sunni sources which quote this particular report from Abdullah ibn Umar:
Tafsir Dur e Manthur Volume 1, p. 106 Tafsir Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, p. 64. Tafsir Ruh al-Mani, Volume 1, p. 25.
Thus, according to Abdullah ibn Umar no Muslim can ever proclaim that he has found the complete Quran since much of it has been removed, lost, vanished, disappeared etc. http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/quran_lost.htmlIt is therefore indisputable. The Quran is in a complete mess. Zawadi can fix it up for us. But hey this amateur might not be worth responding to since I haven’t read as many books as Zawadi he can clear it all up, should be a fun read to watch him scramble and conjure up some kind of response. I highly value entertainment and cocky scholars like Zawadi who have no credentials in the topic but actually presume to think they are therefore superior?
The response to this could be found in the comments section over here http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/05/19/has-the-quran-been-perfectly-preserved/#comment-3297
ReplyDelete