DISCUSSION
DEREK ADAMS
Greetings Thinker1
Lets get you to do some "thinking" then, shall we?
You said: "Furthermore, i was dismayed to see that you placed little emphasis on the important fact that Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed in 7 different dialects and that, as such, Muhammad actually allowed certain variants in Quranic recitation (as mentioned in numerous hadith), the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman."
1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari[1] (And contradicted by nearly all scholars, more on this soon)
2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc.[2] Meaning, all variants, are actually just variants.
3) Even if those hadith permitting variation are authentic, you now created a further problem by your own admission: "the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman".
Uthman had neither permission from Allah, Gabriel nor Mohammed to tamper with the eternal Quran where Gabriel has specifically given orders to Mohammed to recite in seven ways to make it easier on the people. Unfortunately Uthman cannot abrogate the orders of Gabriel. Abrogations must meet certain criterion.[3]
But what makes this travesty rather absurd, is while Gabriel and Mohammed specifically give orders and permission to the various Muslims to recite in each way, Uthman realizes the exact opposite and observes the Ummah is about to fight like the Christians and Jews before them and directly contradicts the injunction of his Prophet and decides to standardize the reading and burn the rest[4], something prohibited by the messenger.
4) You failed to mention the facts about the seven ways of recital. Islamic Scholars have produced over 40 different assigned meanings and interpretations of the concept since Mohammed never gave an explicit narration defining what they were.
Ibn Sa'adan a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur'aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known only to Allah. Sheik Yasir Qadhi said: "it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."[5]
Of course apart from the problem with the authenticity, the problem with the ambiguous fabricated nature and speculation are all proof this hadith was most likely a fabrication aswell.
Later you say: "Those 7 dialects gave rise to the different readings “qiraat” that Muslims retain today"
Apart from your candid admission that Uthman reduced the seven ahruf, you then proceed to contradict yourself and say the readings gave rise to contemporary Qiraat.
Question: If Uthman reduced the ahruf, then how could there still exist over 10 Qiraat? But this isn't all. This is only the surviving Qiraat. You also have to contend with the fact that between 20-70 Qiraat existed in the Islamic 3rd-4th century, all of now which are obsolete and lost[6].
So even if you take the view that Uthman preserved some ahruf but not others, and you say those ahruf gave rise to 10 Qiraat, you then have to contend with the fact that nearly ALL of the Qiraat are now lost, thanks to your corrupted scholars who only preserved originally 7, and then 3 more. This of course also entails not only has Uthman reduces the Ahruf, but the scholars by losing the Qiraat have most likely lost more parts of the original Ahruf preserved by Uthman.
And yes this is a former-Christian missionary, Shamoun's very own apprentice. But since you can so easily refute the lies of the missionary, then how about you refute anything I've said. ;-)
Bibliography:
[1] http://islamqa.com/en/ref/5142
[2] http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm
[3] Bilal Philips, "Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur'aanic Explanation" PG 165-175
[4] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510
[5] http://answering-islam.org/PQ/notrevealed.htm
[6] http://islamqa.com/en/ref/5142
THINKER1
[PART 1/4]
Dear Derek,
I’m delighted that at least someone has finally attempted to refute my writings- and coming from “a former-Christian missionary, Shamoun's very own apprentice” no less, is very flattering.
However, I’m disappointed at how poor your attempt was.
It does nothing but vividly demonstrate an acute lack of understanding on the topic on your part (that is sadly all too common), so without further ado, allow me to dismantle your posts point by point:
You wrote:
<<< 1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari[1] (And contradicted by nearly all scholars, more on this soon) >>>
And what exactly is your definition of a “dialect’?
My definition of a dialect is that of Webster’s dictionary:
“ a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language” [1]
This definition is entirely consistent with the description of the ahruf that we see not only in the numerous hadiths on the topic narrated from Mohammed and his companions, but that are even represented in Quran manuscripts that date precisely to their time (i.e. the undertext of DAM 01-27-1).
What hadith and/or manuscripts can you present that show that “ahruf” does not equal your as yet unstated definition of “dialects”?
Your quoted reference [1] to reports in Bukhari shows no “direct contradiction” to this definition whatsoever, and the fact that you have failed to elaborate on that claim speaks volumes.
In fact, ironically, the above dictionary definition is also consistent with the definition of ‘ahruf’ given by Islamic scholars on your own reference!:
“...the wording may differ [i.e. vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation] but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction. “
[mine]
<< 2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc.[2] Meaning, all variants, are actually just variants. >>
This claim is even more desperate then it is fallacious.
The hadiths that state that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in 7 dialects are so numerous and well attested that even the very link you quoted in supposed opposition concedes this repeatedly:
“...an independent and probably authentic saying of the Prophet is used, that is, the saying that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf.”
“ The part that is common to these five ahadith is that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. This part is also found in most of the other ahadith we have discussed above and may well be authentic.”
“...the idea of there being seven ahruf is found in ahadith attributed to many companions”
Yet again, bizarrely, you have referenced me to a link that refutes the very point you are trying to make.
The misguided author of your link may have disputes regarding the meaning of these 7 revealed ahruf, yet, as stated above, the nature of the ahruf as being dialects is supported- not just by numerous hadith- but even confirmed in manuscripts dating to the very time of those companions!
What possible evidence do you have- or could you have- that even comes close to rivalling that?
[part 2/4]
You wrote:
<<<3) Even if those hadith permitting variation are authentic, you now created a further problem by your own admission: "the scope of which were then later narrowed down by Uthman".
Uthman had neither permission from Allah, Gabriel nor Mohammed to tamper with the eternal Quran where Gabriel has specifically given orders to Mohammed to recite in seven ways to make it easier on the people. Unfortunately Uthman cannot abrogate the orders of Gabriel. Abrogations must meet certain criterion.[3] >>>
Once more, we have an argument based on ignorance.
Muhammad clearly stated in numerous hadith- such as the one in your first reference that:
“...This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”
In other words, the purpose of revelation in 7 dialects was merely as an initial learning aid to the various Arab tribes of the day.
Muhammad did not command that people must learn or recite the Quran in ALL 7 ways, or in “each way”, nor that the Quran consists of all 7 ahruf combined.
The Quran is *ANY ONE* of the 7 ahruf, thus even if Uthman destroyed 6 ahruf (for example) and kept one, the Quran remains preserved.
And so long as Uthman’s actions preserved the Quran for future genrations, his duty to God and Muhammad is fulfilled, and his destruction of 1, 3, 4, or 6 other dialects constitutes nothing but a red-herring.
[part 3/4]
You wrote:
<<< 4) You failed to mention the facts about the seven ways of recital. Islamic Scholars have produced over 40 different assigned meanings and interpretations of the concept since Mohammed never gave an explicit narration defining what they were. >>
I did indeed fail to mention this, since i often neglect to mention arguments that are based on a statistical lie.
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of this subject will know that many of those alleged “40 different assigned meaning” were so similar they were in fact compatible with each other and equally valid.
The remainder were nonsensical and baseless opinions that were never taken seriously by Muslim scholars of past and present.
For example, your referenced site tries to pull this same trick and mentions as one supposed opinion on auruf that:
“Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.”
Unsurprisingly, the author gives no reference for this, so please can you name the Muslim scholar(s) with this view and his/her (their)reasoning behind it?
In fact since you’re so fond of this argument, please can you list me all 40 opinions- fully referenced of course- so we can see exactly how meaningful this claim is?
Or if that’s too hard for you, how about you list me just half of them at 20?
Or perhaps at least just 10? Many thanks in advance.
Yet again, the primary definition of ahruf as dialects consisting of the same Quran yet with different wordings, grammar and pronunciations in places has always been the primary definition of scholars, as is given in the hadith, and as is confirmed in manuscripts dating to the time of the companions.
Or do you have a better definition, Derek? If so, please provide your evidence.
Next you wrote:
<<< Later you say: "Those 7 dialects gave rise to the different readings “qiraat” that Muslims retain today"
Apart from your candid admission that Uthman reduced the seven ahruf, you then proceed to contradict yourself and say the readings gave rise to contemporary Qiraat.
Question: If Uthman reduced the ahruf, then how could there still exist over 10 Qiraat?]. >>
Answer: Because Uthman did not- nor did he ever intend to- eliminate all variant readings based on the different Auruf.
As Bukhari states, Uthman (via Zayd) intended only to write the Quran in the dialect of Qurash, so the vocabulary and spelling of Qurash was used throughout.
In places, this was done at the complete exclusion of others dialectal readings, however, since the vowelisation (dotting) was intentionally left off by Uthman, there are other places where alternative dialectal readings can still be read if different vowels are used (i.e. those readings that are still mainly consistent with the Qurashi wording/constanental text, as dialects do often overlap in certain respects.)
It is such alternative variant readings- based on Uthman’s Qurashi dialect- that largely define the different Qiraat today.
You wrote:
<< You also have to contend with the fact that between 20-70 Qiraat existed in the Islamic 3rd-4th century, all of now which are obsolete and lost[6] >>
As with your claim 3) this is nothing but a red-herring (assuming it’s even true)
Even if a million qiraat were lost in the 3/4th century, this does not touch the Muslim claim of Quranic preservation, since the Quran is not defined as the sum of every dialect or qiraat that has ever existed as you unfortunately seem to think it is.
If just ONE dialect and ONE qiraat of the Quran have been preserved from the mouth of Muhammed, then the Quran has been preserved, and the evidence that at least one has is historically overwhelming.
Finally, while i very much appreciate your posts Derek, i notice that neither you (nor anyone else) has addressed the central issue of this thread- namely Klingschor’s claim that the Quran was corrupted in the time of Abd-Malik and that this is shown by the Sana MSS and the Smarqkand MS that is the supposed “oldest Quran in the word’.
Since this is not your argument, i fully understand that you are not required to defend it, but, as men of truth, will you at least join me in saying that Klingschor should either refute my claims exposing his factual errors, or remove/amend his post/ video on the issue if he cannot?
Best Wishes,
Thinker1
Reference:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialect
DEREK ADAMS
Okay I really can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Let me make clear, if I don't see a rebuttal or a 'dismantling' in your next post, I will not be furthering this discussion.
This is for two reasons, firstly I am involved in many debates, I need people to actually focus and not waste time with semantics and red herrings and obsolete babble, secondly if you claim to dismantle something you need to substantiate this claim with evidence and fact. Now if you retract your comment that you have dismantled anything or if you actually begin to dismantle something, then we can continue. But there is no point in being arrogant unless you really have dismantled what you claim you have.
Your first point was to ask how I define a dialect, which is completely irrelevant to anything, since I am just using the English vernacular. We assume I define 'dialect' how we use the term in the English language, as this is the language we are corresponding in.
Now since I have to take this for you step by step: An acceptable definition was provided by Webster.
But since you still don't understand how this refutes you I will expose you again (at a level you can follow):
“ a REGIONAL VARIETY of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation FROM OTHER REGIONAL VARIETIES and constituting together with them a single language”
Now go back to the website, and reread the report and the conclusion made by the Sheik. Both are said to be of the same tribe (and hence the same region), meaning the differences uttered cannot be dialectical in nature.
Therefore the normative usage of the word 'dialect' does indeed contradict your understanding of ahruf provided by a report in Bukhari. It cannot be 'dialect'.
This is for two reasons, firstly I am involved in many debates, I need people to actually focus and not waste time with semantics and red herrings and obsolete babble, secondly if you claim to dismantle something you need to substantiate this claim with evidence and fact. Now if you retract your comment that you have dismantled anything or if you actually begin to dismantle something, then we can continue. But there is no point in being arrogant unless you really have dismantled what you claim you have.
Your first point was to ask how I define a dialect, which is completely irrelevant to anything, since I am just using the English vernacular. We assume I define 'dialect' how we use the term in the English language, as this is the language we are corresponding in.
Now since I have to take this for you step by step: An acceptable definition was provided by Webster.
But since you still don't understand how this refutes you I will expose you again (at a level you can follow):
“ a REGIONAL VARIETY of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation FROM OTHER REGIONAL VARIETIES and constituting together with them a single language”
Now go back to the website, and reread the report and the conclusion made by the Sheik. Both are said to be of the same tribe (and hence the same region), meaning the differences uttered cannot be dialectical in nature.
Therefore the normative usage of the word 'dialect' does indeed contradict your understanding of ahruf provided by a report in Bukhari. It cannot be 'dialect'.
You also claimed this definition of dialect was CONSISTENT with 'ahruf', apart from contradicting Bukhari, you failed to mention, 'ahruf' is consistent with many number of definitions so that is indeed ANOTHER read herring:
"1) an edge or border; this is the meaning in Qur`an 22:11;
2) a variation, this is the meaning which gives rise to the word tahrif, used in the Qur`an (2:75, 4:46. 5:13, 41);
3) a letter or a word."
You also failed to mention the meaning that you adhere to is NOT consistent with these reports as made clear by the Muslim Author Shafaat again says:
"1) The reliability of the ahadith about seven ahruf is far from being above doubt.
2) The identification of ahruf with variant readings is not supported by most of these ahadith.
3) Not all scholars, probably not even a majority of them, are in agreement with this identification of ahruf with variant readings."
In his article he even goes over the hadith and explains how your particular 'understanding of ahruf' (a variant reading) is contradicted by a number of reports and arguments.
Finally you decided to distort the Sheiks comments by injecting your own interpretation into his words and then adding it in brackets.
If you would have read further down the page you could see what he meant:
"Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction."
And:
"Fourthly:
It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect.
"1) an edge or border; this is the meaning in Qur`an 22:11;
2) a variation, this is the meaning which gives rise to the word tahrif, used in the Qur`an (2:75, 4:46. 5:13, 41);
3) a letter or a word."
You also failed to mention the meaning that you adhere to is NOT consistent with these reports as made clear by the Muslim Author Shafaat again says:
"1) The reliability of the ahadith about seven ahruf is far from being above doubt.
2) The identification of ahruf with variant readings is not supported by most of these ahadith.
3) Not all scholars, probably not even a majority of them, are in agreement with this identification of ahruf with variant readings."
In his article he even goes over the hadith and explains how your particular 'understanding of ahruf' (a variant reading) is contradicted by a number of reports and arguments.
Finally you decided to distort the Sheiks comments by injecting your own interpretation into his words and then adding it in brackets.
If you would have read further down the page you could see what he meant:
"Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction."
And:
"Fourthly:
It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect.
Next, after you fail to prove 'ahruf' means variant readings, you go on to selectively quote the website I reference and conclude the website refutes my claim, you also assert the website author only has a problem with the meaning of the ahruf.
What can I say to this? I mean this is the sort of stupidity that actually makes me want to stop writing here and now. Even the quotes you cited expose you:
“...an independent and PROBABLY AUTHENTIC saying of the Prophet is used, that is, the saying that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf.”
“ The part that is common to these five ahadith is that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. This part is also found in most of the other ahadith we have discussed above and MAY WELL BE authentic.”
Even after he states his own personal conclusion: "We conclude from the above discussion that in the ahadith about seven ahruf no words or actions attributed to the Prophet are authentic except PROBABLY the bare statement that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. "
The author goes on to say:
"This leads us to the question of the interpretation of ahruf. This question should be raised at two levels: what did the Holy Prophet mean when he said that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf, ASSUMING THE SAYING TO BE? And what do the ahadith mean by seven ahruf? At both levels the question is difficult to answer."
But apart from demonstrating the author is not certain about the authenticity of these narrations, you fail to fully put his perspective in context:
"If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that. Some have suggested that the written text of the Qur`an includes all seven ahruf so that reciting it once automatically implies reciting it in seven ahruf. But if this view is accepted, then there are really no acceptable variants in the Qur`an. It is also suggested that the last double reading abrogated the other six ahruf. There is also the view that the written Qur`an now includes only one of the seven ahruf while other six are transmitted orally. Such views have little explicit support from any of the ahadith."
And:
"The story about Ubayy and the unnamed companion(s), which is not found in Muwatta or Bukhari, has even less claim to authenticity than the story about ‘Umar and Hisham and for some of the same reasons. Ubayy [d. 29 H] belonged to the Ansar tribe of Khazraj. He was one of the first persons of Yathrib to accept Islam. He pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Aqabah around the tenth year of the prophetic ministry or three years before the Hijrah. As noted above during our discussion of the hadith about ‘Umar and Hisham, by this time we expect the idea that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf to be firmly established in the recitation of the Qur`an and to be well known. Moreover, the story talks of “the mosque”, which probably refers to the mosque in Madinah. That means it took place at least about three years after Ubayy’s conversion. By this time Ubayy had enough time to know that there were as many as seven ways to recite the Qur`an. But in the story he is completely surprised by the idea and even feels a denial in his heart for it."
What can I say to this? I mean this is the sort of stupidity that actually makes me want to stop writing here and now. Even the quotes you cited expose you:
“...an independent and PROBABLY AUTHENTIC saying of the Prophet is used, that is, the saying that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf.”
“ The part that is common to these five ahadith is that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. This part is also found in most of the other ahadith we have discussed above and MAY WELL BE authentic.”
Even after he states his own personal conclusion: "We conclude from the above discussion that in the ahadith about seven ahruf no words or actions attributed to the Prophet are authentic except PROBABLY the bare statement that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. "
The author goes on to say:
"This leads us to the question of the interpretation of ahruf. This question should be raised at two levels: what did the Holy Prophet mean when he said that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf, ASSUMING THE SAYING TO BE? And what do the ahadith mean by seven ahruf? At both levels the question is difficult to answer."
But apart from demonstrating the author is not certain about the authenticity of these narrations, you fail to fully put his perspective in context:
"If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that. Some have suggested that the written text of the Qur`an includes all seven ahruf so that reciting it once automatically implies reciting it in seven ahruf. But if this view is accepted, then there are really no acceptable variants in the Qur`an. It is also suggested that the last double reading abrogated the other six ahruf. There is also the view that the written Qur`an now includes only one of the seven ahruf while other six are transmitted orally. Such views have little explicit support from any of the ahadith."
And:
"The story about Ubayy and the unnamed companion(s), which is not found in Muwatta or Bukhari, has even less claim to authenticity than the story about ‘Umar and Hisham and for some of the same reasons. Ubayy [d. 29 H] belonged to the Ansar tribe of Khazraj. He was one of the first persons of Yathrib to accept Islam. He pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Aqabah around the tenth year of the prophetic ministry or three years before the Hijrah. As noted above during our discussion of the hadith about ‘Umar and Hisham, by this time we expect the idea that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf to be firmly established in the recitation of the Qur`an and to be well known. Moreover, the story talks of “the mosque”, which probably refers to the mosque in Madinah. That means it took place at least about three years after Ubayy’s conversion. By this time Ubayy had enough time to know that there were as many as seven ways to recite the Qur`an. But in the story he is completely surprised by the idea and even feels a denial in his heart for it."
You then go on to say:
"In other words, the purpose of revelation in 7 dialects was merely as an initial learning aid to the various Arab tribes of the day."
After quoting this: “...This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”"
:|
Recite it in the way EASIEST FOR YOU, means the Quran was specifically REVEALED directly to recite it in the easiest way for each person. Uthman cannot abrogate that "recite it in the easiest way for you" is a direct command.
As for the interpretive interpolation "an initial learning aid to various tribes", I laughed out loud. But since Muslims have to add to their sources to get away from brute facts that is when you know the dialogue ends. As for your final straw man about each person having to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS. I never made that argument. But thanks for the straw man, non-sequitor and red herring, three in one.
However you clearly did make a implied claim, each ahruf is THE COMPLETE QUR'AN. Now while each ahruf maybe fully sufficient for the reader adopting that harf, there is no single hadith narration that says each ahruf is the full essence of the Quran and for good reason to.
Even if there were that would be an impossible and logically fallacious claim to make. For several reasons. First, the ahruf cannot be *fully* the Quran to the exclusion of the other Ahruf. If you say the Ahruf is *the full and complete Quran* then you have conceded the other ahruf are not part of that fullness that constitutes the Quran. If you say "one ahruf is the fully what compromises the Quran" you leave out to the exclusion all the other ahruf.
Just like if you were to say "the box is fully empty" then there can be nothing else in that box. Unless of course you admit there is "another fully empty box" which means there is two boxes. In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.
"In other words, the purpose of revelation in 7 dialects was merely as an initial learning aid to the various Arab tribes of the day."
After quoting this: “...This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”"
:|
Recite it in the way EASIEST FOR YOU, means the Quran was specifically REVEALED directly to recite it in the easiest way for each person. Uthman cannot abrogate that "recite it in the easiest way for you" is a direct command.
As for the interpretive interpolation "an initial learning aid to various tribes", I laughed out loud. But since Muslims have to add to their sources to get away from brute facts that is when you know the dialogue ends. As for your final straw man about each person having to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS. I never made that argument. But thanks for the straw man, non-sequitor and red herring, three in one.
However you clearly did make a implied claim, each ahruf is THE COMPLETE QUR'AN. Now while each ahruf maybe fully sufficient for the reader adopting that harf, there is no single hadith narration that says each ahruf is the full essence of the Quran and for good reason to.
Even if there were that would be an impossible and logically fallacious claim to make. For several reasons. First, the ahruf cannot be *fully* the Quran to the exclusion of the other Ahruf. If you say the Ahruf is *the full and complete Quran* then you have conceded the other ahruf are not part of that fullness that constitutes the Quran. If you say "one ahruf is the fully what compromises the Quran" you leave out to the exclusion all the other ahruf.
Just like if you were to say "the box is fully empty" then there can be nothing else in that box. Unless of course you admit there is "another fully empty box" which means there is two boxes. In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.
The second and most obvious reason is that the full Quran is in the eternal tablet in heaven. All of the seven ahruf constitute this Quran, this is the full and identical word of God. Meaning lets say if one harf was missing from this tablet, then this could no longer be the Quran, similarly if one harf was missing on the heavenly "revealed" Quran on earth, it could no longer be the full Quran.
Later you say: "Even if a million qiraat were lost in the 3/4th century, this does not touch the Muslim claim of Quranic preservation, since the Quran is not defined as the sum of every dialect or qiraat that has ever existed as you unfortunately seem to think it is." And: "If just ONE dialect and ONE qiraat of the Quran have been preserved from the mouth of Mohammed, then the Quran has been preserved, and the evidence that at least one has is historically overwhelming."
Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.
So now lets re-look at the facts like you ought to have refuted the first time
1) The Angel and the Prophet both give a command "recite in the way easiest for you". The command is then abrogated by Uthman contradicting the will of God, the angel and the prophet. And contradicting the rules of Abrogation as mentioned by Muslim Scholar Bilal Philips.
2) No hadith says "each harf is the FULL Quran"
3) If any hadith did say that, we can see this is a logically fallcious claim and of course incompatible with what Islamic theology says about the 'real' Quran
Later you go on to say: "Anyone with even a basic knowledge of this subject will know that many of those alleged “40 different assigned meaning” were so similar they were in fact compatible with each other and equally valid."
However you also say: "In fact since you’re so fond of this argument, please can you list me all 40 opinions- fully referenced of course- so we can see exactly how meaningful this claim is?"
Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..
Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed), and have shown about four already. These four are all distinct views, the scholars who have read the opinions seem to think they are actually differing opinions. Which is good enough for me since all of the opinions I have read so far are distinct, and believe the rest are according to scholars who have read them.
Later you say: "Even if a million qiraat were lost in the 3/4th century, this does not touch the Muslim claim of Quranic preservation, since the Quran is not defined as the sum of every dialect or qiraat that has ever existed as you unfortunately seem to think it is." And: "If just ONE dialect and ONE qiraat of the Quran have been preserved from the mouth of Mohammed, then the Quran has been preserved, and the evidence that at least one has is historically overwhelming."
Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.
So now lets re-look at the facts like you ought to have refuted the first time
1) The Angel and the Prophet both give a command "recite in the way easiest for you". The command is then abrogated by Uthman contradicting the will of God, the angel and the prophet. And contradicting the rules of Abrogation as mentioned by Muslim Scholar Bilal Philips.
2) No hadith says "each harf is the FULL Quran"
3) If any hadith did say that, we can see this is a logically fallcious claim and of course incompatible with what Islamic theology says about the 'real' Quran
Later you go on to say: "Anyone with even a basic knowledge of this subject will know that many of those alleged “40 different assigned meaning” were so similar they were in fact compatible with each other and equally valid."
However you also say: "In fact since you’re so fond of this argument, please can you list me all 40 opinions- fully referenced of course- so we can see exactly how meaningful this claim is?"
Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..
Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed), and have shown about four already. These four are all distinct views, the scholars who have read the opinions seem to think they are actually differing opinions. Which is good enough for me since all of the opinions I have read so far are distinct, and believe the rest are according to scholars who have read them.
Now lets go back and look at the original facts I posted:
1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)
2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)
3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)
4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact)
5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.")
6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]
[1]Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi Chapter 11 of An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, pp. 184-202 (1999), Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. Under the title ""The Other Types of Qira'aat"
1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)
2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)
3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)
4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact)
5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.")
6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]
[1]Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi Chapter 11 of An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, pp. 184-202 (1999), Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. Under the title ""The Other Types of Qira'aat"
Thinker1 here is some last observations you ought to think about. As you surely have the capacity to "think".
Firstly. You ought to know better than to misrepresent Shafaat like that, you should accurately be able to detect what arguments I am deriving from the source and why I am using them. You know better than that.
Second, I have caught you in at least two red herrings and two straw man. Make sure to actually adequately read what you are trying to refute as this is time wasting.
The final and most IMPORTANT observation.
Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:
"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence"
Now apart from this claim being completely false. As exposed by the Quran and Bukhari which both assert the Quran was revealed in a tongue to Qurashi, one singular tongue. And then you have the dubious nature of all of the ahruf reports in general (And that's being nice because I haven't even challenged the collection of Bukhari, Muslim and Malik yet).
You also have to think about the other side.
"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text"
Like you, the Christians also have a very unique criterion that they try to make unfalsifiable.
Of course the most important issue is to realize anyone can define their position into existence, and that's exactly what you have done. You have defined the 'ahruf' as you see fit in order to make sure the Quran has not been falsified, and that is the most circular method of all. You also have failed to even call into question the ahruf hadith (and dispute the objections made by Shaafaat), and you also failed to mention why Mohammed forgot to tell Umar for 16 years, and why the earliest source in Muslim history makes no reference to this post-ad hoc explanation of variants.
Follow facts, don't assume your conclusion.
Firstly. You ought to know better than to misrepresent Shafaat like that, you should accurately be able to detect what arguments I am deriving from the source and why I am using them. You know better than that.
Second, I have caught you in at least two red herrings and two straw man. Make sure to actually adequately read what you are trying to refute as this is time wasting.
The final and most IMPORTANT observation.
Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:
"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence"
Now apart from this claim being completely false. As exposed by the Quran and Bukhari which both assert the Quran was revealed in a tongue to Qurashi, one singular tongue. And then you have the dubious nature of all of the ahruf reports in general (And that's being nice because I haven't even challenged the collection of Bukhari, Muslim and Malik yet).
You also have to think about the other side.
"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text"
Like you, the Christians also have a very unique criterion that they try to make unfalsifiable.
Of course the most important issue is to realize anyone can define their position into existence, and that's exactly what you have done. You have defined the 'ahruf' as you see fit in order to make sure the Quran has not been falsified, and that is the most circular method of all. You also have failed to even call into question the ahruf hadith (and dispute the objections made by Shaafaat), and you also failed to mention why Mohammed forgot to tell Umar for 16 years, and why the earliest source in Muslim history makes no reference to this post-ad hoc explanation of variants.
Follow facts, don't assume your conclusion.
THINKER1
Derek,
Please find all your points (1-6), along with your conclusion, refuted below.
Since you probably won’t be responding, it’s been nice chatting:
***POINT 1***
<< 1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)>>
This argument is so weak that it is refuted by just 3 words in the famous “Uthman compilation” hadith, also from Bukhari:
“...write it in the *DIALECT OF QURASH*..” [Arabic: harf al-Quarsh]
These words prove that the seven ahruf were in fact defined along tribal lines- and hence regional lines- otherwise the term “dialect *OF QURASH*” would have no meaning.
As for the other Bukhari narration that two Qurahsi’s were disagreeing on how to recite Surat Furquan, are you seriously suggesting that every Arab MUST have learnt every sura in their own dialect- without A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTION?
Are you seriously suggesting that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the Qurashi Ibn Hakeem could have been taught the Quran- or even just that one sura- from a non-Qurashi?
While i obviously agree that most Arab would have learnt the Quran in their own dialect, Islam bought together many Arabs from many tribes, so for you to say that there could NEVER be a SINGLE EXAMPLE of inter-tribal Quran teaching OF A SINGLE SURA is an absurdly weak assumption on your part.
In conclusion, while i have an EXPLICILT STATEMENT from Bukhari proving that Arhruf= regional dialects (i.e. “dialect of Qurash”), you have nothing but a weak assumption to the contrary (i.e that ALL Arabs CAN ONLY learn EVERY SURA in their own dialect).
Now on what planet does “weak assumption” from Bukhari trump “explicit statement” in Bukhari?
Please find all your points (1-6), along with your conclusion, refuted below.
Since you probably won’t be responding, it’s been nice chatting:
***POINT 1***
<< 1) The seven ahruf are not dialects. That is directly contradicted by a report in Bukhari (This remains to be true, even with our agreed upon definition of 'dialect', a definition you over looked)>>
This argument is so weak that it is refuted by just 3 words in the famous “Uthman compilation” hadith, also from Bukhari:
“...write it in the *DIALECT OF QURASH*..” [Arabic: harf al-Quarsh]
These words prove that the seven ahruf were in fact defined along tribal lines- and hence regional lines- otherwise the term “dialect *OF QURASH*” would have no meaning.
As for the other Bukhari narration that two Qurahsi’s were disagreeing on how to recite Surat Furquan, are you seriously suggesting that every Arab MUST have learnt every sura in their own dialect- without A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTION?
Are you seriously suggesting that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the Qurashi Ibn Hakeem could have been taught the Quran- or even just that one sura- from a non-Qurashi?
While i obviously agree that most Arab would have learnt the Quran in their own dialect, Islam bought together many Arabs from many tribes, so for you to say that there could NEVER be a SINGLE EXAMPLE of inter-tribal Quran teaching OF A SINGLE SURA is an absurdly weak assumption on your part.
In conclusion, while i have an EXPLICILT STATEMENT from Bukhari proving that Arhruf= regional dialects (i.e. “dialect of Qurash”), you have nothing but a weak assumption to the contrary (i.e that ALL Arabs CAN ONLY learn EVERY SURA in their own dialect).
Now on what planet does “weak assumption” from Bukhari trump “explicit statement” in Bukhari?
***POINT 2***
<<<2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)>>>
Here you claim that i “selectively quote” your website and that in doing so “even the quotes you cited expose you”.
Really Derek??
Well let’s compare the exact words of your claim with the exact words of your favourite website on these hadith and see who really ends up exposed..
You describe the hadith on the 7 ahruf as: “dubious and probably ad hoc”
My quote reveals that the author’s actual view on those hadith is: “probably authentic”
On what planet does “dubious” = “probably authentic”?
Do you even know what the word “dubious” means, or do i need to link you to our favourite Webster’s dictionary again?
And on what planet does the author’s “probably authentic” = your “probably ad hoc”?
I think this transcends the realms of “stupidity” into retardation.
As for the authors so called “key arguments” that you are so mesmerised by, let’s take a closer look:
<<“ It is related from Abu Hurayrah: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur`an with the Prophet once a year....
If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that.”>>
“no indication” of that? Is that all?
And where does that same hadith provide any “indication” that Gabrial was reciting the Quran every year in strictly ONE dialect?
None whatsoever, so all you have here is a fallacious argument from silence.
The bottom line is that this particular hadith says NOTHING on the issue either way, however, we know from NUMEROUS other hadith narrated from (according to the author) “many companions” that are “probably authentic” that Gabrial DID previously recited the Quran in 7 dialects, so why assume that this time was any different?
Most logically, it was the same rather than not.
Furthermore, in your extreme bias, it seems you have been completely fooled by the obscene hypocrisy of the author’s logic here.
He (supposedly) expects us to reject ALL the hadith on the 7 dialects -even though they are “probably authentic” and “narrated from at least ten companions” because:
“No single form of the hadith goes back to more than a few companions. We need therefore to examine the authenticity of each form separately.”
But if that’s the case, how many companions narrated THIS hadith on Gabrial reciting the quran every year?
How many different companions narrated his “Ubayy and his unnamed companions” hadith?
Why doesn’t he reject THOSE two hadith on the same criteria, instead of the dozens on the 7 ahruf??
This is nothing but a gross double-standard where the bar of evidence is kept stringently sky-high for ALL the ‘7 ahruf’ hadith, but kept down in the gutter for any single hadith that APPEARS to go against them.
What a laughable nonsense.
Finally, you then ignore the manuscript evidence (that the author was oblivious to) which i find dishonest, but understandable.
As i told you repeatedly the type of variants attributed to the different pre-Uthmanic dialects in the hadith are of the exact same nature of those variants found in the undertext of DAM 01.27.1 that has been carbon-14 dated to around the time of Uthman.
Those variants were then destroyed and written over with the Uthmanic text we have today- just as the hadith state they were.
This is manuscript **PROOF** that such hadith on the
existence, nature and fate of the 7 dialects are emphatically vindicated and proved historically accurate.
And yet you still deny their authenticity??
<<<2) The hadith to which you refer to where Gabriel and Mohammed are allowing variation are dubious and probably ad hoc. (this is also argued well by the website I listed, where as you isolated his quotes, I have now put them in context, remember to address his key arguments)>>>
Here you claim that i “selectively quote” your website and that in doing so “even the quotes you cited expose you”.
Really Derek??
Well let’s compare the exact words of your claim with the exact words of your favourite website on these hadith and see who really ends up exposed..
You describe the hadith on the 7 ahruf as: “dubious and probably ad hoc”
My quote reveals that the author’s actual view on those hadith is: “probably authentic”
On what planet does “dubious” = “probably authentic”?
Do you even know what the word “dubious” means, or do i need to link you to our favourite Webster’s dictionary again?
And on what planet does the author’s “probably authentic” = your “probably ad hoc”?
I think this transcends the realms of “stupidity” into retardation.
As for the authors so called “key arguments” that you are so mesmerised by, let’s take a closer look:
<<“ It is related from Abu Hurayrah: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur`an with the Prophet once a year....
If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that.”>>
“no indication” of that? Is that all?
And where does that same hadith provide any “indication” that Gabrial was reciting the Quran every year in strictly ONE dialect?
None whatsoever, so all you have here is a fallacious argument from silence.
The bottom line is that this particular hadith says NOTHING on the issue either way, however, we know from NUMEROUS other hadith narrated from (according to the author) “many companions” that are “probably authentic” that Gabrial DID previously recited the Quran in 7 dialects, so why assume that this time was any different?
Most logically, it was the same rather than not.
Furthermore, in your extreme bias, it seems you have been completely fooled by the obscene hypocrisy of the author’s logic here.
He (supposedly) expects us to reject ALL the hadith on the 7 dialects -even though they are “probably authentic” and “narrated from at least ten companions” because:
“No single form of the hadith goes back to more than a few companions. We need therefore to examine the authenticity of each form separately.”
But if that’s the case, how many companions narrated THIS hadith on Gabrial reciting the quran every year?
How many different companions narrated his “Ubayy and his unnamed companions” hadith?
Why doesn’t he reject THOSE two hadith on the same criteria, instead of the dozens on the 7 ahruf??
This is nothing but a gross double-standard where the bar of evidence is kept stringently sky-high for ALL the ‘7 ahruf’ hadith, but kept down in the gutter for any single hadith that APPEARS to go against them.
What a laughable nonsense.
Finally, you then ignore the manuscript evidence (that the author was oblivious to) which i find dishonest, but understandable.
As i told you repeatedly the type of variants attributed to the different pre-Uthmanic dialects in the hadith are of the exact same nature of those variants found in the undertext of DAM 01.27.1 that has been carbon-14 dated to around the time of Uthman.
Those variants were then destroyed and written over with the Uthmanic text we have today- just as the hadith state they were.
This is manuscript **PROOF** that such hadith on the
existence, nature and fate of the 7 dialects are emphatically vindicated and proved historically accurate.
And yet you still deny their authenticity??
***PONIT 3***
<<<3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)>>
This is where we observe an impressive trinity of ignorance, confusion desperation on your part.
First to your confusion: You accuse me of a straw-man for allegedly claiming that you argued that “each person has to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS,” but then you state:
“No hadith says each harf is the FULL Quran"
So what exactly are you claiming then? Please make up your mind.
If any one harf is NOT the full Quran, then this can only imply that ALL 7 ahruf are the “full Quran”, yet you deny both!
What do you believe, and where is YOUR hadith to back that up?
The only question at hand here is: What constitutes ‘the Quran’ in terms of the 7 ahruf?
This is made explicit with the hadith which you are clearly ignorant of:
...Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in WHICHEVER DIALECT they recite, THEY WILL BE CORRECT.
(Muslim no.1787)
This clearly states (as i said) that every and any one dialect is the FULL QURAN, yet you object in saying:
<<"In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.">
Finally we see your desperation in all its glory.
If you want to say its “seven Qurans” as opposed to seven dialects of the same Quran, then go ahead. That’s just childish semantics that i have no time for.
Either way as long as one dialect or “one quran” has been preserved, then the Quran has been preserved, and that is all that matters rather than your red-herring of how you choose to label things.
As for Uthman not having divine permission to reduce the scope of dialectal variants, Ok, let me concede that argument to you and we’ll see where that gets you:
Uthman had no right to destroy the other dialects, and he’s and bad, bad man who committed a bad, bad sin, for which i’m sure Allah will punish him.
So now what?
How does that admission show that the Quran of Uthman we have today is not a Quran Muhammad would consider correct?
Again, since Muhammad explicitly said Muslims can recite in “whichever dialect” and “STILL BE CORRECT”, this proves that Uthman’s destruction of other dialects has no bearing on Quranic preservation- so long as just ONE harf survived.
And both oral and manuscript evidence scream that it did.
<"The second and most obvious reason is that the full Quran is in the eternal tablet in heaven">>>
Once more we have an argument from ignorance.
Please go and read the hadith and you will see that the tablet is not just about the Quran, but a record of every event and detail of human destiny, thus containing all aspects of the Quran and all books whether preserved on earth or not.
<<<3) Uthman without divine permission abrogates entire ahruf of the Quran caused by a close to all out warfare in the Muslim community, a human reaction contradicting the original divine instruction. (Still an unrefuted fact)>>
This is where we observe an impressive trinity of ignorance, confusion desperation on your part.
First to your confusion: You accuse me of a straw-man for allegedly claiming that you argued that “each person has to recite ALL SEVEN WAYS,” but then you state:
“No hadith says each harf is the FULL Quran"
So what exactly are you claiming then? Please make up your mind.
If any one harf is NOT the full Quran, then this can only imply that ALL 7 ahruf are the “full Quran”, yet you deny both!
What do you believe, and where is YOUR hadith to back that up?
The only question at hand here is: What constitutes ‘the Quran’ in terms of the 7 ahruf?
This is made explicit with the hadith which you are clearly ignorant of:
...Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in WHICHEVER DIALECT they recite, THEY WILL BE CORRECT.
(Muslim no.1787)
This clearly states (as i said) that every and any one dialect is the FULL QURAN, yet you object in saying:
<<"In your case if you say the first harf is the full Quran, and the second harf is the full Quran, and so forth, then you have a total of seven Qur'ans.">
Finally we see your desperation in all its glory.
If you want to say its “seven Qurans” as opposed to seven dialects of the same Quran, then go ahead. That’s just childish semantics that i have no time for.
Either way as long as one dialect or “one quran” has been preserved, then the Quran has been preserved, and that is all that matters rather than your red-herring of how you choose to label things.
As for Uthman not having divine permission to reduce the scope of dialectal variants, Ok, let me concede that argument to you and we’ll see where that gets you:
Uthman had no right to destroy the other dialects, and he’s and bad, bad man who committed a bad, bad sin, for which i’m sure Allah will punish him.
So now what?
How does that admission show that the Quran of Uthman we have today is not a Quran Muhammad would consider correct?
Again, since Muhammad explicitly said Muslims can recite in “whichever dialect” and “STILL BE CORRECT”, this proves that Uthman’s destruction of other dialects has no bearing on Quranic preservation- so long as just ONE harf survived.
And both oral and manuscript evidence scream that it did.
<"The second and most obvious reason is that the full Quran is in the eternal tablet in heaven">>>
Once more we have an argument from ignorance.
Please go and read the hadith and you will see that the tablet is not just about the Quran, but a record of every event and detail of human destiny, thus containing all aspects of the Quran and all books whether preserved on earth or not.
***PONIT 4***
<<<4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact) >>>
I already refuted that in relation to point 3).
Even if other Qiraat were lost after Uthman in the “3/4th century”, so long as ONE harf and ONE qiraat are preserved from Muhammed, the Quran is preserved, so this is a red-herring.
Your only response was:
“Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.”
Which ironically, only shows how desperate YOU really are in giving no meaningful rebuttal.
However, despite your lack of any mature response on this, allow me to refute this even further- even though you have yet to provide any credible evidence for this “undisputed fact”.
The claim that some Qiraat we destroyed in 3/4th century (i.e. 9th /10th century CE), is beyond ignorant since there are literally HUNDRENDS of Quran manuscripts from the 7th/8th century that essentially conform to the current text.
So please can you point to any such 7th/8th CE manuscript of your choice and tell me the qiraat of any verse you think was destroyed in the 9th/10th century, along with your evidence?
Many thanks..
In fact, just to educate you further on this, there are even c.7th century MSS were its qiraat can be identified (dispite its lack of vowels), such as Arabe 328a in Paris which is in the canonical reading of ibn Amir (as opposed to the most common Haf of today).
Other c.7th century MSS like Or. 2165 in London are reckoned to be in the non-canonical reading of Himsi, thus proving that we know what kind of qiraat may have been destroyed in the 3/4th century, just like we know what kind of variants were destroyed by Uthman via DAM 01-27-1.
In both cases, sadly for people like you, the nature of destryoed varients are very unspectacular.
<<<4) Apart from Uthman destroying many ahruf, many of the Qiraat derived from these parts of the remaining destroyed ahruf were themselves lost since corrupt Muslim scholars only preserved certain Qiraat. (undisputed fact) >>>
I already refuted that in relation to point 3).
Even if other Qiraat were lost after Uthman in the “3/4th century”, so long as ONE harf and ONE qiraat are preserved from Muhammed, the Quran is preserved, so this is a red-herring.
Your only response was:
“Thank you for conceding how desperate you really are.”
Which ironically, only shows how desperate YOU really are in giving no meaningful rebuttal.
However, despite your lack of any mature response on this, allow me to refute this even further- even though you have yet to provide any credible evidence for this “undisputed fact”.
The claim that some Qiraat we destroyed in 3/4th century (i.e. 9th /10th century CE), is beyond ignorant since there are literally HUNDRENDS of Quran manuscripts from the 7th/8th century that essentially conform to the current text.
So please can you point to any such 7th/8th CE manuscript of your choice and tell me the qiraat of any verse you think was destroyed in the 9th/10th century, along with your evidence?
Many thanks..
In fact, just to educate you further on this, there are even c.7th century MSS were its qiraat can be identified (dispite its lack of vowels), such as Arabe 328a in Paris which is in the canonical reading of ibn Amir (as opposed to the most common Haf of today).
Other c.7th century MSS like Or. 2165 in London are reckoned to be in the non-canonical reading of Himsi, thus proving that we know what kind of qiraat may have been destroyed in the 3/4th century, just like we know what kind of variants were destroyed by Uthman via DAM 01-27-1.
In both cases, sadly for people like you, the nature of destryoed varients are very unspectacular.
***POINT 5***
<<< 5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.") >>>
As mentioned in my refutation of your point 1) the words “dialect of Qurash” that you quote ironically demolishes your entire argument that the ahruf are not regional dialects.
Uthman’s words of “revealed in their tough” does not mean the Quran was ONLY revealed in the Qurashi dialect, but simply that it was ORGINALLY revealed to Muhammad in that dialect, since that was his own.
This is explicitly stated in the hadith on that issue that explain how Gabriel first revealed the Quran in one dialect (i.e. the Qurashi of Muhammed), and only later added more dialects upon Muhammad’s plea that “my **NATION/PEOPLE** are not capable of this”
The mention of “nation/people” shows how Muhammad was considering all Arabs, and hence all regions- hence the need for more DIALECTS.
Furthermore, if you read that hadith properly, the whole purpose of Uthman selecting the “dialect of Qurash” was to settle the differences in recitation between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq who were taught by Ubyy ibn Ka’b (from the tribe of Khrazja) and Ibn Masuud (Thaqif tribe)
respectively, hence yet further proof that the differences in recitation were due to REGIONAL differences, and hence dialects.
[Point 5 cont below]
<<< 5) There are over 40 different meanings, and these meanings cannot be substantiated (as the author Shafaat pointed out and I noticed you yourself did not refute, or even rebut the hadith exposing your own particular view point, but I will provide you with another that I had already listed: "'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE.") >>>
As mentioned in my refutation of your point 1) the words “dialect of Qurash” that you quote ironically demolishes your entire argument that the ahruf are not regional dialects.
Uthman’s words of “revealed in their tough” does not mean the Quran was ONLY revealed in the Qurashi dialect, but simply that it was ORGINALLY revealed to Muhammad in that dialect, since that was his own.
This is explicitly stated in the hadith on that issue that explain how Gabriel first revealed the Quran in one dialect (i.e. the Qurashi of Muhammed), and only later added more dialects upon Muhammad’s plea that “my **NATION/PEOPLE** are not capable of this”
The mention of “nation/people” shows how Muhammad was considering all Arabs, and hence all regions- hence the need for more DIALECTS.
Furthermore, if you read that hadith properly, the whole purpose of Uthman selecting the “dialect of Qurash” was to settle the differences in recitation between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq who were taught by Ubyy ibn Ka’b (from the tribe of Khrazja) and Ibn Masuud (Thaqif tribe)
respectively, hence yet further proof that the differences in recitation were due to REGIONAL differences, and hence dialects.
[Point 5 cont below]
On my challenging you to list the so-called "40 opinions" you wrote:
<<"Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..">>>
Of course i haven’t read the “40 opinions” because i can’t read what doesn’t exist- hence my reference to them as the *ALLEDGED* 40 opinions (if you were paying attention).
My claim that many of the alleged ‘40 opinions’ would be compatible (if they existed) is based on the fact that this is true of the multiple 10 or so opinions i do know of.
YOU are the one who claimed there **ARE** 40 opinions, so you are the one who now looks like a dishonest “ignoramus” for not being able to back up even half that number!
In fact, having been embarrassingly exposed, you are now forced to admit:
<<<"Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed)">>>
So you claimed 40, but have only read “about ten”!! And it gets worse...
The “about 10” are actually 8, mentioned on your Shafaat site as (I-VIII) ,since all these 8 encompass the other few definitions on the QA site.
Now of those 8, the very first shaaft mentions is (surprise, surprise!) my favoured opinion of:
“Ahruf means dialects”, a view he even describes as “most plausible”
This now leaves just 7 opposing opinions which are:
1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an
2) Ahruf means synonyms
3) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,
4) Ahruf means different ways of pronunciation
5) Ahruf means variant readings
6) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.
7) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood.
However opinions 2), 4) and 5) are all compatible with the favoured ‘dialects’ opinion, which is precisely what i was saying.
This now only leaves just 4 opposing opinions of:
1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an
2) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,
3) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.
4) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood
Options 1) and 3) have no reference to them whatsoever, and are both nameless and baseless.
I even asked you to provide a reference/evidence for 3), and you predictably failed.
Opinion 2) is based solely on narrations from Tabari which are almost certainly weak, as he even admits in his intro.
Please can you provide their full isnads so we can securitize them to the same high standard that Shaaft tried to do with the “7 dialects” hadith in his paper??
I’m afraid I will need to see a “single form that goes back to more than a few companions” ;-)
This thus leaves just TWO opinions (DOWN FROM 40!) of :
1) Ahruf = dialects (and the other opinions that encompasses)
2)The meaning cannot be understood.
Now given all the evidence from the hadith, CONTEMPARY MANUSCRIPTS, and scholars, i would say we CAN know what ahruf mean, and that excludes option 2) .
This was always the most obvious meaning, yet people like you try to deceptively cast doubt on that with lies of “40 opinions”. Shame on you.
As for scholarly support, you wrote:
<< So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect. >>
But different dialects would include “different words, synonyms” etc!
So the only dispute between me and the sheik is on the ORIGIN of those differences (i.e. from different regions of not?), not on the NATURE of the ahruf which we agree.
I say the word differences are regional (with all my evidence), he says they are not. That issue is largely irrelevant.
<<"Which means you haven't read the 40 differing opinions, which means you actually are an ignoramus and don't know how close or compatible the opinions actually are while appealing to basic knowledge you can't substantiate..">>>
Of course i haven’t read the “40 opinions” because i can’t read what doesn’t exist- hence my reference to them as the *ALLEDGED* 40 opinions (if you were paying attention).
My claim that many of the alleged ‘40 opinions’ would be compatible (if they existed) is based on the fact that this is true of the multiple 10 or so opinions i do know of.
YOU are the one who claimed there **ARE** 40 opinions, so you are the one who now looks like a dishonest “ignoramus” for not being able to back up even half that number!
In fact, having been embarrassingly exposed, you are now forced to admit:
<<<"Now as for me I've only read about ten opinions (provided on the sites i listed)">>>
So you claimed 40, but have only read “about ten”!! And it gets worse...
The “about 10” are actually 8, mentioned on your Shafaat site as (I-VIII) ,since all these 8 encompass the other few definitions on the QA site.
Now of those 8, the very first shaaft mentions is (surprise, surprise!) my favoured opinion of:
“Ahruf means dialects”, a view he even describes as “most plausible”
This now leaves just 7 opposing opinions which are:
1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an
2) Ahruf means synonyms
3) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,
4) Ahruf means different ways of pronunciation
5) Ahruf means variant readings
6) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.
7) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood.
However opinions 2), 4) and 5) are all compatible with the favoured ‘dialects’ opinion, which is precisely what i was saying.
This now only leaves just 4 opposing opinions of:
1) Ahruf means languages in the Qur`an
2) Ahruf means different types of teachings in the Qur`an,
3) Ahruf means seven Qur`an codices compiled by seven companions listed as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, Ubayy and Ibn ‘Abbas.
4) The meaning of ahruf cannot be understood
Options 1) and 3) have no reference to them whatsoever, and are both nameless and baseless.
I even asked you to provide a reference/evidence for 3), and you predictably failed.
Opinion 2) is based solely on narrations from Tabari which are almost certainly weak, as he even admits in his intro.
Please can you provide their full isnads so we can securitize them to the same high standard that Shaaft tried to do with the “7 dialects” hadith in his paper??
I’m afraid I will need to see a “single form that goes back to more than a few companions” ;-)
This thus leaves just TWO opinions (DOWN FROM 40!) of :
1) Ahruf = dialects (and the other opinions that encompasses)
2)The meaning cannot be understood.
Now given all the evidence from the hadith, CONTEMPARY MANUSCRIPTS, and scholars, i would say we CAN know what ahruf mean, and that excludes option 2) .
This was always the most obvious meaning, yet people like you try to deceptively cast doubt on that with lies of “40 opinions”. Shame on you.
As for scholarly support, you wrote:
<< So while the sheik rejects the dialect view, he clearly sees different Arabic words each convey the same meaning, a synonym, not a dialect. >>
But different dialects would include “different words, synonyms” etc!
So the only dispute between me and the sheik is on the ORIGIN of those differences (i.e. from different regions of not?), not on the NATURE of the ahruf which we agree.
I say the word differences are regional (with all my evidence), he says they are not. That issue is largely irrelevant.
***POINT 6***
<<6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]>>
No one disputes there have existed fake qiraat, and no one disputes there have existed genuine qiraat that no longer exist (i.e. from the other ahruf).
The bottom line is that Muslims have an oral tradition AND manuscript tradition that both go back to the eyewitness and very companions of Muhammad himself, and that’s how we know Muhammed would agree with every word of today’s Quran.
That’s also why none of the thousands of MSS that exist from that time till today contain any serious or intentional variants worth talking about.
<<6) It is still unexplained how Uthmanic revised ahruf(even leaving open vowel marks) could account for all of the Qiraat that have existed. This also doesn't explain the Qiraat that exist in the hadith that are compatible with the Arabic rules of grammar, they are have an authentic report leading to a companion and the prophet, yet they still make their own recitations despite conflicting with the Uthmanic mushaf.[1]>>
No one disputes there have existed fake qiraat, and no one disputes there have existed genuine qiraat that no longer exist (i.e. from the other ahruf).
The bottom line is that Muslims have an oral tradition AND manuscript tradition that both go back to the eyewitness and very companions of Muhammad himself, and that’s how we know Muhammed would agree with every word of today’s Quran.
That’s also why none of the thousands of MSS that exist from that time till today contain any serious or intentional variants worth talking about.
***YOUR CONCLUSION***
You wrote:
<<<"The final and most IMPORTANT observation.
Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:
"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence">>>
Utter rubbish.
All you have to do to falsify the Muslim claim of preservation to me is to show from Quran manuscripts that the Quran has been as poorly preserved throughout history as we know the Bible has from biblical manuscripts.
In fact just to prove what that entails and why you’re wrong, here’s a simple challenge for you:
Please show me the 3 most serious MANUSCRIPT variants you can find in the Quran.
Since almost all the hundreds of earliest Quran MSS from the 7th/8th centuries in existence have either been published in the West, exist in the West, or examined by western scholars, this shouldn’t prove too hard.
I would like to know:
1) What the variant is in both Arabic and English- AND HOW IT EFFECTS THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE.
2) How many other manuscript of the Quran contain that same variant.
3) What those MSS are, when they date from, and where they are located.
If you can show me a single, serious and intentional manuscript variant that managed to fool a significant portion of Muslims, for a significant ammount of time at any point in history after Uthman into thinking it was genuine Quran, then i will happily conceded the argument.
I can most certainly do the same with the Bible in 5 minutes.
But unfortunately for you, you’ll only find that Quran MSS show how strong the oral tradition (which the bible never had... Oh, expect for with John 3:16!) is which, in turn, is reflected in the manuscript tradition.
The Quran has HUNDERDS of MSS from the first 7th/8th century.
The NT has less than 10 (tiny) MSS from the 1/2nd century.
Even if you include the sizable MSS from the 3rd/4th centuries onwards all you get is a mess of SERIOUS AND INTENTIONAL variants to the point where Christians have never, in places, agreed on what the “word of God” is supposed to be- and still can’t today (e.g. Mark 16:9-20)
All I’m asking is that you show me the same with the Quran’s manuscripts.
You wrote:
<<"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text">>
As you admit, this is unfailsiable, yet my view on the Quran (as above) is not.
The message of the Bible (and Quran) is that it is inerrant.
When Christians can't, and never have, been able to agree on what the Bible even is- because of variants- then it cannot be inerrant and its “message” is not preserved.
Good Luck.
P.S. As for your comments on Naik, Deedat etc, I fully agree that they have been guilty of embarrassing errors.
However, if you won’t be asking Klingschor to remove/amend his errors (despite your agreement with me that he is indeed in error), then you equally cannot complain about such Muslim apologists who propagate misinformation either.
Anyone who is guilty of spreading mistruth should correct their actions (which now includes you).
The reason i am singling out Klingschor on this as opposed to Naik and co is because I believe- as he does- that he is superior to them in both academic prowess and intellectual honesty.
Unfortunately however, his lack of engagement on this particular issue gives me good cause to reconsider that view.
You wrote:
<<<"The final and most IMPORTANT observation.
Your ultimate circular argument is exposed as this:
"Islam defines the preservation of the Quran in it's own terms and I don't see those terms being contradicted by external evidence">>>
Utter rubbish.
All you have to do to falsify the Muslim claim of preservation to me is to show from Quran manuscripts that the Quran has been as poorly preserved throughout history as we know the Bible has from biblical manuscripts.
In fact just to prove what that entails and why you’re wrong, here’s a simple challenge for you:
Please show me the 3 most serious MANUSCRIPT variants you can find in the Quran.
Since almost all the hundreds of earliest Quran MSS from the 7th/8th centuries in existence have either been published in the West, exist in the West, or examined by western scholars, this shouldn’t prove too hard.
I would like to know:
1) What the variant is in both Arabic and English- AND HOW IT EFFECTS THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE.
2) How many other manuscript of the Quran contain that same variant.
3) What those MSS are, when they date from, and where they are located.
If you can show me a single, serious and intentional manuscript variant that managed to fool a significant portion of Muslims, for a significant ammount of time at any point in history after Uthman into thinking it was genuine Quran, then i will happily conceded the argument.
I can most certainly do the same with the Bible in 5 minutes.
But unfortunately for you, you’ll only find that Quran MSS show how strong the oral tradition (which the bible never had... Oh, expect for with John 3:16!) is which, in turn, is reflected in the manuscript tradition.
The Quran has HUNDERDS of MSS from the first 7th/8th century.
The NT has less than 10 (tiny) MSS from the 1/2nd century.
Even if you include the sizable MSS from the 3rd/4th centuries onwards all you get is a mess of SERIOUS AND INTENTIONAL variants to the point where Christians have never, in places, agreed on what the “word of God” is supposed to be- and still can’t today (e.g. Mark 16:9-20)
All I’m asking is that you show me the same with the Quran’s manuscripts.
You wrote:
<<"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text">>
As you admit, this is unfailsiable, yet my view on the Quran (as above) is not.
The message of the Bible (and Quran) is that it is inerrant.
When Christians can't, and never have, been able to agree on what the Bible even is- because of variants- then it cannot be inerrant and its “message” is not preserved.
Good Luck.
P.S. As for your comments on Naik, Deedat etc, I fully agree that they have been guilty of embarrassing errors.
However, if you won’t be asking Klingschor to remove/amend his errors (despite your agreement with me that he is indeed in error), then you equally cannot complain about such Muslim apologists who propagate misinformation either.
Anyone who is guilty of spreading mistruth should correct their actions (which now includes you).
The reason i am singling out Klingschor on this as opposed to Naik and co is because I believe- as he does- that he is superior to them in both academic prowess and intellectual honesty.
Unfortunately however, his lack of engagement on this particular issue gives me good cause to reconsider that view.
LATEST RESPONSE (7/3/12)
***POINT 1***
Thinker1 said:
“This argument is so weak that it is refuted by just 3 words in the famous “Uthman compilation” hadith, also from Bukhari:...write it in the *DIALECT OF QURASH*..” [Arabic: harf al-Quarsh] These words prove that the seven ahruf were in fact defined along tribal lines- and hence regional lines- otherwise the term “dialect *OF QURASH*” would have no meaning.”
It’s funny how you think one hadith refutes another. Posting a hadith that you think contradicts the hadith I quoted only proves the hadith are unreliable sources in the first place. So I appreciate that.
But what is funny is that you think the Uthmanic compilation hadith supports you, read it again : 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, THEN write it in the DIALECT OF QURAISH, the Qur'an WAS REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE."
Note the phrase is not “The Quran was ORIGINALLY revealed in their tongue” The authority to write ALL of the copies in Quraish was because the Quraish was the very REVEALED LANGUAGE of the Quran. If the Quran was revealed in another dialect then Uthman could have just have easily as said: “write it in the dialect of (whatever dialect), the Quran was REVEALED IN THEIR TONGUE”. What this means is that Quraish HAD to be the only language the Quran was revealed in, or Uthman could have appealed to any one of the seven Ahruf.
Next more strawman and distortions:
“As for the other Bukhari narration that two Qurahsi’s were disagreeing on how to recite Surat Furquan, are you seriously suggesting that every Arab MUST have learnt every sura in their own dialect- without A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTION?”
“Are you seriously suggesting that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the Qurashi Ibn Hakeem could have been taught the Quran- or even just that one sura- from a non-Qurashi?”
First it’s funny how earlier you said ONE HARF is sufficient, one harf is the complete Quran. Now you are advocating the inter-mixing of the Ahruf. If one harf is sufficient, then having omitted parts of that one harf and random parts of other Ahruf, obviously cannot be accepted. If one harf is sufficient, then taking away from that harf and mixing other parts of random Ahruf is insufficient.
This is confirmed by one of the very hadith in question.
Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, in his "Mu'atta", Umar ibn al-Khattaab (ra) says:
"I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem ibn Hezaam reciting Surah Al-Furqaan [while leading prayers] in a manner different from the way I recited it, and the way the Prophet (pbuh) himself had taught me to recite it. I was about to grab him immediately, and then I decided to give him some time to complete his prayers. At that time I grabbed him by his stole/shawl and pulled him to the Prophet (pbuh). I said to the Prophet (pbuh): O Prophet I heard him recite Surah Al-Furqaan in a different manner than the one that you taught me. The Prophet (pbuh) directed me to let go of him, and then directed Hishaam to recite the Surah. Hishaam recited it in the same way he was reciting it during his prayers. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of his recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then the Prophet (pbuh) directed me to recite the Surah. Then I recited the Surah [as I knew it]. The Prophet (pbuh) [, at the end of my recital,] said: This is how it was revealed. Then added: The Qur'an was revealed in 'sab`ah ahruf' you can read it according to THE ONE which is suitable for you."
Here is an explicit command to read the Quran according to the one harf that is suitable for you. Not to integrate the harf and change which harf to read as you go along. The purpose of the Ahruf is explicitly stated.
Second, the dispute wasn’t about being taught “from a non-Qurashi”, since if both were taught in Quraish, and one were taught in an additional harf by a non-Qurashi, then one of them would have easily known that the Quran have various Ahruf. In this report both of them are “ignorant” of these Ahruf. Plus you didn’t read the report correctly, since Umar said he learn’t DIRECTLY from Mohammed, and hence went to Mohammed to resolve the dispute.
Third this contradicts the stated purpose of the Ahruf. The purpose of the Ahruf is to “recite it in the way that is easiest for you”. The easiest way for two Quraish men wouldn’t be to recite in a different “dialect” since they were Quraish. So it makes no sense that Mohammed would teach them differently when they are from the same tribe, unless of course the Ahruf are simply not dialects, or not limited to the confines of a dialect (which means they are not strictly dialects).
“so for you to say that there could NEVER be a SINGLE EXAMPLE of inter-tribal Quran teaching OF A SINGLE SURA is an absurdly weak assumption on your part.”
I agree, that would be an unsound assumption. An assumption and claim I never made. My assumption is that Umar learn’t directly from Mohammed. Umar is said to have become Muslim in 616C.E. Hisham most likely 630C.E. What this means is for all of this “inter-tribal mixing and surah reciting” that you’re suggesting, Umar had never before heard another harf. This could mean various things:
- Umar was anti-social and never went to the Mosque or spoke with a person from a different tribe or even his own tribe! (not once in 14-16 years?)
- The report is authentic and evidence that Mohammed fabricated a story to cover for variants.
- Mohammed only introduced variants after the conquest at Makkah (contradicted else where)
- The report is not authentic (even though it has multiple attestation)
All of this from the most “sound collection of authentic hadith(bukhari)” in Muslim sources *chuckle*.
In conclusion, while i have an EXPLICILT STATEMENT from Bukhari proving that Quraish HAD to be the only language the Quran was revealed in or Uthman could have appealed to any one of the seven Ahruf for his authority to write his copies in those dialects if they were revealed in those tongues aswell. You have nothing but straw men, attempts to show contradictions in Bukhari, stretching interpretations of Bukhari and directly contradict your own reasoning and the prophet’s command for each person to recite in one harf, the easiest harf for them.
***POINT 2***
Again selectively citing the website you say:
Again selectively citing the website you say:
“You describe the hadith on the 7 ahruf as: “dubious and probably ad hoc” My quote reveals that the author’s actual view on those hadith is: “probably authentic” On what planet does “dubious” = “probably authentic”?
What is funny here is that you are deliberately distorting the context of both of our quotes, and it’s shameless. While I was referring to the general state and condition of those hadith as “dubious”. Shafaat was referring to the specific portions of the hadith:
“We conclude from the above discussion that in the ahadith about seven ahruf no words or actions attributed to the Prophet are authentic except probably the bare statement that the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf. “
Quote mining won’t work and it’s a dishonest tactic.
Next you say:
"If the Qur`an was revealed in seven ahruf involving different ways of recitation, then we should expect Gabriel to recite the Qur`an in seven different ways each year. But this hadith provides no indication of that.”
“no indication” of that? Is that all?
And where does that same hadith provide any “indication” that Gabrial was reciting the Quran every year in strictly ONE dialect?”
Now I can answer this one. It might help to read what you just quoted:
“ It is related from Abu Hurayrah: Gabriel used to repeat THE RECITATION of the Qur`an with the Prophet once a year....”
The text here presupposes “the recitation” meaning “one recitation” a singular recitation. It’s important to read what you quote. You should be able to follow this as the same hadith says “the recitation of THE QURAN” meaning “a singular Quran” and no other.
Later you say:
”Why doesn’t he reject THOSE two hadith on the same criteria, instead of the dozens on the 7 ahruf?? This is nothing but a gross double-standard where the bar of evidence is kept stringently sky-high for ALL the ‘7 ahruf’ hadith, but kept down in the gutter for any single hadith that APPEARS to go against them.”
Well I can’t speak for him. But here is how I would answer you. He has already made it clear that he thinks the bare minimum of “seven Ahruf” is probably authentic. The reason why he rejects the rest of the extended accounts is because while all the versions contain the “seven Ahruf” element, none of the versions are consistent about the exact nature of these Ahruf. Case in point the report with Hisham and Umar (that he also mentions). He also gives many other reasons (some of which we are still discussing).
You then say:
“As i told you repeatedly the type of variants attributed to the different pre-Uthmanic dialects in the hadith are of the exact same nature of those variants found in the undertext of DAM 01.27.1 that has been carbon-14 dated to around the time of Uthman. Those variants were then destroyed and written over with the Uthmanic text we have today- just as the hadith state they were.”
And you conclude:
“This is manuscript **PROOF** that such hadith on the existence, nature and fate of the 7 dialects are emphatically vindicated and proved historically accurate.”
The first problem is the “historically reliable” hadith that you are referring to e.g. the Uthmanic compilation does not advocate (as shown above) your view. Yes it asserts the Quranic copies were written down in Quraish and all others were destroyed. The hadith even confirms the existences of conflict and differences. However the hadith does not identify the exact nature of those differences, other hadith attempt to (though they fail).
Next, it’s quite laughable the absurd reasoning you use. Aside from showing these hadith are not consistent and continuously contradictory (discrediting the nature of these hadith) it’s also been shown the meaning of the Ahruf hadith are confusing and ambigious, giving rise to multiple intepretations. The single interpretation of “dialect” is a gigantic ignoramus claim to make even as Sheik Yasir Qadhi said: "it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."
You also make it sound as though it’s one big miracle that Muslims in the 9th/10th century would have known about a standardized Quran and the destruction of the previous Quran. The destruction of the Quran and the sending of one companion to each region would have been universal knowledge. In fact that is something you would expect would be remembered due to the act being so controversial and wide scale.
***POINT 3***
You said:
You said:
“If any one harf is NOT the full Quran, then this can only imply that ALL 7 ahruf are the “full Quran”, yet you deny both!”
I never denied the seven Ahruf are the full Quran. I specifically said: “I never said every Muslim must recite the full Quran(all of the ahruf).”
But this is not a relevant question. The question is DO YOU HAVE THE FULL QURAN, and you don’t.
Next you quote a hadith:
”...Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in WHICHEVER DIALECT they recite, THEY WILL BE CORRECT.
(Muslim no.1787)"
And conclude:
This clearly states (as i said) that every and any one dialect is the FULL QURAN, yet you object in saying:”
This is boring. I had already said earlier “Not every Muslim must recite the seven Ahruf”, what this hadith confirms is exactly what I had said. Muslims are to choose one harf and that will be acceptable. However you assert that since ONE HARF is sufficient (for a believer to recite) therefore they ARE reciting the full Quran. Not only does THIS HADITH and no other hadith make that claim (as I mentioned before), I also already mentioned several reasons why that would be a logically fallacious and theologically untenable claim. To which you decide to respond as follows:
“If you want to say its “seven Qurans” as opposed to seven dialects of the same Quran, then go ahead. That’s just childish semantics that i have no time for. “
After realizing your inability to respond (meaning you must also join with me in saying this), you conclude this is silly semantics. As I pointed out this is not silly semantics, but rather this is a logical necessity. This is an inescapable conclusion.
You cannot say “each harf is fully the Quran” without implying seven Qurans. In fact let me illustrate this reasoning for you. According to Muslim criticisms of the Trinity, if the Father is fully God, and the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God, then there are THREE DISTINCT GODS. Likewise if each harf is fully the Quran, then there are SEVEN DISTINCT QURANS.
You also say:
“Please go and read the hadith and you will see that the tablet is not just about the Quran, but a record of every event and detail of human destiny, thus containing all aspects of the Quran and all books whether preserved on earth or not.”
Thank you for the red herring. Since the point wasn’t that the tablet contained a full recording, rather that 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.
You then say:
“As for Uthman not having divine permission to reduce the scope of dialectal variants, Ok, let me concede that argument to you and we’ll see where that gets you: Uthman had no right to destroy the other dialects, and he’s and bad, bad man who committed a bad, bad sin, for which i’m sure Allah will punish him.
So now what?
How does that admission show that the Quran of Uthman we have today is not a Quran Muhammad would consider correct?”
I don’t think I’ve ever argued that the contemporary Quran is a recital Mohammed would not approve of.
I’ve only argued it’s incomplete. I would also point out not every variant is approved by Mohammed (that would be impossible to substantiate).
I’ve mentioned other difficulties throughout my posts (above) but let me mention one more.
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.
***POINT 4***
You say:
You say:
"Even if other Qiraat were lost after Uthman in the “3/4th century”, so long as ONE harf and ONE qiraat are preserved from Muhammed, the Quran is preserved, so this is a red-herring."
“Which ironically, only shows how desperate YOU really are in giving no meaningful rebuttal.”
I don’t need to rebut anything I have already substantiated. The burden of proof is on you to prove that one harf constitutes the Quran. When you have shown that you then need to reconcile the logical and theological dilemmas I’ve mentioned.
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.
Next you say:
“The claim that some Qiraat we destroyed in 3/4th century (i.e. 9th /10th century CE), is beyond ignorant since there are literally HUNDREDS of Quran manuscripts from the 7th/8th century that essentially conform to the current text.”
As for the evidence firstly the historical reports were already provided by the Sheik. But as for your assertion I never said the Qiraat in the 3rd4/th century were destroyed, I argued they were lost e.g. they weren’t preserved.
The proof of that comes from today and history. Today there are 10 Qiraats. Why are there only 10 Qiraats? History answers this. The famous Muslim Scholars and Reciters preserved and standardized certain readings, Ibn Mujhaid preserved “7” famous readings. The readings that were not preserved were left out. No one knows the exact number, we only have reports that number between 20-70 readings have not being standardized and hence lost.
Next in your attempt to “educate” me, you end up “vindicating” me (the irony):
“there are even c.7th century MSS were its qiraat can be identified (dispite its lack of vowels), such as Arabe 328a in Paris which is in the canonical reading of ibn Amir (as opposed to the most common Haf of today).
Other c.7th century MSS like Or. 2165 in London are reckoned to be in the non-canonical reading of Himsi, thus proving that we know what kind of qiraat may have been destroyed in the 3/4th century, just like we know what kind of variants were destroyed by Uthman via DAM 01-27-1. “
I appreciate you confirming the evidence for my position.
***POINT 5***
You say:
You say:
“As mentioned in my refutation of your point 1) the words “dialect of Qurash” that you quote ironically demolishes your entire argument that the ahruf are not regional dialects.”
Uthman’s words of “revealed in their tough” does not mean the Quran was ONLY revealed in the Qurashi dialect, but simply that it was ORGINALLY revealed to Muhammad in that dialect, since that was his own.”
Since I’ve already exposed this fabrication, I won’t go over it again.
But you do appeal to provide a contradiction in the corpus:
“This is explicitly stated in the hadith on that issue that explain how Gabriel first revealed the Quran in one dialect (i.e. the Qurashi of Muhammed), and only later added more dialects upon Muhammad’s plea that “my **NATION/PEOPLE** are not capable of this”
Which I appreciate.
Now you humiliate yourself further:
“Furthermore, if you read that hadith properly, the whole purpose of Uthman selecting the “dialect of Qurash” was to settle the differences in recitation between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq who were taught by Ubyy ibn Ka’b (from the tribe of Khrazja) and Ibn Masuud (Thaqif tribe) respectively, hence yet further proof that the differences in recitation were due to REGIONAL differences, and hence dialects.”
Yes except for the fact Syria and Iraq were not different factions of the same umbrella of tribes, meaning they weren’t dialectical. Plus the differences that arose were not DUE to the “regions” themselves but BECAUSE each companion that was sent to a different region TAUGHT the region in his own harf, completely disproving the notion that the REGIONAL differences were based on DIALECT. Rather the differences were based on the companions who were MAINLY QURAISH (as an example was already shown).
[Point 5 cont below]
[Point 5 cont below]
“Of course i haven’t read the “40 opinions” because i can’t read what doesn’t exist- hence my reference to them as the *ALLEDGED* 40 opinions (if you were paying attention).”
As Suyooti doesn’t exist? Right I got it. We don’t have his works. My bad. Sorry Sheik you got it wrong, ask THINKER1
Now here is the interesting part:
“My claim that many of the alleged ‘40 opinions’ would be compatible (if they existed) is based on the fact that this is true of the multiple 10 or so opinions i do know of.”
Well lets look into this you say:
“However opinions 2), 4) and 5) are all compatible with the favoured ‘dialects’ opinion, which is precisely what i was saying.”
Of course they are compatible at the surface level. We are discussing ACTUAL opinions however. I had already quoted more from the Sheik on synonyms. He believes in his understanding that the his view of the synomns is distinct to the dialect view. Showing these two views are different and not totally compatible.
Next you say:
“Options 1) and 3) have no reference to them whatsoever, and are both nameless and baseless. I even asked you to provide a reference/evidence for 3), and you predictably failed.”
“Opinion 2) is based solely on narrations from Tabari which are almost certainly weak, as he even admits in his intro.”
We had already refuted this, again the Sheik says:
“Fourthly: It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
Finally you end up with options 1&2 which I partially agree with.
Now since I’ve already provided a good case that the hadith is not supporting your position of dialects (or it is atleast contradicting itself), and the extant manuscripts have nothing to do with the meaning of “Ahruf” I will say option 2.
“This was always the most obvious meaning, yet people like you try to deceptively cast doubt on that with lies of “40 opinions”. Shame on you.”
We are pointing out the obvious. “Ahruf” is not the Arabic word for dialect. It’s meaning is vastly defined differently, it has multiple meanings. And all the reports have ambiguities or conflictions. The only dishonest deceptive snake is the person who Yasir describes as a person who is “certain that one position is true”, while the only thing we can be certain of is that we don’t know the exact meaning.
Oh and the differences between you and the Sheik are not irrelevant, when defining what “Ahruf” are.
***POINT 6***
Lastly you confess:
Lastly you confess:
“No one disputes there have existed fake qiraat, and no one disputes there have existed genuine qiraat that no longer exist (i.e. from the other ahruf).”
But also say:
“That’s also why none of the thousands of MSS that exist from that time till today contain any serious or intentional variants worth talking about.”
***YOUR CONCLUSION***
Finally you say:
“All you have to do to falsify the Muslim claim of preservation to me is to show from Quran manuscripts that the Quran has been as poorly preserved throughout history as we know the Bible has from biblical manuscripts. In fact just to prove what that entails and why you’re wrong, here’s a simple challenge for you:
And
“If you can show me a single, serious and intentional manuscript variant that managed to fool a significant portion of Muslims, for a significant ammount of time at any point in history after Uthman into thinking it was genuine Quran, then i will happily conceded the argument.”
So while denying my claim that you have put Islam into a non-falsifiable position you end up supporting my claim by making this very statement.
My claim has never been that the Quran was intentionally changed on purpose and someone had duped Muslims into believing it something was part of the Quran. My claim was Uthman, his cronies and the scholars in the 3rd/4th century have managed to destroy and lose readings and verses of the Quran. My charge is always been the Quran is incomplete, this is the sense in which the Quran was “changed, you don't have the original Quran in this sense..
But what is really brought to light here is your criterion: “If something is thought to be part of a divine scripture and added to that divine scripture and it turns out it is not part of that divine scripture then that scripture is corrupted”.
Now how can you assert this is this the only way to falsify a scripture from God? When I’ve given you a perfectly sound argument from surah 15:9 showing you other ways to falsify the Quran.
You said:
<<"The Bible is the inspired word of God and preserved but we don't decide how God preserved it we discover how God preserved it, he preserved it through preserving the message, not a verbatim singular text">> As you admit, this is unfailsiable, yet my view on the Quran (as above) is not.”
Actually this view is not technically unfalsifable, it is just unfalsifiable to us. Likewise the standard you make for the Quran is unfalsifable to us. When there are plenty of good other criterion to test the Quran and Bible by yet the believers are coming up with criterion so out of reach that it cannot be falsified.
An example would be. I could falsify this view of the Christian Scripture, if I were to show the extant MSS and autographs were different. Another way would be if the manuscripts from the first and second century significantly contradicted extant MSS known to us.
You also said:
You also said:
“The message of the Bible (and Quran) is that it is inerrant.”
Traditionally in Christianity the content is inerrant, that which is inspired not the preservation. God can preserve his book how he wants to, it’s his own prerogative. His scriptural preservation is inerrant, but he can uses errant vessels to bring forth an inerrant scripture. Just like supposedly in Islam God can also use scribes who make copyist errors as well.
“When Christians can't, and never have, been able to agree on what the Bible even is- because of variants- then it cannot be inerrant and its “message” is not preserved.”
Actually all of those Christians who can’t “agree” on what the Bible is still all agree the NT is scripture. And they all agree, Jesus is God and was crucified etc.
I don’t find this very convincing. As for the KJVonlyists, they accept the KJV Bible alone, some even go far as rejecting the TR. But taking what they all have in common, they accept passages that are not found in the earliest MSS. Yet KJVonlyists are not considered part of the mainstream, Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic. They are more like a bottom of the lake protestant sect.
Apart from that one (very new) group, every denomination in Christianity unanimously accept the same New Testament. It’s hard to say what your criterion for accepting the preservation of the NT and the Quran is.
It seems you expect the NT to be like the Quran. Meaning have the NT collected by the disciples of Jesus. Then having the third disciple (who is shepherd over the others, and remains alive since the first two have died) burn and torture alternative Aramaic/Greek readings to finally have the parts of the preserved version finally be lost by Christian scholars such as Augustine and Athanasius in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
If that’s what you want the New Testament to look like I don’t know what to tell you.
Finally you say:
“The reason I am singling out Klingschor on this as opposed to Naik and co is because I believe- as he does- that he is superior to them in both academic prowess and intellectual honesty.”
Just to let folks know.
ReplyDeleteThinker1 will not be resuming this conversation since his first excuse was this blog hasn't got enough viewers, his second excuse was that I had to approve of his comments.
Of course he also mentioned "running around the internet". By this he mean't to click on one page to this link. (awfully difficult).
Hello colleagues, nice article and good urging commented here,
ReplyDeleteI am in fact enjoying by these.
Feel free to visit my weblog ... make money from home