“Has the Qur’an Been Perfectly Preserved?"
Derek Adams vs vs Bassam Zawadi
Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 20, 2012 at 5:41 amIt must have upset Paul Williams when he learn’t that Zawadi can’t sustain his position at all enlight of facts. In fact, if you look at Zawadi’s falsification criterion you will see how desperate this man is. He arranges his criterion in such a way to be so highly specific that he knows it becomes unfalsifiable. Case in point:
“1)Show that several companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.”
Notice how Zawadi has to add “preserved Quran for future generations were lost” since he knows many of the verses uttered by the companions were indeed not part of the “preserved Quran in the future generation”. He then comes up with something so highly specific that the claim cannot be falsified.
Of course we can make a similar counter argument aswell. 1) Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.
Zawadi knows that the volumes of hadith do not make such an anachronistic distinction, but since he wants to create such smokescreens he should be able to answer.
Of course Zawadi’s claims in this debate and his website have all been taken apart here:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/quranic-preservation-errors-made-by.htmlReply 
Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 20, 2012 at 5:52 amZawadi uses circular reasoning, he assumes all verses in the readings of the companions (reported in authentic reports) that are not found in today’s readings were “abrogated” by God himself without any direct evidence
Zawadi thinks the variants in the recitation were approved by God, he assumes variants are connected with the modes but offers no evidence since he can’t prove his definition of Ahruf. It is the modes that are approved, not the Qiraat.
Zawadi assumes the variations within the verses hold no different meanings and contain no contradictions which is false
Zawadi doesn’t know what Ahruf are so he and his Salafi scholars shouldn’t be running around saying parts of the Ahruf are in the Qiraat. Nor can they make distinctions about what is or is not Ahruf.
Many of the present day Qiraat (recitations/readings) are not Mutawattir or Tawatur, anything not Mutawattir is not Quran
The Ummah failed to preserve all of the Qiraat and hence lost the Ahruf. According to Zawadi’s view this means the parts of the Ahruf that were preserved in those unpreserved lost Qiraat must also be lost. Even if only one harf (mode) of the Quran was preserved in the Uthmanic text, that means parts of this mode have been lost in the lost Qiraat.
Zawadi cannot merely assume 20-70 Qiraat have been “abrogated”, when there is clear evidence the reason why these Qiraat no longer exist is because they were not standardized not because God abrogated them.
If option 1 is accepted, the Qiraat are man made variants. If option 2 is accepted the Qiraat of the Companions are not part of the Ahruf hence the Quran has man made variants. If option 3 is accepted, Uthman constrained the Ahruf in direct contradiction to Allah, Gabriel and the Prophet.
If anyone contest this summation please feel free to refute even one thing I’ve said. Seeing that Zawadi in his own rebuttal tried contesting a few of these points unsuccessfully it shouldn’t be hard to go and read his rebuttal and easily demonstrate I am wrong, right?
Reply 
Bassam Zawadi
May 20, 2012 at 9:59 amDerik,
What’s the point of responding to your points when you don’t even bother responding back?
How about you provided a detailed response to my response to you and then we could engage this discussion properly? You are repeating things I have already addressed. Why should I waste my time answering your points again? You are only going to end up saying “Look at Zawadi’s responses everybody. Look at how desperate and weak they are!” Derik, provide a response and then we could engage.
Or……….. or……… ask ONE QUESTION at a time. Ask me any question you like ONE AT A TIME, since I don’t have time to answer a pile of questions quickly. Also, at the same time that way we stay focused and we make clear to everyone reading who is actually dodging the issues and not. That way we ensure no one is slyly trying to escape from answering questions by putting forth a lot of material.
I am waiting for your first single question to me Derik.
If you are not up for it, then please quit the ranting.
And I will only be exchanging with you. The focus is on you here. I won’t waste time responding back to others, since I don’t have time.
Thanks,
Bassam
Reply 
Paul WilliamsMay 20, 2012 at 10:03 amDerek
spamming multiple questions as you have done is very unhelpful. Bassam’s suggestion of one question at a time seems reasonable to me.
Paul
Blog Editor
Reply 
Laun
May 20, 2012 at 10:52 amBassam is really knowledgeable and the way he explains Islam is very logical and makes sense. I have learned a lot from him.
Keep up the good work Bassam!
Reply 
Abdullah
May 20, 2012 at 2:16 pmI agree with Bassam,
Flooding a topic with multiple questions is not a way to approach a debate. Also, a lot of the points are really not addressing the opponent’s response. For example , if I am allowed to concentrate on the first point he mentions, Derek says
“Notice how Zawadi has to add “preserved Quran for future generations were lost” since he knows many of the verses uttered by the companions were indeed not part of the “preserved Quran in the future generation”. He then comes up with something so highly specific that the claim cannot be falsified.”
I really fail how this really understands Zawadi’s points. Let me help you Derek. Here are some logical possibilities ( maybe you can think of a few more but that is not the point here)
A-Companions utter verses that they think are part of the Quran and change their mind towards the end
B-Companions uttered verses that they think were originally part of the Quran but believed they were removed or “abrogated” in the final edition by the Prophet
C-Companions utter verses that they think are part of the Quran but are concerned about the removal of these verses in the final edition. (intentional deletion)
D-Companions are concerned that part of the Quran are not verses at all (intentional addition)
E-Companions are concerned …..
I think of very many many possibilities. I fail to see how Zawadi’s point is non falsifiable. I mean point C and D alone can falsify it. Not much imagination there! So there you go Derek. We should have companions that fight and are concerned till the end about falsification in the codex. In fact it would be reasonable to have sects that form on different editions with different chapters, hey why not whole sections cf the biblical tradition. Ok, the biblical tradition has an issue with books as well .
The counter example is quite funny.
“Of course we can make a similar counter argument aswell. 1) Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.”
Do you want every single companion to transmit a the whole codex to us ? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to historically have a multiply attested transmission of the same codex ?. Oh, please spare us the inaccurate fact that the Quran has been transmitted in singular form because certain Qiraat are ahad! That is a logical and historical fallacy. I assume that you did an exhaustive isnad cum matn analysis (Motzki style) of the Qiraat traditions and come to this conclusion ? Personally, I think you just copy and pasted some inter Muslim polemics.
Interestingly Abdullah Bin Masood has transmitted his codex and his reading by mass transmission. Azami’s book provides the transmission of chains and if you really care for more detail we would be more than happy to provide it. Do have an idea of the differences between the transmission by Abdullah Bin Masood and the current text that we have ? Please do not say al Fatiha !
I do not want to keep replying to other points because, it will be an excuse to flood the discussion further.
So let us stick to point one first i.e. the non falsifiable nature of Bassam’s contention, deal with it well and then move onto another point.
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 20, 2012 at 2:47 pmTo correct the error, I am not asking a whole pile of questions at once. I am providing a summation and asking the reader to point out how Zawadi’s (or their own response) even addresses one of these key points.
Zawadi if you want a quick fire, then please answer this: “1) Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.
After you have answered this, please explain how we can possibly fulfill your non-falsifiable criterion considering the fact that you pass these verses that are not in the future preserved Quran as “abrogations”. Yet according to the criterion of abrogation it is unacceptable to use ijmaa‘ and qiyaas as they are the result of human intellectual effort. This means we cannot make logical deductions about the “abrogated verses” you speak of, meaning this “falsification criterion” you are presenting is a farce. If we are not able to use our deductive reasoning to deduce a few verses were lost in the absence of clear evidence (meaning there is no clear ruling on certain verses that are no longer in the Quran), then how is your challenge not a farce?
See I am actually asking for “falsifiable criterion”. Not criterion designed to appear falsifiable but actually are arranged to be made unfalsifiable.
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 20, 2012 at 3:42 pmAbdullah said: “I think of very many many possibilities. I fail to see how Zawadi’s point is non falsifiable. I mean point C and D alone can falsify it.”
Firstly Abdullah lets focus on his first criterion for now. Your points do not lead us to a scenario that could falsify the first criterion offered by Zawadi.
Here is his first criterion: “1)Show that companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.”
Now lets see your scenarios: “A-Companions utter verses that they think are part of the Quran and change their mind towards the end”
Zawadi’s criterion rules this out, as it is the verses in the “final product” that are not allowed to be lost, or it is verses “left out” of the final product that they genuinely believe are apart of the Quran. If they changed their mind at the end, this would not satisfy Zawadi’s criterion, because he would then disregard the verses since they were no longer being thought of as part of the genuine final product.
You said: “B-Companions uttered verses that they think were originally part of the Quran but believed they were removed or “abrogated” in the final edition by the Prophet”
I’m not sure what you mean here. To begin with there is no final edition by the Prophet (at least in written form). But I have made an argument nearly identical to this. If we can find a verse believed by a companion to be part of the Quran that was later not found in any Qiraat possessed, we have evidence of a few possibilities. Either the verse was abrogated, the verse was destroyed, incompatible, lost or removed. But Zawadi’s abrogation criterion rules out a few of these choices, he argues all extraneous Quranic verses are either “explanations” or “abrogations”. He claims that deductive reasoning is invalid, that if we have no saying of the prophet, a companion or the unanimous consensus of the scholars, we can not appeal to reason. In fact he blatantly begs the question and assumes all extraneous verses must be abrogated or explanations, when we clearly have better explanations and evidence to the contrary.. (defacto: circular).
“C-Companions utter verses that they think are part of the Quran but are concerned about the removal of these verses in the final edition. (intentional deletion)”
It must be shown that it was indeed some of the verses that had to be part of the final product that were not part of the final product. Showing mere “concern” might be necessary but it is not sufficient to fulfill his criterion.
You said: “D-Companions are concerned that part of the Quran are not verses at all (intentional addition)”
Since I am only focusing on the current falsification criterion “addition” is a separate issue.
Abdullah the only way the first criterion is falsifiable is if we have a list of genuine verses the companions believed were part of the final edition of the Quran. Anytime I bring up a verse that is extant and believed to be part of the very Quran, Zawadi can simply respond with “prove the companions believed that particular verse ought to have been in the final product”. Even if we gave him such a hadith, he could then argue: “How do you know that was that companion(s) final opinion on the matter?”.
So my challenge is still suitable:
“Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.”
If Zawadi wants to make distinctions between verses companions believed were part of the Quran (for a temporary period of time) vs the final product, then he clearly needs evidence such concepts existed, and direct lists and examples.
Reply Abdullah
May 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm“1) Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.”
Ok, if that is the first question then we are sticking to it.. I think the non-falsifiable one has been answered and is not that interesting. Personally I do not know what you are muttering on about in the second paragraph .
Bassam do you agree?
Personally, I think the question is constructed in a very bad way. Complexity at the expense of content
I will leave it to Bassam to give his take on it and then I will jump in
Reply Abdullah
May 20, 2012 at 4:32 pmActually Derek your falsification point is still mute. A and B were mentioned in some random order to jot down certain logical possibilities. They are not falsifying Bassam criterion. You did not need to talk about them! They obviously are not of concern. C and D are reasonable I think. I mean, if we have companions fighting over the contents of a codex and they die on that belief it would be reasonable to expect some sort of historical concern (Obviously “concern” is a polite way of saying that they are not satisfied with the circumstances). The followers of these companions wouldn’t be happy and I am sure we would see schisms early in Islamic history based on this very fact. People shouting heresy at each other, excluding them from the Islamic polity forming sects and having separate traditions. Yeah that would falsify his view. A historical uniform tradition would not account for this. I could easily go on and think of many ways to falsify his conditions. Out of curiosity, why deal with one of his conditions at at time. They could have collective points to make. It would be more reasonable to list all his criteria.
Still…like I said this is less interesting to me and you mentioned the first question so let us stick to it. Personally, I think it is really badly constructed.
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 20, 2012 at 5:33 pmThank you Derek.
For the record, I want everyone to note that I laid out at least four different ways the Qur’an’s preservation is falsifiable during my debate with Nabeel. They were:
1) Show that several companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.
2) Show that several companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) claimed that non-Quranic additions were introduced into the Qur’an’s final compilation and were accepted by the people as Qur’anic.
3) Show that several companions fought with each other and accused each other of tampering with the Qur’an and denying that what the other person said was Qur’anic was indeed Qur’anic.
4) Show that all the companions conspired to tamper with the Qur’an and falsify passages intentionally.
Derek is only taking issue with the first one.
Derek tries to get clever and make a counter argument by saying :
“Show us where the companions mentioned all of the true verses of the Quran that were intended to be part of the future Quran, show us a few examples or list of such verses that specifically had to be “part of the Quran for future generations”.
What Derek fails to bear in mind is that I have already provided evidence that the companions fully approved of the contents of Uthman’s codex. I already cited in my debate with Nabeel Qureshi (during the opening statement) my evidence demonstrating that the companions reached a consensus regarding the contents of the Uthmanic codex. Let me lay them out here for everyone’s reference:
Ali, the Prophet’s paternal cousin, son-in-law, major companion and fourth Caliph, assures us that there was a consensus in agreement regarding Uthman’s actions:
“By Allah, he did not do what he did regarding the Qur’an, except by agreement from us.” (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani in Fathul Baari, Volume 8, page 634 said that Ibn Abi Dawud collected this statement using an authentic chain of narrators)
The companions of the Prophet (peace be upon) all agreed upon Uthman’s burning of the manuscripts, Ibn Abi Dawud collected in, al-Masahif, 1/45, from Mus’ab bin Sa’d who said,
“I found overwhelming support for Uthman from the people, however it surprised them, but none rebuked him for it.” (Ibn Kathir quoted it in Fada’il al-Qura’an p. 39 and said that its isnad is sahih.)
German Orientalist Theodor Noldeke said:
“when we consider all this, we must regard it as a strong testimony in favor of Uthman’s Qur’an that no party – that of Ali not excepted – repudiated the text formed by Zaid, who was one of the most devoted adherents of Uthman and his family, and that even among the Shiites we detect but very few marks of dissatisfaction with the Caliph’s conduct in this matter. (Reference: Nöldeke, Theodor. “The Qur’an,” Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892.)
Uthman had several enemies during his time. Not a single one of his enemies accused him of tampering with the Qur’anic text.
William Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell said:
“If any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace. ‘Uthman offended the more religious among Muslims, and ultimately became very unpopular. Yet among the charges laid against him, that of having mutilated and altered the Qur’an is not generally included, and was never made a main point. The Shi’a, it is true, has always held that the Qur’an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to ‘Ali and the Prophet’s family. This charge, however, is not specially directed against ‘Uthman, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made. It is also founded on dogmatic assumptions which hardly appeal to modern criticism. On general grounds then, it may be concluded that the ‘Uthmanic revision was honestly carried out, and reproduced, as closely as was possible to the men in charge of it, what Muhammad had delivered.
Modern study of the Qur’an has not in fact raised any serious questions of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable. So clearly that the whole bear the stamp of uniformity that doubts of its genuineness hardly arise. [W M Watt & R Bell, Introduction To The Qur'an, 1994, Edinburgh at University Press, p. 51.]
So what do the positive statements regarding the early consensus IN ADDITION TO THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF CONTROVERSY (which speaks loads) mean? Well……. It basically shows that the companions had no beef with the Uthmanic codex. It means that THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON SOMEONE LIKE DEREK who claims that the companions actually did disagree with the Uthmanic codex.
So if I were to summarize what I just said I would say:
- We have proof that the companions unanimously accepted the Uthmanic codex
- There is no proof disputing the aforementioned fact
- Since the aforementioned fact is true, we may logically and reasonably deduce that the companions never thought that some of the readings that they recited MUST HAVE BEEN included into the Qur’an. This is a logical deduction, hence it’s unreasonable to demand independent positive evidence to prove the same (already known and logically deduced) point.
- Given this, we may reasonably try to explain that the reason for this is that the verse was intended to be abrogated and not be included in the final collection without needing to have to provide independent evidence for each case.
- In conclusion, the Muslim is rationally justified to demand that the critic provides evidence demonstrating the contrary.
Simple as that.
Hence, my falsification criterion stands…….. provide evidence, which shows that the companions believed that Qur’anic verses, which should have been part of the canon were not included from reliable and authentic sources.
Abdullah is on the spot showing how options C and D alone could falsify the Qur’an’s preservation (and let me add that this is only if it could be shown that these specific companions died upon this opinion and that they made a good case for their claims, however no need to go there, since we know that there was a consensus amongst the companions regarding the reliability of the Uthmanic codex) and Derek’s responses to options C and D made no sense and didn’t directly address them properly.
You lose this one Derek. Let’s move on to the next one. You want to discuss the tawatur of the Qur’an or the relevance of needing to know the meaning of ahruf next?
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 20, 2012 at 7:13 pmFirstly I have already addressed C and D and pointed how they fail to falsify his supposed first standard. The fact that neither of you actually responded is not my problem, the response stands, C & D do not falsify his criterion. C is not sufficient to prove anything (and Zawadi admits even if the opinion was more than concern, he would need proof the companion died on this). D is clearly not referring to first test of falsification we are discussing.
Now I made a prediction that came true after I mentioned I had said: “Zawadi can simply respond with “prove the companions believed that particular verse ought to have been in the final product”. Even if we gave him such a hadith, he could then argue: “How do you know that was that companion(s) final opinion on the matter?”.”
This is exactly what Zawadi has done (as expected). This is exactly as I said make a test designed to appear as falsifiable but he admits even if the evidence were given it would still be insufficient. This is exactly what I had said. This is not a defense of a perfectly preserved Quran, this goes beyond falsifiability into dogma.
But now let’s get to the heart of the issue, Zawadi says two interesting things.
“- Since the aforementioned fact is true, we may logically and reasonably deduce that the companions never thought that some of the readings that they recited MUST HAVE BEEN included into the Qur’an. This is a logical deduction, hence it’s unreasonable to demand independent positive evidence to prove the same (already known and logically deduced) point.”
Firstly this is not a deduction, this is at best an inductive claim. But you haven’t supported the premises or the conclusion. Nor have you put this in a structurally valid form.
Here you argue that companions approval of the final product must therefore mean some of the verses they recited earlier by default wouldn’t have to be part of the official end Quran.
Of course the argument that the companions approved of the final codex is an argument from silence(check arguments made by Watt and Bell), but this also clearly contradicted by the narrations I have already cited in the posted article. But lets move this longly contested point aside and agree.
The first problem with this is that it’s simply a non-sequitor. Approval of the final product does not mean earlier recitations were not viewed as being part of the final Quran. But this is entirely irrelevant to the challenge. The companions approval of a final Quran, does not indicate that the companions before hand, had expected “this verse would be part of the final Quran, this verse wouldn’t be”. Infact the idea to construct a fully complete Quran was a brand new idea, hence the companions were not thinking in these terms. We both know the companions reckoned everything they were taught by the prophet as QURANIC. Hence you need to support your bogus distinction independently. This is not deductible and it still remains a non-sequitor. But even if you can show this independently I will of course point out your sources prove otherwise. In fact just read my articles again and you will see multiple cases of companions having no clue multiple readings existed and examples of companions still reciting their own version of the Quran despite the Uthmanic Recension. I even go over your explanation of one case where you try to escape this problem and point out how it fails to meet the criterion of abrogation.
You next say:
- Given this, we may reasonably try to explain that the reason for this is that the verse was intended to be abrogated and not be included in the final collection without needing to have to provide independent evidence for each case.
Well you need to prove the companions were aware of this. Of course I have extensively gone over this kind of circular reasoning you engage in on the posted article. It is not merely good enough to say “this is an abrogation”, you know the criterion and must demonstrate that the cases in point are abrogations.
Anyway Zawadi I grow weary of this format. I think perhaps we should stick to a more “limited” sort of response, meaning one post a day(back and forth), or one post every three days, or a week. I’m sure you agree that this kind of continuous posting every few hours is time constraining. Perhaps I will need to write up one big post to begin this ball game and perhaps have a weekly or monthly exchange.
Reply 
erasmus
May 20, 2012 at 7:47 pmThere’s no proof that there was a divine revelation to Mohammed in the cave in the first place. Prove that first and then prove that it was perfectly preserved. Can’t be done. It’s all a waste of time.
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 20, 2012 at 8:35 pmDerek,
You are being unnecessarily persistent and are unwilling to admit when you are simply wrong and have no case to argue.
In response to point C you said:
“It must be shown that it was indeed some of the verses that had to be part of the final product that were not part of the final product. Showing mere “concern” might be necessary but it is not sufficient to fulfill his criterion.”
What you said is meaningless. I don’t know what you are talking about!
In your last post you said “C is not sufficient to prove anything (and Zawadi admits even if the opinion was more than concern, he would need proof the companion died on this).”
NO DUH! Of course you have to prove that the companion died on this. I mean that’s obviously a given Derek. Come on Derek what’s the point in you showing me an example of a companion who said something, but then later on changed his mind? Huh? Obviously you would have to demonstrate that he died upon a particular opinion or demonstrate that there is no evidence that he changed his mind.
You said: “Firstly this is not a deduction, this is at best an inductive claim.”
Of course it’s deductive. I could deduce from the fact that the companions accepted Uthman’s codex that they didn’t believe that these readings you are referring to must have been included into the “end Qur’an”, otherwise they would have spoken out.
You said: “Nor have you put this in a structurally valid form.”
Care to explain why not?
You said: “Here you argue that companions approval of the final product must therefore mean some of the verses they recited earlier by default wouldn’t have to be part of the official end Quran.”
What I said was that this proves that this shows THAT THEY BELIEVED (I’m talking about their beliefs) that those verses wouldn’t have to be part of the official “end Qur’an”.
You said: “Of course the argument that the companions approved of the final codex is an argument from silence(check arguments made by Watt and Bell),”
It’s a powerful argument from silence. Absence of evidence could equal evidence of absence at times as I explained near the end of my debate (quoting WLC) with Qureshi and said that it applies to this case.
SECONDLY, it’s not only an argument from silence, since I also provided testimony showing that the companions surely did agree unanimously.
You said: “but this also clearly contradicted by the narrations I have already cited in the posted article.”
You have shown NO SUCH THING. Post them again, I must be blind.
You said: “Approval of the final product does not mean earlier recitations were not viewed as being part of the final Quran.”
We need to be specific here about the period. Of course before the Prophet stated that they were abrogated that Muslims thought that they would be part of the “end Qur’an”, since that’s the assumption unless stated otherwise.
You said: “The companions approval of a final Quran, does not indicate that the companions before hand, had expected “this verse would be part of the final Quran, this verse wouldn’t be”.”
Derek, I’m waiting for you to answer the most important question, which basically makes your entire argument shrink down to nothingness……. Why did the companions UNANIMOUSLY agree with Uthman’s codex??????? If they weren’t convinced that a particular verse was abrogated and what not, then why didn’t they rebel or speak out?????? You are raising irrelevant points Derek. Get to the crux of the matter here.
You said: “ Infact the idea to construct a fully complete Quran was a brand new idea, hence the companions were not thinking in these terms.”
Don’t mislead the readers Derek. The “brand new idea” wasn’t the fact that there are verses, which could be abrogated. The “brand new idea” was collecting the Qur’an into one book.
So let’s make that point clear from now.
You said: “We both know the companions reckoned everything they were taught by the prophet as QURANIC.”
Yes, but the companions also recognized that some of these verses could be abrogated (either by ruling, recitation or both). So yes they reckoned them as Qur’anic, but that doesn’t mean that they reckoned all the revealed verses as being unabrogated.
You said: “ Hence you need to support your bogus distinction independently.”
The only thing, which is completely bogus is the fact that you think that you have grasped this subject and that you are qualified to discuss such a sophisticated topic such as this one.
You are basically saying that the companions weren’t aware of the concept of verses being abrogated, despite the fact that we have plenty of tradition (clearest examples being that of Umar ibn Al Khattab on the verse of stoning and Aisha on the verse of 10 sucklings), which state otherwise.
You said: “ In fact just read my articles again and you will see multiple cases of companions having no clue multiple readings existed and examples of companions still reciting their own version of the Quran despite the Uthmanic Recension.”
What exactly are you trying to prove here???? So what if there were companions who weren’t aware of multiple readings? What does that prove exactly? Even the hadith of the Prophet and Umar and Hisham clearly illustrates that Umar didn’t know about other readings. Well…….. so what? How about those who were aware then? Huh? Come on Derek, please argue well. Or is your strategy to tire me out of this discussion?
You said: “Well you need to prove the companions were aware of this.”
Are you seriously kidding me????? Are you seriously asking me to show to you that the companions were aware of the idea of Qur’anic verses being able to be abrogated by recitation?
You said: “ It is not merely good enough to say “this is an abrogation”, you know the criterion and must demonstrate that the cases in point are abrogations.”
No, I am sorry Derek, this is where you are wrong and where you are practicing unhealthy and unreasonable skepticism. I don’t have to prove with independent evidence IN EVERY SINGLE CASE IN POINT that it’s a matter of abrogation or an ahruf reading that didn’t make it to the codex.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE the contrary. Why? Because I am well justified to trust in the companions unanimous acceptance of the codex and that they combined together knew very well what must be included in the “end Qur’an”. I have zero reason to doubt their capabilities and qualifications to do that.
I don’t need independent evidence for every single case in point. You do, perhaps because you are the type who might not be willing to give the benefit of the doubt (even when it’s well deserved) or you just have an axe to grind and want to keep pushing for your argument regardless. I’m not sure.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Reply 
goldylocks
May 20, 2012 at 10:57 pmSomeone just got pummeled o.0. Derek, just accept that you’re wrong…sheesh how hard can that be? I know its embarassing….but still..
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 21, 2012 at 5:57 amZawadi had to concede alot in his post above, so I only make this next post in a sense for people like goldylocks, who have no ability to see how poor these answers are. Personally it frustrates me that someone can’t just read it and immediately pick up on a host of fallacies like inconsistencies, contradictions, circular reasoning and begging the question.
Zawadi said: “What you said is meaningless. I don’t know what you are talking about!”
I agree this is a perfect example of how you can’t follow a discussion. Just read your criterion and Abdullah’s claim that C fulfills your criterion (it doesn’t). Concern of upset at the circumstances do not suffice.
Zawadi says: “I mean that’s obviously a given Derek. Come on Derek what’s the point in you showing me an example of a companion who said something, but then later on changed his mind? Huh? Obviously you would have to demonstrate that he died upon a particular opinion or demonstrate that there is no evidence that he changed his mind.”
I gave a specific case in point there is NO evidence DARDA changed his mind. What was your response on your website? “Obviously he was speaking from bad memory and human error.” So don’t ask disingenuous questions when you don’t accept the answers.
But further more if Darda changed his mind, was it because the recitation itself was abrogated? The evidence is the EXACT OPPOSITE:
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105: Narrated Alqama: I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak’at prayer; I said, “O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion.” Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), “I hope Allah has given me my request.” The man asked (me), “Where are you from?” I replied, “I am from the people of Kufa.” He said, “Weren’t there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet’s) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren’t there amongst you the man who was given Allah’s Refuge from the Satan? And weren’t there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet’s) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um ‘Abd (i.e. ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night:92)?” I recited:–
“By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female.” (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, “By Allah, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) tried their best to let me say something different .”
So lets go over a few things.
Firstly we have Darda who and Alqama who both confirm the Prophet taught them this way.
We have Alqama confirming Ibn Masud also recited this way.
In the same sentence it is confirmed this Ibn Masud was the same man who kept the prophets secret whom no body else knew!
We therefore have evidence that Ibn Masud in keeping the prophets recitation was over-heard by at least one companion.
We have evidence this recitation was not “abrogated” by the prophet. Rather “these people of sham tried their best to let me say something different”. Hence it wasn’t the Prophet or an abrogation that made Abu Darda stop reciting like this it was pressure from the people of Sham. Besides the “abrogation” of this variant recitation doesn’t work as it meets none of the conditions of naskh as I’ve already pointed out.
Hence it is quite clear that Alqama, Masud, and Darda were pressured into accepting the sham recitation, eventually causing the other recitation to be lost in transmission.
In addition using the principle of embarrassment it is also certain there is no way the Muslim Ummah would transmit a reliable hadith like this showing the disputations of early problems like this, making the hadith more likely true and not merely “incorrect memory”.
We have evidence therefore it wasn’t because the verse was “abrogated”. We have no evidence Darda changed his mind until under pressure which he must of surrendered to, similar to Ibn Masud.
You next say:
“Of course it’s deductive. I could deduce from the fact that the companions accepted Uthman’s codex that they didn’t believe that these readings you are referring to must have been included into the “end Qur’an”, otherwise they would have spoken out.”
Note, the reasoning “otherwise they would have spoken out”. If we use Zawadi’s own statement against him, it is clear then that the “speaking out” of Alqama and Darda are evidence to the contraire! So does he accept evidence of people speaking out or not? Zawadi is not consistent
Several people spoke out, but they spoke out in secret or in a lower capacity. So we would certainly not expect a public catastrophe. In fact Zawadi hasn’t explained why we would expect people to publically oppose Uthman? When most of the Quraa had already died. But Zawadi still misses the simple point, this is not a deduction, as you can’t deduce these sort of claims, these are inductive arguments that he is trying to justify with arguments from silence.
Zawadi next says: “It’s a powerful argument from silence. Absence of evidence could equal evidence of absence at times as I explained near the end of my debate (quoting WLC) with Qureshi and said that it applies to this case.”
Well clearly it’s not a powerful argument from silence as we have numerous exceptions, and no good reason to think a revolution would be orchestrated by dead reciters (clearly!) nor those invested in remaining alive!
You then say: “SECONDLY, it’s not only an argument from silence, since I also provided testimony showing that the companions surely did agree unanimously.”
Assuming the authenticity of the hadith given, you provided a quotation of Ali claiming their was unanimous consent of the companions. Zawadi gives no explanation why we would need to trust the word of Ali who quite apparently would of had to support this. It’s also quite clear most of the reciters were dead, and the reciters who objected to the codex, objected at the peril of their life, so their objections were limited to the private arena.
You quote: “Mus’ab bin Sa’d who said, “I found overwhelming support for Uthman from the people, however it surprised them, but none rebuked him for it.” (Ibn Kathir quoted it in Fada’il al-Qura’an p. 39 and said that its isnad is sahih.)
None rebuked him for it? I didn’t know Musab ibn Sab had the power of omniscience or omnipresence. Making an absolute claim like this requires absolute evidence Zawadi. How does he know “none rebuked him” was he Uthman’s wife or bodyguard?
I said: “Nor have you put this in a structurally valid form.” You replied “Care to explain why not?”
Well it’s very simple, if you’re argument is deductive you can put it into a deductive form. But as I said your argument it not deductive.
“You have shown NO SUCH THING. Post them again, I must be blind. ”
Indeed we agree, “blind”. Suffice to say the first example will do for now.
You said: “We need to be specific here about the period. Of course before the Prophet stated that they were abrogated that Muslims thought that they would be part of the “end Qur’an”, since that’s the assumption unless stated otherwise.
You then said I am stating irrelevant points but don’t explain how this is irrelevant. We both agree the verses recited by the companions was thought of as Quranic. My next point which is the crux of the argument you completely dodge: “The companions approval of a final Quran, does not indicate that the companions before hand, had expected “this verse would be part of the final Quran, this verse wouldn’t be”
But this is exactly what is dependent on your first falsification criterion. The companions were not determining which verses would be part of a future Quran because they had no clue that a future Quran existed! Besides, the supposed “abrogations” were rare and had to meet several conditions.
“1)Show companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.”
The clear reason why “Quran for future generations” is specified is because Zawadi knows the verses reckoned to be the Quran by the companions taught by the prophet Mohammed himself were lost. Hence Zawadi must try to come up with something to make his position look better. You are about to see his explanation and bogus falsification criterion only get worse.
Zawadi next says: “Don’t mislead the readers Derek. The “brand new idea” wasn’t the fact that there are verses, which could be abrogated. The “brand new idea” was collecting the Qur’an into one book.” And: “Yes, but the companions also recognized that some of these verses could be abrogated (either by ruling, recitation or both). So yes they reckoned them as Qur’anic, but that doesn’t mean that they reckoned all the revealed verses as being unabrogated. ”
This is what I had said. But I challenge Zawadi to back up his claim that the companions (pre-Uthmanic) were aware that their “recitations” could be abrogated. In fact it’s not merely good enough to argue that the companions knew “laws and commands” could be abrogated, we need evidence from Zawadi showing the companions themselves knew that various recitations of the same verse could be abrogated.
Since Zawadi won’t be able to do this (since it wasn’t Mohammad who said variant recitations could be abrogated, it was later Muslims), once again we see why his “first criterion” is not a legitimate criterion. Not only did the companions know what they were being taught by the prophet was Quranic, they had no clue about 1) The final edition of the Quran (hence they assumed everything they recited was Quranic and would always be Quranic even including the “abrogated laws”) 2) They did not know that variant readings could be abrogated (unless Zawadi shows otherwise). 3) They didn’t even know variant readings EXISTED (as confirmed by Zawadi below) 4) Real abrogations (not variant recitations), were Laws that were not entirely removed from the Quranic Codex according to Uthman himself. (I’ve cited this report in my post). So any example of evidence of verses being left out (to the contrary) is more direct evidence that these verses were left out of the Quran contradicting Uthman’s claim to have even preserved the abrogated verses within the Quran.
Next after attacking my credibility Zawadi says: “You are basically saying that the companions weren’t aware of the concept of verses being abrogated, despite the fact that we have plenty of tradition (clearest examples being that of Umar ibn Al Khattab on the verse of stoning and Aisha on the verse of 10 sucklings), which state otherwise.”
Which of course is evidence against his position since (as I just said) these verses would be expect to be preserved in the Quran (according to Uthman).
But Zawadi immediately contradicts himself:
“What exactly are you trying to prove here???? So what if there were companions who weren’t aware of multiple readings? What does that prove exactly? Even the hadith of the Prophet and Umar and Hisham clearly illustrates that Umar didn’t know about other readings. Well…….. so what? How about those who were aware then? Huh? Come on Derek, please argue well. Or is your strategy to tire me out of this discussion?”
So which is it Zawadi, were the companions familiar with these abrogations recitations or not?
Next he says: “Are you seriously kidding me????? Are you seriously asking me to show to you that the companions were aware of the idea of Qur’anic verses being able to be abrogated by recitation?”
Am I “seriously” asking you this. Well perhaps it’s a joke or to difficult for you. So far no evidence provided. I’ll be waiting.
You then say: “I don’t have to prove with independent evidence IN EVERY SINGLE CASE IN POINT that it’s a matter of abrogation or an ahruf reading that didn’t make it to the codex.”
Well I hate to break it to you, but yes you must demonstrate all abrogations are abrogations. I already demonstrated in my article you can’t do this. In fact you just beg the question, which is exactly what you have done here. “The benefit of the doubt” does not apply here because Abrogations have strict criterion that must be satisfied, Abrogations are few, far and rare in between.. You must demonstrate all alleged abrogations meet at least one or several of these criterion, so no “the benefit of the doubt” is not a good excuse.
So let us get to the “crux” of the matter as you suggest.
Take care Zawadi
- Derek
Reply 
laun
May 21, 2012 at 7:07 amOMG dude come on move on Derek. Bassam gave you clear evidences, what more do you want? Actually you are proving to everyone that you are not worth discussing with, and the only thing you are doing is wasting peoples precious time. Whats the point of this discussion when you will not admit when you are wrong?
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 21, 2012 at 7:38 amLAUN c’mon man. Move on. I gave you clear evidence Abu Darda was pressured into accepting the shamite reading and relinquished his own, hence absolute proof the Quran is missing genuine verses that should of been part of the final product. Plus in addition I made sure to point out that “abrogating recitations of the same verses” were not part of the original conception of abrogation, hence this post dates Mohammed. Meaning all of those verses that are not included in the Quran were mean’t to be part of the final Quran, since Mohammed never abrogated recitations. Are you deliberately wasting my precious time? Whats the point in you reading the text if you complain and ramble but don’t contribute to the discussion? Why don’t you admit when you are wrong?
Laun here is a simple request for you. Let me know how Hisham hadn’t heard of any various of recitations for at least 10 years.
By the way Laun, you obviously wont’ be able to answer anything. Don’t feel obligated to respond. Leave it up to Zawadi.
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 21, 2012 at 8:52 amDerek said: “Personally it frustrates me…”
Oh and somehow you think we think highly of your “arguments”? Do you know how frustrated I am talking to someone such as yourself who doesn’t know Arabic and hasn’t read a host of scholarly untranslated books on this subject and somehow he thinks he understands this topic so well to the extent that you are making wild objections?
Derek said: “I gave a specific case in point there is NO evidence DARDA changed his mind. What was your response on your website?”
I keep sounding like a broken record here. The FACT THAT THE COMPANIONS (including Abu Darda) accepted Uthman’s codex IS PROOF that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading MUST HAVE BEEN included into the “end Qur’an” so that it could be considered preserved. Can’t you get that already?
Hence, what you need to do is provide positive evidence to the contrary.
Derek said: “But further more if Darda changed his mind, was it because the recitation itself was abrogated?”
It doesn’t HAVE TO BE because his reading was abrogated. This is only a theory. There is no harm in claiming ignorance on this. It could be that this reading from a particular harf wasn’t incorporated into the Uthmanic codex (we already admit that the majority opinion states that not all the harfs were preserved).
WHAT MATTERS at the end of the day? WHAT MATTERS is that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading must be inserted into the ‘Uthmanic codex in order for the codex to be considered perfectly preserved. We know this especially because as Ibn Hajar states in Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of “Exegesis of the Qur’an”, Chapter 442, Number 3966 that we have the Qur’anic recitation of this verse transmitted from Abu Darda and his reading matches that of Uthmani’s codex.
What Abu Darda initially recited was surely the Qur’an, but from another harf, however as we repeat many times…… not all the harfs of the Qur’an had to be preserved.
GET IT NOW?
We don’t have to know with a certainty for each single case point what was the reason was for not including a certain reading. We could theorize that it was due to it either being abrogated or not being accommodated by the Uthamnic codex, since his codex couldn’t accommodate all harfs.
WHAT WE DO KNOW however is that none of the companions thought that Uthmans codex was somehow corrupt or lacking. THAT’S WHAT MATTERS AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE DEBATE.
So please spare us your hair splitting and desperate arguments and be sincere and open minded please. Kill your ego and just admit that you’ve got nothing solid here.
Derek said: “We have evidence therefore it wasn’t because the verse was “abrogated”. We have no evidence Darda changed his mind until under pressure which he must of surrendered to, similar to Ibn Masud.”
We already know that Ibn Masud and others were pressured into letting go of their readings and accepting the Uthmanic codex. We already know this. We already know that the Qur’an was revealed in seven ahruf and we know that many companions were not aware of other readings and were only used to other readings and we know that a growing number of them started competing with each other due to ignorance of the other’s reading (which is what motivated Uthman to compile the Qur’an to begin with). WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. So what’s new here???
If you are however trying to say that they forcibly accepted Uthman’s codex WHILE BELIEVING IT”S CORRUPTED….. well then you need to provide evidence for that. Instead what you are doing is showing that there were companions who were against Uthman’s decision to standardize the Qur’an (something we already know and concede) and that the Qur’an was revealed in different ahruf (something we already know and concede) and other facts already well known and accepted by the Muslim side. WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING INSTEAD is showing that these companions rejected Uthman’s codex and deemed it to be corrupted and not preserved. That’s what you SHOULD DO if you want to win this debate. Instead, you are not.
“If we use Zawadi’s own statement against him, it is clear then that the “speaking out” of Alqama and Darda are evidence to the contraire! So does he accept evidence of people speaking out or not? Zawadi is not consistent”
NO WHERE have you explicitly or implicitly shown that Alqama and Abu Darda rejected Uthman’s codex and deemed it as corrupted.
Derek said: “ In fact Zawadi hasn’t explained why we would expect people to publically oppose Uthman?”
You are basically arguing that that a possible reason why the Muslims agreed with the text was due to fear, then this could be easily replied to as follows:
- First of all, the Muslims in their theology were required to only obey the ruler if he didn’t order them to do something Islamically forbidden. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: There is no obedience to the creation if it constitutes disobedience to the Creator.” If the “Muslims even suspected that Uthman was ordering them to do something wrong, they wouldn’t have complied, just as Ibn Mas’ud INITIALLY did not.
- Secondly, the Muslims wouldn’t only have not complied, but they would have argued back and fought against Uthman if they believed that he tampered with the Qur’an, since in Islam Muslims believe that if the Muslim ruler were to commit clear apostasy then he must be overthrown.
- Thirdly, the very Muslims who were disputing with each other over the Qur’anic variations and then eventually agreed with Uthman’s decision are the very members of Uthman’s army himself! It is Uthman’s very army whom he was seeking to correct and needed their approval, therefore how could Uthman have used his army to force people to comply?
Derek said: “When most of the Quraa had already died.”
Who said that only the Quraa would have rebelled? Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy and others could have used their status to start an uprising (even if it was small) and argued that Uthman’s codex was corrupt. There is no shred of evidence that they ever thought of such a thing.
Derek said: “Assuming the authenticity of the hadith given”
Oh yeah anything that refutes your case should be in doubt. Uh huh.
Derek said: “Zawadi gives no explanation why we would need to trust the word of Ali who quite apparently would of had to support this.”
You clearly know nothing of Ali. You don’t know his character, bravery, unshakable and principled demeanor, etc. You also provide ZERO EVIDENCE showing that Ali was forced to utter this statement.
Derek said: “ It’s also quite clear most of the reciters were dead, and the reciters who objected to the codex, objected at the peril of their life, so their objections were limited to the private arena.”
This is where I have officially lost ALL RESPECT for you. Now you are making things up from thin air.
Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone’s life was in peril or danger?????? Huh???????!!!!!!!!!
You also said that their objections were limited to the private arena! Looooool, you and your fellow critics need to make up your minds. Your friends Wood and Qureshi say that Ibn Masud went very very public with his objections.
Derek said: “None rebuked him for it? I didn’t know Musab ibn Sab had the power of omniscience or omnipresence. Making an absolute claim like this requires absolute evidence Zawadi. How does he know “none rebuked him” was he Uthman’s wife or bodyguard?”
He didn’t need to be omniscient. He’s saying what was public knowledge at the time. What was public knowledge at the time was that no one opposed Uthman’s codex. So what now? People need to be omniscient now to make these sort of claims?
His statement coupled with the powerful argument of silence (where we should expect to at least receive one report of someone claiming that Uthman’s codex was corrupt if that were truly the case) puts the burden of proof on YOU.
You said that someone could have done it privately. Okay…… SHOW ME! Show me where anyone privately argued that Uthman’s codex was corrupt (and please for the love of God don’t’ confuse this with them being upset that Uthman didn’t incorporate their entire harf).
Derek said: “Indeed we agree, “blind”. Suffice to say the first example will do for now.”
I was referring to being blind physically, yet you are clearly the one who is blind spiritually + extremely ignorant of this subject.
Derek said: “But this is exactly what is dependent on your first falsification criterion. The companions were not determining which verses would be part of a future Quran because they had no clue that a future Quran existed! Besides, the supposed “abrogations” were rare and had to meet several conditions.”
You are not getting the point Derek. My criterion has to do with companions who believed that their reading MUST HAVE been included into the Qur’an and that their exclusion would resulted in a corrupt Qur’an. You haven’t shown this anywhere. Instead, you are showing examples of companions who were upset that Uthman didn’t incorporate their harfs completely. But the Qur’an lacking all the harfs doesn’t mean that the Qur’an is considered corrupt in Islamic theology. That is something, which are you continuously failing to understand.
Derek said: “This is what I had said. But I challenge Zawadi to back up his claim that the companions (pre-Uthmanic) were aware that their “recitations” could be abrogated. In fact it’s not merely good enough to argue that the companions knew “laws and commands” could be abrogated, we need evidence from Zawadi showing the companions themselves knew that various recitations of the same verse could be abrogated.”
My pleasure…………I could give at least 6 to 7 examples quickly. However, I will give one clear example, which should suffice.
In Saheeh Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421: Aisha refers to a verse on ten sucklings ,which was revealed and abrogated (by recitation since it’s not in the Qur’an today) during the Prophet’s time. Also, see Malik Muwatta, Book 030, Hadith Number 017. The ten sucklings verse is a clear example of a verse whose recitation was abrogated during the Prophet’s time.
Derek said: “ 3) They didn’t even know variant readings EXISTED (as confirmed by Zawadi below)”
I said that NOT ALL OF THEM knew. I didn’t’ say all of them didn’t know. Don’t misquote me.
Of course some of the companions must have known. I mean Saheeh Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514 is the clearest example that AT LEAST some must have known, since the Prophet clearly communicated this during his life time a number of times.
“Which of course is evidence against his position since (as I just said) these verses would be expect to be preserved in the Quran (according to Uthman).”
Huh????????!!!!!!
Derek said: “So which is it Zawadi, were the companions familiar with these abrogations recitations or not?”
Derek, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY and don’t’ generalize my statements. I said
“So what IF THERE WERE companions who weren’t aware of multiple readings?
And I also said:
“How about those who were aware then?”
So I didn’t say that ALL of the companions weren’t aware, I said that there surely must have been who weren’t and surely some who were.
Derek said: “You must demonstrate all alleged abrogations meet at least one or several of these criterion, so no “the benefit of the doubt” is not a good excuse.”
Ohhhh…. Sooooooo now you are interested in asking me to abide by Islamic criteria huh? Yet, you don’t bother to apply them in other cases (like knowing the authenticity of a narration). You are really something you know that? Lol.
Anyways, I already addressed your abrogation remarks in the comments section of your site.
Derek said: “So let us get to the “crux” of the matter as you suggest.”
Yes……. Let’s please do so. Please stop using hair splitting and irrelevant arguments.
Please differentiate between companions who wanted their harf to be incorporated and those who believed that Uthman’s codex was corrupt (of whom none exist).
You need to PROVE THE LATTER DEREK. If you keep insisting on the former point (that not all harfs are preserved, hence that means that Uthman’s codex is corrupt) then that means that you are formulating a theological objection, which is a different thing all together.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Reply 
NakdimonMay 21, 2012 at 3:23 pmShalom Bassam,
I’ll try to meet a few of your criteria and see if those cases I put forth will stand.
But before I start, let me ask you: When you say “this is only if it could be shown that these specific companions died upon this opinion”, what do you mean exactly?
Do you mean that we have to have a positive statement by a companion on his deathbed saying “I have not changed my mind on such and such a manner”? Or is the absence of a positive statement that this individual changed his mind evidence enough that this person died upon the quoted opinion?
Think carefully how you answer because what is good for the goose is good for the gander, especially with a claim of PERFECT preservation.
Reply 
Ijaz AhmadMay 23, 2012 at 2:17 pmHere comes the Christian who pretends he can speak Hebrew, Nakdimon.
Died upon this opinion meaning that this was their final opinion and they died with it. That they did not change beyond this opinion in any other statement. Hope you understand. Well, most likely not, but I’ll still give you the benefit of the doubt.
When it comes to the statements of the Sahabah, most of them are relegated into the Arabic collections, only the Sahih Sitta have been translated into English really. There are numerous mutawattir traditions of the Ashab all in agreement with the Qur’anic canon and codex of today. There is no argument you can bring to the contrary,
Reply 
qwerty
May 21, 2012 at 6:39 pmBassam, can you post the debate script you used in your debate with Nabeel on your website? Shukran.
Reply 
Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 1:38 amOk, I will not talk about point C and D because I don’t think Derek has giving me anything to be concerned about, other than the use of the word concern
As for Nakdimon, Bassam has already answered it. Yes if we have a statement of a person x and we have no other statement from him then we can conclude in a rough sort of way that the statement reflects the belief of the person. Bassam already said that. That is why Dereks boring mantra about falsification is a waste of time. Actually I could have come up with at least 3 other ways to falsify Bassam as well but I can’t be bothered really.
The Abu Darda example is a good one to use. We have a narration that he read the variant noted one the Ibn Masood way but we have also sahih narrations that he taught and recited the Uthmanic codex way. The variants have no affect on meaning so I can reasonably assume he thought that both are valid ways to read it, or he could have changed his mind. The latter evidence shows it
Islamically we have no problem with either. Variants within a restricted sense are reported in plethora in the Islamic literature which shows that early on in our community this was accepted as a normative practice. Certainly no conspiracy to suppress readings as Keith Smalls awful Phd would have us believe. Still, at least the thesis provided good information on early Quranic manuscripts
Reply Nakdimon
May 22, 2012 at 5:12 pmAbdullah I want Bassam to answer the question since I dont want him to deny what his stance is once we get going.
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 1:43 amI have to agree with Bassam, Derek scholastics on the topic are occasionally mind bogglingly awful. Sort of like an undergraduate physics student not knowing about maths behind vectors in a 3 dimensional space. Anyway, blah blah ad homenim I know, just a personal reflection
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 9:51 amActually looking at the Abu Darda example again we do not have what Derek wants.
1- The people of Sham( not Uthman) had not heard the recitation of Ibn Masud. Probably not popular
2- They reasonably had concerns but the two companions heard it from Ibn Masud and felt annoyed about the pushy nature of some people
3-Interestingly we have Sahih isnads from the noted companions teaching and reciting the normative way as well
In summary taking into account all the info I think it would be reasonable to assume that they allowed both readings. A ase can be made for it being a “shadh” reading as well as it goes against the mass transmission of the other reading. Either way no problem with the Uthman codex and not an account of a companion objecting to the codex itself and dying on that belief
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 10:45 amInterestingly the uniformity of a tradition and the lack of any meaningful objection historically is a positive evidence that people tend to agree with something (taken as whole). The fact that we do not have positive claims from every companion in that generation is not an argument from silence. Silly Derek
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 11:15 amAbdullah thank you for your concern. But don’t worry you won’t be acting arrogant when it’s one on one. This poor high school physics undergrad will have a lot of fun with you. I mean look at your responses so far? In fact i’ll let you know, so far your thoughts are not worth responding to, so you get no response, I know ad-hom and all.. bah but just a reflection. Maybe you want to actually put up more bark and less bite. hmmm.
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 11:24 amZawadi lets go over a few facts established that you still haven’t been able to refute.
Firstly Companions may have believed that VERSES can be abrogated by ruling. But you have not provided evidence that companions believe AHRUF (and/or) QIRAAT can be abrogated.
Secondly, you have NOT provided evidence Abrogation’s can be REMOVED from the Quranic Codex itself. Hence all we know is Abrogation’s are Abrogation of rulings NOT abrogation’s of RECITATION. The references you gave (Saheeh Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421, Malik Muwatta, Book 030, Hadith Number 017) do not show any clear of an abrogation of recitation of 5 sucklings, only an abrogation of ruling. And this is despite the evidence I had already provided in my article earlier, this evidence remains uncontested:
“In the first place it’s noteworthy to mention that Uthman the compiler of the Quran himself had not heard of these concepts. For him what was abrogated, wasn’t removed altogether, it stayed in it’s place:
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53: Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan (while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse:– “Those of you who die and leave wives …” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by another Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur’an)?” ‘Uthman said. “ O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place .”
Another translation reads:
He replied, “O my nephew, I will not remove anything from its original place.”
So not only do your references not provide evidence, there is KNOWN evidence to the contrary. Your response to this was what we call “interpolation” or “eisegesis”:
“When the man said that the verse is abrogated he meant – IN TERMS OF ITS RULING – and not recitation. The man was basically asking “if it’s ruling is not applicable anymore, why keep it written down then?”, so Uthman basically replied back saying that he won’t move anything from its place unless there is evidence to do so.”
Hence your interpretation of the hadith is a plain fabrication. But hey if you don’t like that hadith, and the testimony of Uthman, how about Umar, the witness of two is always better than one right?
“4719. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbas that ‘Umar said, “Ubayy was the one of us with the best recitation, yet we leave some of the words of Ubayy. Ubayy said, ‘I took it from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah and will not leave it for anything.’ Allah Almighty says, ‘Whenever We abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it.’ (2:106)” (Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, VIII: The reciters among the Companions of the Prophet: )”
But let’s presume your answer was correct for a minute. Your answer makes Uthman look even worse because it still doesn’t answer the question. Why are there missing verses and surahs of the left out of the Qur’an when other abrogated passages were kept in the Qur’an? If Uthman’s answer was as you put it “we don’t remove anything from its place unless there is evidence” Firstly this simply doesn’t answer the original question: “If its ruling isn’t applicable why keep it written down?” Uthman therefore must have omitted the truth since he did leave abrogations in the Quran written down; many abrogations have been left written down. In fact we would expect Uthman to say “well we remove some and keep others, based on the evidence”, but clearly such a response doesn’t exist, nor can it even be implied from the text itself.
Your second response was: “Secondly, obviously Uthman knew about the concept of abrogation since he was in charge of the collection of the Qur’an AND WE HAVE VERSES, WHICH WERE ABROGATED AND NOT INCLUDED INTO THE QURAN If Uthman believed that they should be included, then he would have enforced their inclusion into the Qur’an.”
Firstly this is just factually wrong. It was Abu Bakr who was IN CHARGE of the collection. Second you are begging the question. How do you know Uthman knew of such verses that were abrogated and not included in the Quran? Show evidence of Uthman believing in the concept of abrogation by recitation otherwise this is just the fallacy of composition.
Presumably you reason like this because you think the references where you attempt to show abrogation by recitation are clear. Unfortunately for you they are ambiguous or flat out contradict each other. The supposed examples you give are:
“’A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle died and it was before that time in the Holy Quran.”
However here is what the very next narration says:
“’Amra reported that she beard ‘A’isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she (‘A’isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings) . “
According to this narration: “There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings and then five clear sucklings” Here it is clear that these verses were revealed in the Quran without having been removed from the text, simply “ten then five” with no recognition that either of these texts had been removed, a clear simple flow and continuity both are revealed in and apart of the Quran. This means if we look at both these narrations side by side these first two narrations are contradictory.
But note according to the first narration 10 sucklings was abrogated and removed by 5, showing 10 use to be in the Quran. Therefore we ought to still have the verse of 5 suckling’s in the Quran. But Zawadi may dispute this and say the “not being found in the Quran” was referring to the 5 sucklings. This wouldn’t be a good idea, because the very next narration he quotes prove that it is the 5th suckling in view:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Amongst what was sent down of the Qur’an was ‘ten known sucklings make haram’ – then it was abrogated by ‘five known sucklings’ . When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what IS NOW recited of the Qur’an.” Yahya said that Malik said, “One does not act on this.”
As you can see contrary to Zawadi’s opinion that the 5 suckling verse was also abrogated, according to this narration the 5 sucklings were at the minimum abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and this is AFTER Mohammeds death. The last part of this verse makes it clear: “it was what is NOW RECITED of the Quran” and “one does NOT ACT on this” simply could imply it is the RULING that has been abrogated, but the verse itself remained in the Quran even after Mohammed’s death. Of course as a side note I should mention “one does not act on this” does not have to be evidence of abrogation of ruling, but evidence of disobedience to the 5 suckling’s verse that still remains in the Quran after Mohammed’s death.
So Zawadi is stuck, if he takes these reports as authentic he must concede all THREE leave us with the conclusion that 5 sucklings still remain in the Quran even after the prophets death. So we must therefore ask the question, since the 5 sucklings verse was not abrogated by recitation, who removed it from the Quran?
Notice Zawadi’s explanations provided here(
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_) don’t work since they don’t interact with the cold hard facts provided in the hadith, they are not an exegesis rather they provide eisegesis and interpolation similar to what Zawadi had done earlier with the narration regarding Uthman.
It therefore has clearly floated above Zawadi’s head, that the reason the verses are not included in the Quran are not because they are “abrogated by recitation” since it’s clear Uthman will not remove anything from its original place, and these reports are contradictory and create even more problems for Zawadi.
Here is a small summary of the issues with the hadith Zawadi has given then:
1) These particular hadith are internally inconsistent and contradictory and not to be trusted
2) Zawadi and his Imam’s are misinterpreting the hadiths in question, plain eisegesis
3) There is still no evidence Uthman was aware of any verses being abrogated out of a codex!
4) If we accept these hadith, it is clear that Uthman has not included the verse of the 5 sucklings (which ought to have been in the Quran), as it was still Quranic even after the prophet had died
5) If we accept the these hadith they contradict the Bukhari report given by Uthman
Moving on lets get to some of your claims:
“I keep sounding like a broken record here. The FACT THAT THE COMPANIONS (including Abu Darda) accepted Uthman’s codex IS PROOF that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading MUST HAVE BEEN included into the “end Qur’an” so that it could be considered preserved. Can’t you get that already? Hence, what you need to do is provide positive evidence to the contrary.”
As I said two references (that in of themselves provide no evidence) and an argument from silence are not proof, especially when I have shown specific exceptions.
But here is my challenge to you. Show ANY exception to the claim that companions thought that Ahruf and Qiraat could be abrogated. In other words show any evidence that
abrogations of recitations of ANY verse (meaning ANY VERSE in the entire Quran, not just merely rulings) could be abrogated. Me and you both know that UTHMAN did this AGAINST the rules. Meaning it was according to you and your scholars impressible to abrogate a recitation of an attribute, or story of fact.
This is how you responded to me:
Quoting me: “Unlike the other abrogation’s of recitation and ruling and abrogations of recitation but not ruling, this is not in fact a Law but rather a description of Allah’s creative attribute meaning it cannot be abrogated.”
Your response: “I don’t think you have fully grasped what Bilal Phillips was saying. He was speaking about Allah’s Attributes, stories of prophets, etc. which are STORIES OF FACT. Meaning for example…… Allah will not say that He spoke to Moses in the cave and then all of a sudden say that this story is abrogated and never happened. Or that Allah is the All Knowledgeable, but now that is abrogated and doesn’t apply anymore, etc. etc. That’s what he means.”
But clearly all three of us understood what Phillips is saying. And you had no answer. According to your site:
“When reading the Hadith we see that the companion Abu Darda believed that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abdullah ibn Masud recite Surah 92:3 as…
And by male and female
Besides how we have it today, which is:
And by the creation of the male and the female,”
NOW HERES A QUESTION FOR YOU. Is this AN ATTRIBUTE (e.g. CREATOR) or a LAW/COMMAND?
Clearly we have Allah SWEARING by “male and female” or “the CREATION of the male and female”. Can a verse containing ALLAH SWEARING by something by ABROGATED or removed by Uthman? No because this is a PURE STATEMENT OF FACT. Allah SWORE by such and such. Now I challenge you to produce ANY companion or the prophet himself who believed A STATEMENT of FACT, An attribute of GOD, a story recited and given by God can be CANCELLD out of the Quranic Codex and abrogated out of the Quranic recitation by UTHMAN!
Later you say: “It doesn’t HAVE TO BE because his reading was abrogated. This is only a theory. There is no harm in claiming ignorance on this. It could be that this reading from a particular harf wasn’t incorporated into the Uthmanic codex (we already admit that the majority opinion states that not all the harfs were preserved).”
So it was Uthman who had the POWER to abrogate recitation that did not fit into his codex, but that contradicts the UNANIMOUS rules of ABROGATION.
Let’s highlight the rules again shall we?
“Bilal Philips in his book Usool at-Tafseer – The Methodology of Qur’aanic Explanation, lay it out for us
CONDITIONS FOR NASKH (abrogation)
For naskh to have taken place, the following three conditions must have been fulfilled:
1. The law which has been replaced has to have been a divine law…
2. The proof used to replace the old law has to be a divine command which was revealed after the revelation of the old law…
The law which is to be replaced cannot have a specific time limit attached to it from the time of its revelation. If it has a limited time period, it simply becomes void when the time period ends, and such a process is not considered as naskh…
It should be noted that naskh only occurs to divine commands and prohibitions. Naskh cannot occur to statements of fact, because such statements are either true or false, so to say that a previous report has been abrogated really means it was either a deliberate lie or an error, both of which may not be attributed to Allaah.21 Therefore, descriptions of Allaah’s attributes, the stories of the previous prophets and their peoples, parables and descriptions of the hereafter are all excluded from the category of naskh. 165-166”
DO YOU GET IT NOW? Uthman VIOLATED the conditions and ABROGATED THE MOST POSSIBLE QIRAAT THAT EVER EXISTED? He abrogated ALL Qiraat that would not fit into his CODEX violating the rules of ABROGATION.
Now I challenge you to show ANY companion during and post Mohammed’s death, who accepted ABROGATION OF RECITATION of verses containing facts, attributes, stories etc!
You also said: “WHAT MATTERS is that Abu Darda didn’t insist that his reading must be inserted into the ‘Uthmanic codex in order for the codex to be considered perfectly preserved. We know this especially because as Ibn Hajar states in Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of “Exegesis of the Qur’an”, Chapter 442, Number 3966 that we have the Qur’anic recitation of this verse transmitted from Abu Darda and his reading matches that of Uthmani’s codex.”
This of course this fails to address the above post. I clearly pointed out he relinquished his reading based on pressure from the people of Sham, clearly showing evidence that his reading wasn’t abrogated. What we have then is a verse consisting of a STATEMENT of fact MENTIONED in the Quran was LOST due to PRESSURE. It’s not even clear that this reading VIOLATED the codex of Uthman. Therefore we have DIRECT evidence that Darda’s lost recitation was human made, not even approved of by Uthman. Uthman was bad enough but not we have individual cases like this? So much for pretending the illegitimate cancellation by Uthman accounts for all the lost verses. This also violates Quran 15:9 and the divine promise of protection. As I said elsewhere:
“According to the Quran:
15:9 “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.”
Now this is a passage in the very Quran itself. Presumably when it says it will protect itself it is not referring to one harf of itself, rather it’s complete self.
If it is referring to itself in the sense of the Quran as it stand s in heaven, then it is only referring to the heavenly Quran being protected, contradicting the Muslim view that the Quran they possess on earth is protected by Allah.
This also creates a divide; there is one Quran in heaven, and one Quran on earth. And only one is being protected.
However if we say that the verse “15:9” is referring to a singular harf then which harf is it referring to? And how we do know which one it means? Then of course this invokes the whole task of splitting the passages of the Quran to identify whether it’s referring to All of itself (all seven Ahruf) or parts of itself (one harf or another), this makes a shambles out of the Quran.
Of course this is even made further problematic by the problem that Shafaat has already pointed out earlier. The Quran makes no mention of these seven Ahruf at all. Which we would expect to since it does mention the clear and ambiguous passages, then we would expect it to reveal the other mysteries of itself.”
Here’s another question for you Zawadi. How did God fail to protect the Quran from the number one destroyer and abrogator of all recitations, namely Uthman? Let’s assume you are right. Uthman preserved as much of the Ahruf (modes) as the Mushaf would allow him to. The Ahruf that contained recitations that were not compatible were abrogated (including entire surahs and verses, with attributes of God, stories given by God, statements of fact etc) by Uthman.
Here’s another challenge, please give me a statement made by God or the Prophet, where both or one of them allowed exceptions, meaning ‘abrogation’s of recitations alone’. Show prove that Uthman or any other companion can abrogate recitations that contain attributes of God, stories of fact etc? Show evidence that any Ahruf (and the recitations contained therein) are allowed to be abrogated. Note it is not good enough to quote “each harf is sufficient to read” for a particular group of people. Since that only demonstrates that the Ahruf were revealed for the purpose of easing reading for specific distinct groups, yet Uthman deliberately sabotaging the specific plan of God to have one harf for distinct groups shows again God failed. Nor does this hadith prove an entire HARF is the FULL AND COMPLETEL QURAN. As I mentioned this only makes more theological dilemmas with 15:9. But you also have to contend with the fact that no hadith supports your position. No hadith says “one harf is the Quran”. The hadith you recited supports my position that one harf is sufficient for reading, but never states that one harf is the Quran. Here let me add what I said to someone else:
“The tablet contains the Quran in all seven modes, the full Quran. But I don’t even need to use the example of the tablet. The clear unequivocal truth is that according to Islam the Quran is eternal, and it is not eternal in the sense that it was part of God’s foreknowledge, rather it is the literal kalema(word and speech) of God.
The eternal Quran consists of seven Ahruf which means the full Quran is only and can only be the Quran that has all seven Ahruf. This Quran was the very same Quran revealed by Gabriel to Mohammed, the very Quran that Uthman destroyed.
Now apart from the uninspired Uthman acting in treason (notice if a kufr destroyed a Quran it wouldn’t be acceptable), you also have to contend with the fact that Uthman destroyed the Eternal Speech of God. How is it possible an unchanging, eternal word of God can be abrogated and burnt by Uthman?
I’ll leave that one for your scholars. Since they can’t use the old canard “We gave the Jews the responsibility”, no they must account for the fact that the eternal word of God the Quran itself that cannot be changed, was actually destroyed by a Muslim.”
Similarly you have to interpret 15:9 for us. You have three choices. When God says he will protect the Quran does he mean 1) The tablet in heaven 2) The Quran as an attribute of God 3) The Quran revealed on earth? 4) or All three of them? And when you figured that out tell me… if he does mean he preserves the Quran revealed on earth, what Quran does he mean, does he mean, an earthly Quran that contains 1) All seven Ahruf 2) One Harf 3) Some of every Ahruf 4) Some parts of some Ahruf (1 ,2 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7)? Also let me know how many Qurans there are.
Now, here is the next challenge. Please give me a statement where God or the prophet lay out the format of the preservation process of the Quran. Show evidence of God’s conception of his preservation of the Quran, and then prove that the companions of the prophet fulfilled these exact specifications.
You also said: “We already know that Ibn Masud and others were pressured into letting go of their readings and accepting the Uthmanic codex.” And also said: “Instead what you are doing is showing that there were companions who were against Uthman’s decision to standardize the Qur’an (something we already know and concede) and that the Qur’an was revealed in different ahruf (something we already know and concede) and other facts already well known and accepted by the Muslim side. “
Yet if the companions were against his standardization and changed their minds afterward, we have to ask under WHAT GROUNDS WERE THEY AGAINST IT BEFORE HAND? And that’s because as I already said there were NO RANDOM verses of the Quran that COULD BE ABROGATED BY RECITATION. They had to be LAWS (before and after), and even the LAWS were not removed from the Quran according to Uthman and Umar themselves!.
The mere fact is, IF that they changed their mind and accepted the Uthmanic codex afterward then they are sell outs and become discredited to the original version of the Quran provided by God, the Angel and the Prophet.
Of course the evidence that they unanimously approved of the Uthmanic Codex is weak so that’s no problem.
But of course you try to respond to this problem, but your response ends up contradicting your former remarks, you said:
“- First of all, the Muslims in their theology were required to only obey the ruler if he didn’t order them to do something Islamically forbidden. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: There is no obedience to the creation if it constitutes disobedience to the Creator.” If the “Muslims even suspected that Uthman was ordering them to do something wrong, they wouldn’t have complied, just as Ibn Mas’ud INITIALLY did not .”
But this is exactly what you confirmed: ““Instead what you are doing is showing that there were companions who were against Uthman’s decision to standardize the Qur’an (something we already know and concede)”
So clearly your first criterion is false.
Your next criterion says: “- Secondly, the Muslims wouldn’t only have not complied, but they would have argued back and fought against Uthman if they believed that he tampered with the Qur’an, since in Islam Muslims believe that if the Muslim ruler were to commit clear apostasy then he must be overthrown.”
It is not at all clear the Muslims didn’t argue with him in private. And at least in a few knowable cases in public. As you yourself concede.
You next say: “- Thirdly, the very Muslims who were disputing with each other over the Qur’anic variations and then eventually agreed with Uthman’s decision are the very members of Uthman’s army himself! It is Uthman’s very army whom he was seeking to correct and needed their approval, therefore how could Uthman have used his army to force people to comply?”
The key word here is they EVENTUALLY AGREED with Uthman’s descion, despite the sedition. But yet it is not at all clear that we don’t have private and a few public battles.
“ Your friends Wood and Qureshi say that Ibn Masud went very very public with his objections.”
I think they were referring to Ibn Masud, but I’m sure we don’t agree on everything.
In response to me you say: “He didn’t need to be omniscient. He’s saying what was public knowledge at the time. What was public knowledge at the time was that no one opposed Uthman’s codex. So what now? People need to be omniscient now to make these sort of claims?”
I don’t know how you deduced it was “public knowledge”. How could it possibly be public knowledge that not a SINGLE person disputed with Uthman even IN PRIVATE? This is an absolute claim and you need more compelling evidence.
“My criterion has to do with companions who believed that their reading MUST HAVE been included into the Qur’an and that their exclusion would resulted in a corrupt Qur’an. You haven’t shown this anywhere.”
Correct, I allege this criterion is infalsifiable. But I also have pointed out the HUGE problems with this criterion, sine the companions believed everything they recited was apart of the Quran (including the ABROGATED by ruling) VERSES. The abrogation of reciting applied to ANY random verse of the Quran was not even a construct.
“ Instead, you are showing examples of companions who were upset that Uthman didn’t incorporate their harfs completely. But the Qur’an lacking all the harfs doesn’t mean that the Qur’an is considered corrupt in Islamic theology.“
This isn’t about Islamic Theology, this is about being objective, the two are not one you know?
The Quran LACKING any harf, however IS still problematic. As I’ve explained above. But surely you have applied no skepticism at all.
You said: “Ohhhh…. Sooooooo now you are interested in asking me to abide by Islamic criteria huh? Yet, you don’t bother to apply them in other cases (like knowing the authenticity of a narration).”
Actually we haven’t disputed any narration. But I am not obligated to accept any Islamic criterion, you on the other hand MUST, it’s compulsory! A case of comparing apples and oranges.
Finally going back to the original issue:
“1)Show companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.”
Apart from the latter part being a bogus criterion. Meaning there was no thought of a “future preserved Quran for all generation” distinct from “the Quran they were reciting for their entire life”, this is ad hoc and false. Zawadi only makes this bogus distinction because he knows Uthman destroyed and abrogated as MUCH of the Ahruf that would not fit into his codex. Zawadi knows Uthman destroyed the Authentic Quran as revealed by God, the Angel and given by the Prophet and Uthman had no authority to do this whatsoever. But here is actually a more reasonable formulation of a legitimate falsification criterion:
“Show companions claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of Qur’an were lost.”
And this has been proven over at AI:
“According to one report by the son of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, the present text of the Quran is incomplete since much of it has disappeared:
`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, ‘Let none of you say, “I have got the whole of the Qur’an.” How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, “I have got what has survived.”‘ (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur’an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)
We find this same narration cited in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an:
Said Abu ‘Ubaid: Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Ibn Warraq, Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book [Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 1998], Part Two: The Collections and the Variants of the Koran, 9. Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran, by Arthur Jeffery, p. 151: bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
The Shia apologists over at the Answering Ansar website have provided another source for this narrative along with its chain of transmitters, demonstrating that this is a reliable report:
One of the early Sunni scholars Qasim bin Salam (d. 222 H) records:
حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم ، عن أيوب ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ، قال : « لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله ؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ، ولكن ليقل : قد أخذت منه ما ظهر منه
Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayub from Naf’ee from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Verily among you people one would say that he has found the Quran whilst he is unaware of what the total quantity of the Quran was, because most of the Quran has been lost. Rather one should say that verily he has found the Quran that has appeared.’
Ismail bin Ibrahim: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 1, p. 242), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1 p. 90). Ayub al-Sekhtiani: Dahabi said: ‘The master of scholars’ (Siar alam alnubala, vol. 6, p. 15), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt Hujja’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1, p. 116). Naf’ee: Dahabi said: ‘The Imam of Tabayeen’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 2, p. 315), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 2, p. 239). (Fadhail al-Quran by Qasim bin Salam, Volume 2 p. 135) (Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, Chapter Eight: Sunni reports about deletions from the Quran; underline emphasis ours)
They also mention three other Sunni sources which quote this particular report from Abdullah ibn Umar:
Tafsir Dur e Manthur Volume 1, p. 106
Tafsir Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, p. 64.
Tafsir Ruh al-Mani, Volume 1, p. 25.
Thus, according to Abdullah ibn Umar no Muslim can ever proclaim that he has found the complete Quran since much of it has been removed, lost, vanished, disappeared etc.
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/quran_lost.htmlIt is therefore undisputable. The Quran is in a complete mess. Zawadi can fix it up for us. But hey this amateur might not be worth responding to since I haven’t read as many books as Zawadi he can clear it all up, should be a fun read to watch him scramble and conjure up some kind of response. I highly value entertainment and cocky scholars like Zawadi who have no credentials in the topic but actually presume to think they are therefore superior?
Reply Nakdimon
May 22, 2012 at 5:15 pmDerek excellent points. Lets see how Bassam does with acually PROVING his case rather than assuming it.
Reply 
The Last Vampire
May 22, 2012 at 7:36 pmYeah, ‘excellent’- ly lifted from Christian sites.
Top class cut and paste skills too.
I can’t believe that this guy does not get the difference between accentual readings of content and the content itself and then goes on about abrogation. This is why people really should make their points CONCISELY rather than going on and on while maintaining arbitrary or faulty premises.
Who on Earth is Qasim Bin Salam and why should we believe him? Zawadi asked you to show a companion who said that there were problems with the Quran and you bring a bunch of random, miscellaneous TERTIARY sources from books which are not only not contemporary to the companions but not even authentic? The quote from Ibn Umar was recorded by WHO? Any idiot can play that game, why not just get a bunch of guys from 300 A.C who were randoms (or Gnostics) and said Christ did not exist or that the Gospels were written by a pink elephant or whatever? (Adams: ‘But I’m NOT Christian! I just get all my arguments from them’)
Use hostile sources, but they should have some authority: such as being eye – witnesses or experts or whatever: Summary of Adams’ argument: ‘Look, here is some guy who says the Quran is not authentic! And he lived a long time ago! And he has an Arabic name! And he quotes people whose names you DO know! And I have quoted where he said it, with page numbers and everything! You SEE?! Some guy said it, it must be true!’.
Muslims have to answer for not just the Quran and Hadith and mass reported history, but for EVERYTHING anyone EVER said about Islam! By ANYONE! If they can’t then it is wrong!’
Uh, yeah, right.
I just had to waste my time reading all that and then it was pointless.
Give me back my life.
RicMay 22, 2012 at 11:27 pmNakdimon, the Christian apologist to the Jews is rubbing each other back with Derek, an ex Christian atheist.
An interesting alliance.
Ijaz AhmadMay 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm@Derek,
I hope you know that your crying for help and begging for assistance to argue with Bassam is well documented in the public domain via your comments on the Answering Muslims blog. If you need help this badly, I’d be willing to assist.
“he Shia apologists over at the Answering Ansar website have provided another source for this narrative along with its chain of transmitters, demonstrating that this is a reliable report:
One of the early Sunni scholars Qasim bin Salam (d. 222 H) record”
Interestingly enough, I’m going to challenge you to some basic Ulum al Hadith, since you seem to be fond of referencing Islamic sources that are beyond your intellectual capacity. What is the validity of this sanad? When you do Jarh wa Tadeel on the persons of the sanad, along with Rijal wa Mustalah al hadith, what are the results? To answer on your behalf, because I know very well it is beyond you. Quoting this source from these people is as good as quoting the Gospel of Barnabus and claiming it’s Biblically canonical.
“They also mention three other Sunni sources which quote this particular report from Abdullah ibn Umar: Tafsir Dur e Manthur Volume 1, p. 106 Tafsir Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, p. 64. Tafsir Ruh al-Mani, Volume 1, p. 25.”
All these three sources are Urdu. Can you speak Urdu bhai? Can you? Or is this another appeal to authority?
“Thus, according to Abdullah ibn Umar no Muslim can ever proclaim that he has found the complete Quran since much of it has been removed, lost, vanished, disappeared etc.
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/quran_lost.htmlIt is therefore undisputable. The Quran is in a complete mess.”
Spamming links won’t help. Appeal to ad ignorantium. The statement of this hadith is that the Qur’an is lost. What does the Qur’an mean? Qara’a yaqra’u, is what was lost, i.e. the recitation, not the kitab/ suhuf/ mushaf. This is your problem. When people who don’t speak the language of the topic they debate, try to use and argue with terms that clearly disagree with them. The recitation is preserved by huffaz, if large amounts of them die, then the recitation is lost. This is what was meant, the Qur’an in itself was never in danger of being lost. Appealing to Sam Shamoun is as good as appealing to a wall.
Pathetic Derek, I might just embarrass you on my website.
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 11:56 amYour last post has clearly show misunderstandings. At least understand your opponents view before you argue your case otherwise you will be arguing with yourself. Anyway, post later having lunch now.
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pmBy the way I posted my latest comment over at my blog it might be a little easier to read:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/05/is-quran-perfectly-preserved-another.htmlAnyway I will be back tomorrow or the day after, so you can clear up my “misunderstandings”. I think the real misunderstanding is that you just don’t like the logical consequences of the position that you have. The position that Uthman is allowed to destroy recitations (variant Qiraat) that are incompatible with his codex is a direct contradiction to the abrogation by recitation which states no verses of the Quran can be removed pertaining to actual genuine theology, stories and statements of fact, therefore resulting in all of his so called removals of these recitations as illegitimate.
If you mean my understanding of 15:9. Oh please for the love of God , please do clear up my misunderstand on that, I have many more questions about this verse and the underlining theological and practical implications it carries.
Until next time,
Derek
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 12:29 pmJust read it again. Derek do you know what a fallacy of composition is ?
lol
Clearly flooding with his thoughts before thinking
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm*applause* great work Abdullah. *smirks*
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 12:54 pmoh and the correct fallacy I was referring to was the Division Fallacy. I feel really schooled now, big bad Abdullah, thanks buddy. *pat on the back*
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 3:31 pmActually no Derek, still does not help. You are telling me that
Premise 1: All the contents of a book are authentic
Premise 2 : A is a part of this book
Conclusion: A is authentic
You say this is a fallacy of division right ?
Silly Derek
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 22, 2012 at 4:38 pmFail Abdullah.
P1: Companions believed X (abrogation of recitation)
P2: Uthman was a companion
Conclusion: Therefore Uthman believed X
Of course not only does it not follow but we have no evidence for P1.
Even if P1 was a sound premise, we still wouldn’t have evidence Uthman also believes X unless Zawadi provides evidence.
Abdullah go back to the corner. time out, again.
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 5:43 pmAgain that is not a fallacy of division. Really Derek, I mean come on.
Here let me help you a fallacy of division would apply an emergent property of a whole to its parts. Your construction is a hasty generalisation sort of fallacy
Silly Derek.
Interestingly the way you have constructed the argument is one of the crucial reasons why you do not understand Bassam’s view. I don’t think he argues like that but I will leave it to Bassam to explain his position
I will help you a bit. Restricting the readings because of orthographical concerns is not an abrogation of other readings . An exclusion is not an abrogation, although occasionally it is. Now how many logical fallacies have we got Derek ? That is you homework. Get it right and you may get a sticker
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 6:07 pmI meant an exclusion is not necessarily an abrogation
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 6:09 pmFrom now on Derek everytime you mention a fallacy call it the super fallacy of Derek the concerned
It would be more clear that way
Reply erasmus
May 22, 2012 at 6:18 pmWe don’t let God’s words fall to the ground.
Reply erasmus
May 22, 2012 at 6:20 pmOur God doesn’t let his words fall to the ground.
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 22, 2012 at 6:40 pmDerek said: “But you have not provided evidence that companions believe AHRUF (and/or) QIRAAT can be abrogated.”
I never claimed that the ahruf or qiraat were abrogated. What I said was that it’s not necessary to have all the Ahruf and Qiraat in order to have a preserved Qur’an. This is clear from the Prophet’s word when he said that each harf is sufficient and that we may choose whichever one we want. So according to the Prophet each harf one its own is sufficient for us and hence considered a perfect Qur’an.
Derek said: “ The references you gave (Saheeh Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421, Malik Muwatta, Book 030, Hadith Number 017) do not show any clear of an abrogation of recitation of 5 sucklings, only an abrogation of ruling. “
What are you talking about? I wasn’t talking about the abrogation of 5 sucklings, rather I was speaking about the abrogation of 10 sucklings. That is clearly explicit from the narration. We know that a verse on 10 sucklings existed at one time, however it’s not in the Qur’an and the companions never included it, since it’s recitation was abrogated.
Derek said: “Hence your interpretation of the hadith is a plain fabrication. But hey if you don’t like that hadith, and the testimony of Uthman, how about Umar, the witness of two is always better than one right?”
The only thing, which is a plain fabrication is your act of trying to appear sincere and trying to show you know what you are talking about.
First of all, nowhere does that narration you put forth for Uthman show that he wasn’t aware of the abrogation of the recitation of verses nor does it show that he wasn’t aware of the idea of seven ahruf. That narration you provided could easily be interpreted as Uthman arguing back that there is no evidence FOR THAT PARTICULAR VERSE’s (2:240) recitation being abrogated, despite its ruling being abrogated.
Secondly, we have another tradition from Uthman where he says to Zaid that if the different readings couldn’t be harmonized orthographically then they were to choose the Quraishi dialect. So this shows that Uthman was aware of the different readings.
Derek said: “how about Umar, the witness of two is always better than one right?”
Hahahahhaa out of all people you choose….. you choose Umar? You choose Umar who according to Saheeh Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194 clearly speaks about the verse of stoning existing as a Qur’anic verse, but then is not to be included in the Qur’an anymore (because it’s recitation was abrogated). Looooool out of all people you chose Umar who clearly understood and recognized the fact that the recitation of Qur’anic verses could be abrogated????? Oh dear.
Derek said: “Why are there missing verses and surahs of the left out of the Qur’an when other abrogated passages were kept in the Qur’an?”
Those “missing” verses and Surahs had their recitations abrogated, while those abrogated verses left in the Qur’an ONLY HAD THEIR RULINGS (and not their recitations) abrogated.
Derek said: “Firstly this simply doesn’t answer the original question: “If its ruling isn’t applicable why keep it written down?””
A question, which I already answered on my website in my introduction to this topic. Refer back to it.
Derek said: “How do you know Uthman knew of such verses that were abrogated and not included in the Quran? Show evidence of Uthman believing in the concept of abrogation by recitation otherwise this is just the fallacy of composition.”
Uthman had a committee of 11 experts in charge of writing out the manuscripts. One of them could have told him and then he would have taken action.
Ubay ibn Ka’b clearly knew about how Qur’anic verses had their recitations abrogated (see Musnad and Ahmad, Volume 5, page 131 and Tirmidhi, no. 3898) and Ubay ibn Ka’b was one of the committee members. Are you telling me that it’s soooooo difficult to believe that Uthman wouldn’t have known this when we know for a fact that one his committee members did???? Furthermore, we know that Aisha also knew this. So you are telling me that Aisha wouldn’t have informed him? Are you telling me that no one would have informed me?
It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that he did, unless there is evidence, which proves otherwise.
Your devil’s advocate hyper skepticism does nothing, but demonstrate that you only have an axe to grind here.
Derek said: “Here it is clear that these verses were revealed in the Quran without having been removed from the text, simply “ten then five” with no recognition that either of these texts had been removed, a clear simple flow and continuity both are revealed in and apart of the Quran. This means if we look at both these narrations side by side these first two narrations are contradictory.”
Derek, are you conscious of just how absurd you sound? How on earth do those narrations contradict each other?
One narration says “ ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings” while another narration says “was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings)”.
The former clarifies that the ten sucklings verse was abrogated, while the latter stays silent on this issue. However, the latter DOESN”T DENY THIS and nor does it say that the ten sucklings verse REMAINED IN THE QUR’AN. It only makes the factual statement that the 5 sucklings verse was revealed after the ten sucklings verse (which is factually true). That is all. It says nothing else. It doesn’t deny that the ten sucklings verse was abrogated. It’s silence on the matter doesn’t mean it’s contradictory. It simply means that one narration is elaborating more than the other. That’s all.
Derek said: “Therefore we ought to still have the verse of 5 suckling’s in the Quran.”
Oh Derek, Derek, Derek…….. BOTH the ten sucklings and 5 sucklings verses were abrogated. The ten sucklings verse was abrogated DURING THE LIFE TIME of the Prophet, while the 5 sucklings verse was abrogated near the end of the Prophet’s life. I explain all this here
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_I only emphasized on the ten sucklings verse abrogation BECAUSE IT CLEARLY HAPPENED DURING THE PROPHET’S TIME. Hence, your argument that Islam doesn’t teach this has been totally and completely debunked.
Derek said: “As you can see contrary to Zawadi’s opinion that the 5 suckling verse was also abrogated, according to this narration the 5 sucklings were at the minimum abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and this is AFTER Mohammeds death. The last part of this verse makes it clear: “it was what is NOW RECITED of the Quran” and “one does NOT ACT on this” simply could imply it is the RULING that has been abrogated, but the verse itself remained in the Quran even after Mohammed’s death.”
Ummmm………… Derek………. What are you talking about? The verse of five sucklings does not exist in the Qur’an today. It’s recitation (not only it’s ruling) was abrogated. So what you talking about?
What is NOW RECITED is Surah 2:233 and scholars today accept that even one suckle is enough. The person you are quoting is Imam Malik. Imam Malik came a generation later. So he’s not saying that the five sucklings verse is in the Qur’an.
Derek said: “So Zawadi is stuck, if he takes these reports as authentic he must concede all THREE leave us with the conclusion that 5 sucklings still remain in the Quran even after the prophets death.”
Loooooooool.
Derek said: “Notice Zawadi’s explanations provided here(
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_) don’t work since they don’t interact with the cold hard facts provided in the hadith, they are not an exegesis rather they provide eisegesis and interpolation similar to what Zawadi had done earlier with the narration regarding Uthman.”
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn…….. the tradition clearly states “and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an”.
We clearly derive from this that it’s recitation was abrogated. If it wasn’t meant to be abrogated, then Aisha could have raised this issue to Uthman.
Derek said: “Here is a small summary of the issues with the hadith Zawadi has given then:”
Lol, more like a summary of all your errors. Thanks for summarizing them for us so neatly
Derek said: “As I said two references (that in of themselves provide no evidence) and an argument from silence are not proof,”
Your statement is meaningless until you directly address my counter rebuttals to you on that. Those two references and the argument of silence are clear and strongly support my side and devastate yours. They shift the burden of proof unto you.
Derek said: “especially when I have shown specific exceptions.”
Ahhhhh you mean the ones I refuted? Okay lol.
Derek said: “In other words show any evidence that abrogations of recitations of ANY verse (meaning ANY VERSE in the entire Quran, not just merely rulings) could be abrogated”
I’ve already provided evidence that Umar ibn Al Khattab, Aisha and Ubay ibn Ka’b believed in this. I could even get you more proof, but clearly it would just a waste of my time.
Derek said: “NOW HERES A QUESTION FOR YOU. Is this AN ATTRIBUTE (e.g. CREATOR) or a LAW/COMMAND?”
You still don’t get what Phillips said. What Bilal Philips is saying is that facts cannot be canceled or changed or become inapplicable or untrue. He means that the idea/concept/fact/reality of God being All Knowing cannot be abrogated to mean “No Allah is not All Knowing anymore”. That’s what Philips means. This is clearly what he meant because if you read on to what Philips said he says:
“Likewise, the divine promises and warnings are excluded, because Allaah doesn’t break His promises. Nor could one call it naskh if Allaah promises the believers gardens in paradise in an early verse and in a later verse promises them the pleasure of seeing Him. The promise of gardens has not been replaced by the promise of seeing Allaah; rather, both will happen.”
Clearly, Philips is using the term “abrogated” in the sense of cancelling the application of something (something also clear from the way he titled this particular chapter in the book).
So…… going back to your question. I could say that Surah 92’s RECITATION is cancelled, but I wouldn’t say that the TRUTH CLAIM behind it has been changed. Hence, there’s no problem. Just because a verse is not to be recited anymore, that doesn’t mean that the claims it made are no longer valid (like in the case of the verse of stoning for example).
So again, you have been debunked.
Derek said: “ Now I challenge you to produce ANY companion or the prophet himself who believed A STATEMENT of FACT, An attribute of GOD, a story recited and given by God can be CANCELLD out of the Quranic Codex and abrogated out of the Quranic recitation by UTHMAN!”
No problem, the reference I already provided earlier for Ubay ibn Ka’b in Musnad Ahmad and Tirmidhi shows the example of a statement of fact being abrogated by recitation. The reference is in Arabic. Here it is إن ذات الدين عند الله الحنفيّة المسلمة لا اليهوديّة ولا النّصرانية من يعمل خيراً فلن يكفره. This was a statement of fact in the Qur’an whose recitation has been abrogated according to Ubay ibn Ka’b. So there you go hot shot.
Oh and by the way…….. I’m not going to waste my time translating it for you (since I can’t find it’s translation in English), since you don’t think knowing Arabic is that important for knowing this topic. Go find someone else to do it.
Derek said: “So it was Uthman who had the POWER to abrogate recitation that did not fit into his codex, but that contradicts the UNANIMOUS rules of ABROGATION.”
Noooooo……. If a certain Harf couldn’t be incorporated into the Qur’an because of orthographic difficulties… that doesn’t count as abrogation. Rather what we are saying for the nth time is that preserving all the Ahruf IS NOT COMPULSORY, SINCE FOLLOWING ANY HARF FOR A VERSE THAT MUST BE IN THE QUR’AN IS SUFFICIENT.
Derek said: “This of course this fails to address the above post. I clearly pointed out he relinquished his reading based on pressure from the people of Sham, clearly showing evidence that his reading wasn’t abrogated.”
You showed no such thing! That very narration of Abu Darda, which you provided showed that Abu Darda was from Kufa (where Ibn Masud was) and that this reading of his was known in Kufa and by Ibn Mas’ud. So…………….. basically that would mean that the ENTIRE PEOPLE OF KUFA INCLUDING IBN MAS’UD WERE PRESSURED TO ABANDON THAT READING (a radical and baseless claim!). Why only say that for Abu Darda?
Also, Abu Darda did not say that he was forced. He only said that they tried to get him to change his reading. That does not mean that he gave in to their pressure. Where is your proof that he did???????
If for the sake of argument I grant you that Abu Darda was pressured and gave in to the pressure, please tell me then how does that explain why neither Ibn Masud nor anyone else from Kufa didn’t insist on that reading HAVING TO BE INCLUDED into the Qur’an? If you claim that they were forced, then please provide your proof. As a matter of fact, we don’t hear a peep from them saying that that specific reading had to be included into Uthman’s codex in order for to it be considered perfectly preserved.
So your arguments are simply WACK Derek.
Derek said: “Presumably when it says it will protect itself it is not referring to one harf of itself, rather it’s complete self.”
Again…….. this is where you are very confused. This is the problem! You fail to understand that one single harf is not considered “incomplete”. You fail to understand that each harf is independently considered a fully complete Qur’an. No…….. it’s not 7 Qur’ans, but 7 modes of it. The Prophet Muhammad said that EACH ONE IS SUFFICIENT. What does that mean? That means that one is enough!
So if we only use one and not the other 6 then it’s okay! It’s still considered as having the complete Qur’an.
Now………… you may not like that, but that is how our Prophet peace be upon him explained it to us. That is what matters to Muslims. At the end of the day… according to the criteria of our Prophet (we don’t care about your own criteria or anybody else’s, we care about our Prophet) we don’t require all the seven ahruf in order to have a preserved Qur’an. As long as we have all the unabrogated verses (in terms of recitation) with us from any harf, then it’s fine.
If you don’t like that…. Then too bad. But for us Muslims, that’s good enough!
Derek said: Since that only demonstrates that the Ahruf were revealed for the purpose of easing reading for specific distinct groups, yet Uthman deliberately sabotaging the specific plan of God to have one harf for distinct groups shows again God failed. “
God didn’t fail, rather there were people who failed to accept God’s Mercy and instead resorted to fighting and quarrelling.
Derek said: “Nor does this hadith prove an entire HARF is the FULL AND COMPLETEL QURAN. As I mentioned this only makes more theological dilemmas with 15:9. But you also have to contend with the fact that no hadith supports your position. No hadith says “one harf is the Quran”. The hadith you recited supports my position that one harf is sufficient for reading, but never states that one harf is the Quran. Here let me add what I said to someone else:”
The hadith does not say that each harf is sufficient ONLY for the sake of reading. That’s your interpretation. It says each one is “sufficiently health-giving”.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in Saheeh Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514:
“This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you).””
What does it say?
- It says that there is ONE QUR’AN. Not seven Qur’ans.
- This one Qur’an has seven different ways in which it could be recited. So……. one Qur’an, but seven ways. Each way is considered the complete Qur’an.
- The Prophet said that we could choose whichever WAY (singular) we like to recite. So here the Prophet said that we don’t need to know all seven ways, rather one way is enough.
Now…….. did the Prophet consider each way to be offering us the complete Qur’an? The answer is yes. How do we know? Because he wouldn’t say that it’s okay for us to restrict ourselves to an incomplete Qur’an. He wouldn’t say that an incomplete Qur’an is sufficient.
The only thing that is required in order to have a full preserved Qur’an is having ALL the unabrogated (in terms of recitation) verses and each verse being from a divine source (any harf could do). That’s all. (this also addresses your “challenge” about 15:9)
The Prophet said… “so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you”.
So my question is this……… why would restricting one’s self to a harf be okay when the other six Ahruf are available, but not be okay when the other six Ahruf not available??????????? It makes no sense! If one way is enough, then that means that IT’S ENOUGH. It doesn’t mean that it’s only enough when the other Ahruf are available for you to choose from them.
FURTHERMORE…………….as I have said earlier, Uthman gave instructions that not all the ahruf had to be incorporated if there were orthographical irreconciliations. How come none of the committee members objected to this and said that this would result in an in incomplete Qur’an? How come no one said that? How come no one said that Uthman’s codex was lacking? Why didn’t anyone declare Uthman an apostate for wanting to tamper with the Qur’an and attempt to fight him? Why is there not a single record of this occurring?
Why do you oh Derek think you understand how the Qur’an must be preserved in Islam better than those companions? So many questions, yet no good answers.
Derek said: “Yet if the companions were against his standardization and changed their minds afterward, we have to ask under WHAT GROUNDS WERE THEY AGAINST IT BEFORE HAND?”
They were against the standardization because they didn’t want to give up their personal manuscripts and readings. I’m sure it’s very easy to understand and relate to the fact of how high emotions could fly during this time. YET, them initially being against the standardization process doesn’t mean that they ever viewed Uthman’s codex to be corrupt. Never, ever.
There’s no proof for that.
You next try to show how I contradict myself in my criterion, but I have no idea how you demonstrate this, so I don’t even know how to respond back, since most of the stuff you are saying are meaningless to me.
Derek said: “I don’t know how you deduced it was “public knowledge”. How could it possibly be public knowledge that not a SINGLE person disputed with Uthman even IN PRIVATE? This is an absolute claim and you need more compelling evidence.”
YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE WERE PRIVATE DISAGREEMENTS. On what basis are you making these assumptions. We have zero evidence of people accusing the Uthmanic codex of being corrupt. So why on earth would we assume that there were people who did so privately??????
Derek said: “This isn’t about Islamic Theology, this is about being objective, the two are not one you know? The Quran LACKING any harf, however IS still problematic. As I’ve explained above. But surely you have applied no skepticism at all.”
Looooooooool………. You see your double standards? You try to force me to agree with Bilal Philips criteria for abrogation, yet when the Islamic criteria for preservation is laid out, you reject it! Looooooooooool.
DEREK, MUSLIMS ONLY CARE ABOUT HOW THE PROPHET SAID THAT THE QUR’AN SHOULD BE READ AND USED AND PRESERVED AND NOT ABOUT YOUR OWN PERSONAL MAN MADE CRITERIA.
SOOOOOOOOOOOO……. DEREK DO YOU AT LEAST ADMIT THAT ACCORDING TO ISLAM THE QUR’AN HAS BEEN PRESERVED?????
Derek said: “Actually we haven’t disputed any narration. But I am not obligated to accept any Islamic criterion, you on the other hand MUST, it’s compulsory! A case of comparing apples and oranges.”
No I am sorry…… what’s your objective here? Is your objective to reach the truth or is your
objective to point out that Bassam is not a good Muslim?
If your objective is to reach the truth, then you also must accept the fact that the Qur’an must be preserved according to Islamic criteria and not your own. You can’t apply Islamic criteria whenever you please.
I plan to deal with the Ibn Umar narration in a future article.
In summary…….. Derek is too ignorant of this subject and too arrogant to admit when he’s wrong. He is also inconsistent and applies double standards. He continuously fails to make crucial distinctions when they need to be made and he has to be one of the cockiest people I know to make these wild claims and objections when he has no qualifications to make them.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Reply 
Jesus
May 23, 2012 at 11:27 amTo Derek
ANSWER 1 Even five suckling’s command was abrogated:
Infact there are solid evidences that recitation and even the injunction about five breastfeeds was also abrogated in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
In Musannaf Abdul Razzaq it is related that Sayyidah Aisha (RA) said:
لقد كان في كتاب الله عزوجل عشر رضعات ، ثم رد ذلك إلى خمس ، ولكن من كتاب الله ما قبض مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
‘Indeed ten breastfeeds were mentioned in the Quran (as making marriage unlawful through foster relation), then it was changed by five and there was nothing but it was abrogated in the presence of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).’ (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 13928)
Shaykh Taqi Usmani says: ‘This tradition of Sayyidah Aisha is points that recitation of the five breastfeeds verse was abrogated before the death of the Prophet (PBUH).’ (Takmala Fath al- Mulhim 1/46)
ANSWER 2 Verse of stoning
It was never meant to be a part of the Quranic text:
There are more proofs that it was not at all meant to be the part of the Quranic script.
1-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)’, (hearing this) Amr said,
‘When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.’ (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)
2- About this ‘verse’ Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:
“‘O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘I can’t do this.’” (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Who could stop the Prophet (pbuh) from writing this verse in the Quran if it was supposed to be? Indeed it was not meant to be written in the Quran and that’s why Holy Prophet disliked its idea of its being written down.
Why is it called a ‘verse’?
Infact it was a verse from an earlier book as proved from Tabari’s narration above and since its instruction was upheld through revelation so it is referred to as a ‘verse’ and the words ‘sent down’ or ‘revealed’ are used for it.
Is stoning (rajm) mentioned in the Quran today?
And as to Caliph Umar’s statement ‘the people may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah.’, it only refers to categorical mentioning otherwise Quran does point to the punishment of stoning. Infact Quran 5:43-44 were revealed about punishment of stoning and the words ‘Command of Allah’ (v.43) and ‘What Allah hath revealed’ (v.44) refer to punishment of stoning. This becomes absolutely clear considering the traditions that Ibn Kathir, Tabari and Qurtubi etc. have brought in commentary to these verses.
And when Caliph Umar said, ‘Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book’he perhaps only referred to verses 43-44 of Surah 5 as mentioned above. Also we need to know that the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to consider something proved from Hadith as important and as authentic as being in the Quran. The following tradition testifies to it.
‘Abdullah (bin Masud) said. “Allah curses those ladies who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those ladies who remove the hair from their faces and those who make artificial spaces between their teeth in order to look more beautiful whereby they change Allah’s creation.” His saying reached a lady from Bani Asd called Um Yaqub who came (to Abdullah) and said, “I have come to know that you have cursed such-and-such (ladies)?” He replied, “Why should I not curse these whom Allah’s Apostle has cursed and who are (cursed) in Allah’s Book!” Um Yaqub said, “I have read the whole Quran, but I did not find in it what you say.” He said, “Verily, if you have read it (i.e. the Quran), you have found it. Didn’t you read: ‘And whatsoever the Apostle gives you take it and whatsoever he forbids you, you abstain (from it).’ (59.7). She replied, “Yes, I did,” He said, “Verily, Allah’s Apostle forbade such things. (Bukhari, Hadith 4507)
And as we know that punishment of stoning is clearly established in Hadith so Caliph Umar’s statement can well be taken on that account.
Did Caliph Umar actually think some verse was missing?
Most certainly Caliph Umar knew well and understood that the particular words ‘When a married man or woman commit adultery, stone them (to death)’are not meant to be the part of the actual text of the Holy Quran. This is clear from another tradition in which he said:
“Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran.”(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)
And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said ‘I would have written and appended it to the Quran.’
Now idea of writing at the margin of the Quran or adding as an appendix clearly shows that he only meant to add it as side note or commentary to the Quran to tell the future generations explicitly about the punishment of stoning whom he feared rejecting this commandment and going astray.
The above detail makes it absolutely clear that never was there any verse about stoning a part of the Quranic text.
THE ABOVE ANSWERS ALL YOUR CLAIMS
DEREK AN ADVICE TO YOU
DON’T ARGUE HASTILY AND ARROGANTLY WITHOUT READING OR CONSIDERING WHAT OTHERS ARE POSTING SPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE SUBJECT, LEAVE ABOUT MASTERING IT .
ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS YOU ARE JUST COPYING AND PASTING FROM ANSWERING ISLAM WHO TOO LIKE YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS VAST OCEAN OF A SUBJECT.
THERE IS VAST INNUMERABLE MATERIAL ON A SCHOLARLY LEVEL IN ISLAM ON THESE TOPICS AND THESE HAVE BEEN DEALT BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS ON A SCHOLARLY LEVEL RIGHT FROM THE 1ST CENTURY HIJRA .ALL THE SCHOLARS AFTER RESEARCHING THEM SAY THAT QURAN IS PERFECTLY PRESERVED AND THEY ARE BACKED BY NEARLY ALL ORIENTALIST WHO TOO AGREE THAT THE QURAN IS WELL PRESERVED.
FINALLY BEFORE POSTING ANYTHING DO SOME READING AND ACADEMIC WORK AND DO NOT JUST COPY FROM A SITE WHO IS HIGHLY SUPERFICIAL AND UNSCHOLARLY IN ITS REPRESENTATION OF ISLAM
AND REMEMBER ON THING FROM ‘D’ COMES DEREK AND FROM THE SAME ‘D’ COMES DUMB ,TRY TO BE THE FIRST ONE NOT THE LATTER
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 23, 2012 at 3:01 pmJesus – I agree with you on the “stoning verse”, it wasn’t my claim that this was an “abrogation of recitation”, that is Zawadi’s position. You presented a good amount of evidence for the position we share.
As for your evidence about the “5 sucklings” being abrogated, that is flimsy and we have better evidence showing that it was still being recited after his death.
Read it again:
‘Indeed ten breastfeeds were mentioned in the Quran (as making marriage unlawful through foster relation), then it was CHANGED by five AND THERE WAS NOTHING but it was abrogated in the presence of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).’ (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 13928)
It’s not at all clear that 5 was abrogated.
1) “changed to 5″ is clear that both verses were in the Quran together
2) “and there was nothing but it was abrogated” is referencing “what was changed” showing 10 sucklings was abrogated.
But this also ignores all the other authentic narrations.
As for arguments from AI.org. First of all I am a FORMER author on AI.org. So your accusations and criticisms are ridiculous to me. Actually demonstrate an argument is wrong or stop whining and barking. You spent nearly your entire post attacking me and AI.org for something I never disputed. This shows how emotionally invested you are in clinging to your faith. I am not here to support Islam or praise faith, get over it. If you don’t like a website do not moan to me about it, send them an e-mail. As for using “the same arguments” I challenge you to prove every single one of my claims and arguments was taken from AI.org. Infact I quoted where I took many of my arguments from, so that shouldn’t be hard for you. Many times I quoted my own arguments from my own blog. So stop behaving like an emotional child and back up what you say.
Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 23, 2012 at 3:03 pmAh this really bugs me I had written an entire response to you and I must of clicked refresh instead of post comment. If you want to talk it will have to be audio now. As i’m not typing that out again, sorry about that.
The Last Vampire
May 22, 2012 at 7:05 pmErasmus, stop posting if you have nothing to say other than to act as Adam’s cheerleader…
Reply 
H.A.
May 23, 2012 at 4:14 amLast vampire,
And you need to stop acting like your imagination is real.
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 7:52 pmActually Bassam, he invented the well known Logical fallacy of intelligence
Reply Abdullah
May 22, 2012 at 9:08 pmLooking at the suckling narrations as a whole, especially the Arabic text, we get a strong indication that Aisha thought these 10 and 5 numbers were removed from the Quran before his death, the latter just before. Yeah, Bassam you are right. I think that example is going the same way the Abu Darda one did.
Now about the Ibn Umar tradition…..;)
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 23, 2012 at 2:18 pmHey folks.
I have pasted the rebuttal to Bassam’s Blunders over here:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/05/preservation-of-quran-continued.htmlSince it is 16 pages, I will not post it here and take up this space.
Zawadi let me know when you address it, pass on the link again.
Thanks
Derek.
Reply 
Ibrahim
May 23, 2012 at 6:22 pmLooking forward to brother Bassams response. I think, however that he needs to reformulate and specify his position in a concise way. It would certainly be a bit easier if the opponent did not present many different, sepaate questions and contentions at the same time. Thinking that one becomes an expert in a complicated subject just by a careful reading of articles by Answering Islam is arrogant. Such a person (generally speaking) should be considered arrogant and haughty. I find it funny that a person would pretend to know so much, while he says things as “if a kufr destroyed a Quran it wouldn’t be acceptable”. A new challenge to Derek is to show how a kufr could destroy a mushaf (Quran), that would certainly make an interestin article.
Reply Ibrahim
May 23, 2012 at 6:24 pmSorry. I meant ‘separate’. Lol a bit funny due to the comment i just made.
Reply Ibrahim
May 23, 2012 at 6:26 pmNoticed another misstake, ‘interestin. Do I have to write an article concerning the word ‘seaate’ now?, lol. Just joking.
Reply erasmus
May 23, 2012 at 6:32 pmOur God doesn’t need repeated attempts, throwaway verses and assistance from humans to get his Word right.
Reply Paul WilliamsMay 23, 2012 at 6:46 pmreally? Then why are Christians completely divided (and always have been divided) about which books go into God’s Word today?
Reply erasmus
May 23, 2012 at 6:53 pmWe all agree on 66. They are in everybody’s Bible.
Reply Paul WilliamsMay 23, 2012 at 6:57 pmBut Catholics would regard your particular Bible as a ‘mutilated’ Bible – you have rejected and cut out significant books of the holy scriptures.
Reply erasmus
May 23, 2012 at 7:05 pmI believe the only doctrine I know about that is based upon them is praying for the dead and they are mostly historical in content. As far as I know there are no major doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants that are based on these books.
Reply Paul WilliamsMay 23, 2012 at 7:35 pmI can think of two significant doctrines that are threatened:
1) the belief that God has given Christians one clear undisputed Word of God: he obviously hasn’t as Christians continue to squabble over which books they think are the Word of God and which are not.
2) there is explicit scriptural support in favour of prayers for the dead in II Maccabees. This is a major doctrine in Catholic theology. If this belief were to be rejected then the Hail Mary prayer would be abolished!
Reply Abdullah
May 23, 2012 at 7:38 pmDerek is flooding again. Some of his responses are so bizarre, that you are wondering if he just wants the last word. There may come a time when you have had your say and are not faced with anything new to respond. One should call it quits and leave it for others to decide themselves.
Still, boy was I tempted with Derek’s latest diatribe. Some juicy idiotic statements, but that would just be my ego talking.
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 24, 2012 at 1:59 amClearly, Derek ‘s strategy is to keep on responding back till he wears me out and he gets the last word and claims victory. It will most likely work, since I simply don’t have the patience nor time for such games.
I think highly in the Muslim readers who are following this exchange, since I believe they are sharp and smart enough in order to know and detect when Derek is actually properly responding back or not. Hence, I will try to summarize my response as much as possible. If I miss out anything (speaking to the sincere and concerned readers here) then please let me know and I would provide a detailed response to it.
- Derek claims that Uthman not including all the Ahruf means that Uthman abrogated them without God’s permission. Clearly, Derek doesn’t know what abrogation means. Uthman not including all the Ahruf doesn’t mean that he chose to “abrogate” them with divine authority, but rather recognized that preserving all of them was not compulsory according to Islam.
- Derek claims that I must show where the Prophet said in exact words that each harf is considered a perfect Qur’an. Apparently, it’s not enough for Derek that we show him that the Prophet said that each one is sufficiently health giving and that it’s perfectly fine to only abide by one harf. Oh no, oh no….. Mr. Derek requires those exact words. You readers be the judge whether this demand of his is reasonable.
- Derek claims that it’s proved that the 10 sucklings verse is a clear illustration that a verse could be abrogated by recitation, yet he denies the reliability of the report. On what basis? Who knows, especially after my last rebuttal to him.
- Derek provides a very silly counter rebuttal to my rebuttal to his argument that Uthman wasn’t aware of the concept of verses having their recitations abrogated. Derek emphasizes the words of Uthman “I will not shift anything of it from its place”, however this proves nothing. The context was that Uthman was specifically speaking about that particular verse. It could also be interpreted to mean that Uthman would not shift anything, which MUST BELONG in the Qur’an (i.e. unabrogated verses). Hence, Derek’s reading into the narration a particular interpretation must be proven and not assumed.
- Next….. Derek provides the most laughable and anti-intellectual rebuttal yet. This is in reference to his response to my citation of the stoning verse hadith. Derek completely misunderstands the point of the hadith. What is the hadith talking about? Umar is talking about how he fears that a day will come when people will say “we don’t find the verse of stoning” in the Qur’an AND THEN THEY WOULD USE THAT AS A EXCUSE TO ABANDON THE RULING OF STONING THE ADULTERER BECAUSE OF THAT REASON. This is clear because Umar said “and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.” Derek says “Umar’s candid admission here is stoning IS a duty laid down IN the book of Allah.” This is nothing more than abusing Umar’s words. How then does Derek explain Umar’s words “”Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran.”(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)” and in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said:”‘I would have written and appended it to the Quran.” Here Umar clearly recognizes that the verse of stoning is not meant to be added to the Qur’an. Rather, we he was thinking of adding it to the margin or as an appendix to remind the people that despite the recitation of this verse being abrogated, it’s ruling wasn’t. So Umar’s statement is to be understood alongside all his statements. He likely meant that the verse of stoning is Qur’anic in revelation and still applicable, but we don’t recite it anymore. Plus, Umar clearly memorized the verse, why on earth did he not insist that the verse be written and included into the Qur’an? Sooooo many questions for Derek, yet no good answers. Then Derek cites two hadith about God ordaining the punishment of stoning, yet I seriously have no clue what point he was trying to make.
- Derek repeats the question of why verses whose ruling was abrogated would remain in the Qur’an. Again, I ask him for the 2nd time to refer back to my introductory article on this issue where this question is addressed.
- Derek then refers me to an article by brother Waqar Akbar regarding the argument that I made that Ubay ibn Ka’ab knew the concept about verses having their recitation abrogated. In order to avoid posting a detailed response to brother Waqar’s article, I will simply cite another tradition showing another example of Ubay ibn Ka’ab knowing about this concept. See Ubay’s conversation with Riz bin Hubaysh talking about how Surah Al Ahzab used to be longer than it was and how they used to recite the verse of stoning, but not anymore (Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, no. 5990; Nisaai, no. 7150 and others). So my argument still stands that it’s reasonable to assume that Uthman was aware and the burden of proof is on Derek to show otherwise.
- Derek says “Why then would we read Zawadi’s assumptions into the text? The text itself is plain, straight forward and simple: “There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings)”. But, whose reading what into the narration? Does this narration say that IT REMAINED IN THE QUR’AN??????? It only says that the 5 sucklings verse was revealed after the ten sucklings verse. THAT IS ALL. NOTHING MORE. THEN THE OTHER NARRATION elaborates on the abrogation bit. Sorryyyyyyy Derek, but you lose. Give up and stop looking desperate.
- Derek says “then provide EVIDENCE it refers to BOTH, IN LIGHT of the REPORT ITSELF, which says the 5 sucklings is still being recited AFTER the prophets death. Bad Zawadi!” As I already explained regarding the five sucklings verse…. It was being recited by some AFTER the Prophet’s death because the Prophet ordered it’s abrogation shortly before his death. Not too many people were made aware of it quickly. That’s why. Hah, so basically Derek concedes the bit on the ten sucklings verse. Derek loses! Derek also can’t show any evidence that anyone tried to include the five sucklings verse into the codex (which means everyone recognized that its recitation was abrogated). Why is that?????? Again…… sooo many questions for Derek, yet no good answers.
- Derek said “The report says bluntly the 5th suckling is still part of the Quran after Mohammed’s death.” No it doesn’t! It says the exact opposite. It says “and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was BEFORE THAT TIME (found) in the Holy Qur’an” (Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, 3421)
- Derek said “Umm yes it is, show evidence otherwise. Stop stalling.” No it doesn’t. Imam Malik lived more than a hundred years after the Prophet’s death. Is Derek telling me that Imam Malik was saying that the five sucklings verse remained in the Qur’anic text until his time?????!!!!!! What nonsense! That’s a claim neither supported by the manuscript evidence, nor by the very narration Derek himself cites. The narration from Malik’s Muwatta only says “When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur’an.” What is Imam Malik saying??? He is saying that THE WAY THE QUR’AN IS BEING RECITED BY THE MUSLIMS DURING HIS TIME IS BASED ON HOW THE QUR’AN WAS WHEN THE PROPHET DIED. During Imam Malik’s time…. THEY WERE NOT RECITING THE FIVE SUCKLINGS VERSE. Oh my God Derek…….. your too frustrating bro!!!!!!!!
- Derek whines and complains that his Abu Darda argument remains valid. Yet, any objective reader reading my blowing rebuttal to Derek on this point would come to realize that this is all Derek could do actually
- Next, Derek gets back to the Bilal Philips topic. I’m thinking to myself….. who cares?! A straight up question to Derek…….. “why should I care what Bilal Philips said?” If Bilal Philips truly said what you claim he said in the way you understand his words…… well so what? I could quote other scholars who would say something else! So………. your whole point is ………… what again? (by the way to my Muslim readers, Derek has misunderstood what Bilal Philips is saying)
- Derek said: “Of course this is preposterous because the TRUTH CLAIM behind the “abrogated recitation” is LOST without that RECITATION!” Yeah, but it could be God’s will that this truthful claim was mainly relevant for the Prophet’s time and not ours. Again, your only objection here is subjective and not objective. You simply fail to accept this idea of abrogation because you don’t like it.
- Derek said: “Maybe you think its deduction. The verses don’t exist in the present Quran and therefore they must be abrogated?” Umm… we have shown examples where the companions still memorized the verses (e.g. stoning verse), yet WILLINGLY CHOSE not to include them into the Qur’an. Soooooo…….. yeah……….. you are debunked as usual.
- Derek continues to reiterate that I haven’t provided proof that following only one harf for each verse is considered enough in Islam. What more could do I here folks? I have given Derek the statements of the Prophet. I also showed that Uthman clearly understood and recognized this fact by telling his committee members that they refer back to the Quraishi if they couldn’t incorporate everything. One of these committee members is Ubay ibn Ka’b whom the Prophet spoke highly of in regards to his knowledge of Qur’anic recitation. We also see that none of the committee members objected to Uthman and that no one else from the Muslims objected to it as well. So Derek basically wants to convince us that he understands the Prophet’s words better than all those companions! Talk about arrogance! What more could I do for Derek here folks? What????
- Derek said: “Therefore we would not expect ALL Iraqi’s to be pressured” Exactly smarty pants, hence your argument that Abu Darda’s recitation of Surah 92 is lost due to the pressure he received from the Syrians is WACK!!!!!! Since the people of Kufa would have been reciting it that way as well!!!!!! But because they accepted Uthman’s codex and recognized that it wasn’t compulsory to include their specific reading into the codex, we know why we don’t have their reading today.
- Derek said: “Obviously you ought to already concede to this point Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 510 makes it clear, the two nations were about to go at war. I seriously hope Derek is not trying to say that the people of Sham and Iraq wanted to wage war ON EACH OTHER because of this issue!????? Please let him tell me that’s not what he was trying to say?????!!!!!!!!!
- Derek quoted some author called Labib as saying “each accusing the other of unbelief” This is news to me. I require proof for this.
- Derek said: “So I challenge Zawadi to produce narrations providing evidence showing Alqama and Darda and Ubai ALSO gave in to the Uthmanic Codex after having initially rejected a different recitation.” Isn’t Derek the one who should be providing evidence that THEY REFUSED to cooperate with Uthman? The only thing Derek did was show how Abu Darda refused to give into the SYRIANS BEFORE UTHMAN’S DECISION. Abu Darda didn’t recognize the authority of the Syrians, but he surely did recognize the authority of Uthman. So please Derek…… first provide evidence that they didn’t cooperate WITH UTHMAN!!! Derek also makes the very silly mistake as Nabeel Qureshi. Loooooooool. UBAI IBN KA’B WAS ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF UTHMAN!!!! Loooooooooool. SILLY DEREK!!!
- Derek said: “Well I have already given examples of Ubay and Darda refusing to give up their reading no matter what.” Derek is either very confused or he is the devil incarnate trying to deliberately be extremely devious. Derek is trying to respond back to my argument that Ibn Mas’ud and people of Kufa didn’t insist TO UTHMAN that their reading must be included into the codex by showing examples of how Abu Darda refused to give up his reading TO THE SYRIANS! He is mixing the two together!!!!!!
- Derek said: “However I challenge you to produce evidence that Masud DID NOT believe his reading should have been in the codex and evidence that he accepted the Uthmanic codex.” Lol, so I am supposed to prove a negative? So the fact that we know Ibn Mas’ud’s reading matches that of Uthman and the fact that Ibn Masud didn’t accuse Uthman’s codex of being corrupt is not good enough then huh? The famous classical scholar Ibn Hazm said: “And as for their saying that Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s manuscript differs from ours, this is invalid, a lie and slander. Ibn Mas’ud’s manuscript has his reading with no doubt, and his reading is the reading of ‘Aasim, which is famous amongst everyone who follows Islam from East to West. We read it as we mentioned, just as we read another (i.e. reading) and what is correct is that they are all revealed from Allah All Mighty. (Ibn Hazm, Al Fasl Fil Milal wal Ahwaa’ wal Nihal, Volume 2, page 212) So Derik’s claims are old and they have been refuted long ago!
- Derek said: “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.” The Trinity in its orthodox understanding is no way to be compared with what I said. Rather, what I said might be closer (but far from perfect as there are crucial differences) as an analogy to modalism, which is actually a denial of the Trinity. In the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the Father is a distinct person from the Son. He is a different person all together from the Son, yet they share the same Essence according to Christians. This is nothing close to what I said regarding the seven Ahruf. The Qur’an is one with it’s 114 chapters and it’s +6k verses. In each harf, this would be the SAME. Sometimes a particular verse would even be exactly the same across all seven ahruf, however some other verses would not. So Surah 2:228 might be recited in one particular way in one harf and in another way in another harf. So it’s the SAME verse, but in a DIFFERENT MODE. It’s not a DISTINCT VERSE. That is the difference. Christians don’t simply say that the Father is a different manifestation of one person and the Son is another of the very same person (closer to modalism), rather they say that the Father is DISTINCT from the Son. This is NOT WHAT IS SAID FOR A VERSE ACROSS THE SEVEN AHRUF. This does nothing but show and demonstrate that Derek still doesn’t grasp this subject and he should have learned by now that he should be keeping his mouth shut trying to teach others about this subject and start learning a thing or two himself.
- Derek said: “So yes Uthman has corrupted the plan and design of God!”. How did Uthman corrupt the design of God, when the only reason why he bothered to standardize the text was because of people fighting and being intolerant over other’s readings? God OFFERED THE SEVEN AHRUF AS A MERCY, the people didn’t respond in kind, therefore Uthman took action. Simple as that.
- Derek said: “Zawadi is getting desperate. Yawn. “Harf is sufficient for READING” This is not a claim to be an absolute Quran. Read again.” Derek continues to lie through his teeth. Let Derek show me the hadith where it states that the Harf is ONLY sufficient for reading! It makes a general claim “sufficiently health giving”. That is ALL. Stop reading into it. FURTHERMORE, even if it said “sufficient for READING” only, then it still shows that one harf is enough for us Muslims to read and we don’t need to read the others. So even if we go ahead with what Derek is saying, Derek is still refuted.
- Derek said: “This means Zawadi doesn’t know which HARF was preserved in this case, nor what combination of ahruf he has. But since he believes parts of ahruf were preserved he doesn’t know what parts of the Quran he really has.” Oh Derek, my ignoramous brother in humanity…. I already responded back to this point saying “FOLLOWING ANY HARF FOR A VERSE THAT MUST BE IN THE QUR’AN IS SUFFICIENT.” This is something that your simple little mind can’t grasp. I’m sorry, but there is nothing I else could do if you can’t understand.
- Derek said: “or whether he has a polluted intermixture of Ahruf and lost surah and ayatun.” There is no “polluted” intermixture and if Derek thinks that a particular harf has additional Surahs or verses from another harf then that only goes to show how ignorant he is of this subject, since no one’s understanding of Ahruf denotes that.
- Derek said: “Zawadi concludes that a harf is a complete Quran because…well the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY!” No…….. I define it according to Islam and what matters to me is how Islam states the Qur’an should be preserved. Not an ignoramus from the 21st century who doesn’t know JACK of what he’s talking about.
- Derek then dives into some argument, which is trailing off from the original discussion. Here argues that Dhikr means Qur’an, however he fails to understand that Dhikr only refers to the Qur’an in certain contexts. Read more here
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_surah_15__verse_9_says_that_god_preserved_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures. Then Derek cites a tradition, which states “The recitation of the Quran was made light for David” , however this is partially the translators fault. The scholars have understood that this is in reality referring to the Psalms as clarified in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 628. This is not a contradiction because linguistically Qur’an refers to the source of reciting. Also, in another tradition the Prophet said “Recitation was made light for David” (Saheeh Ibn Hibban, no. 6225). Hence, this adds further support that this is not referring to the Qur’an revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. For a very detailed analysis and refutation of this argument raised by Derek please refer here
http://www.tafsir.net/vb/tafsir9051/- Derek said: “Of course this is a mouthful as Masud was not on the committee, neither was Alqama (Masud’s number one pupil), neither was Darda.” Who said that HE HAD to be on the committee in order to speak out on this specific matter? Derek said: “Ubay would have no problem with destroying the other readings distinct to his own since he made that clear in his refusal to give up anything the prophet told him.” So Derek is saying that Ubay didn’t care about the Islamic violation (according to him?) of destroying other Ahruf, but only cared about his own? So basically Ubay just simply didn’t care enough to speak out??????!! Also, what evidence does Derek have to show that Uthman’s codex EXACTLY FOLLOWED TO THE DETAIL Ubay’s reading? Derek is just throwing wild and silly accusations!!! Furthermore, notice the horrendous self contradictions present in Derek’s writings. Earlier Derek said: “So I challenge Zawadi to produce narrations providing evidence showing Alqama and Darda and Ubai ALSO gave in to the Uthmanic Codex after having initially rejected a different recitation.” So earlier Derek was talking about Ubay ibn Ka’b as if he was anti-Uthman, but now he is speaking about Ubay as if Ubay collaborated with Uthman to destroy the readings of others! WHAT THE?????????? Derek is loooosttttt……. soooooo. sooooooooo…….. very lostttttttttt.
-Derek said: “and those who favored the Uthmanic version joined his team, and Uthman destroyed the rest.” Ummm…. They joined “his team” BEFORE they finished with the codex (THE VERY REASON WHY A COMMITTEE WAS NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE)
- Derek then proceeds to show that Ibn Mas’ud wasn’t pleased with Zaid being put in charge and that he didn’t want to give up his reading. Where did we ever deny this? We keep demanding DEREK TO SHOW US WHERE IBN MAS’UD SAID THAT THE CODEX OF UTHMAN WAS CORRUPT. Derek cites the Jami’ Tirmidhi, hadith 3104 tradition, however the phrase “avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man” is a very gross mistranslation. It in fact states “I have been exempted (i.e. by ‘Uthman) from writing down the Mushaf and it is assigned to a man…”. The key Arabic word in this narration is U’zal (أعزل), which means exempted, isolated, separated, quarantined, etc. If Ibn Mas’ood meant to say “avoid copying the Mushaf”, he would have said I’tazilu (اعتزلوا) and not follow it with preposition ‘an (عن). Ibn Masud’s objection was to the way the Qur’an was being collected and NOT really the content. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud did not object to the contents of the manuscript of Abu Bakr. If he did not object to the contents of Abu Bakr’s manuscript, this shows that he did not object to the contents of Uthman’s manuscript either, for if Uthman’s manuscript differed from that of Abu Bakr’s in ways other than differences in ‘Harf then we wouldn’t have only seen Ibn Mas’ud protesting, but thousands of other Muslims who were aware of Abu Bakr’s manuscript as well.
- Derek said: “Zaid was not among these men. Clearly Masud was right. He ought to have rejected the corrupted committee.” Teaching the recitation and being in charge of collection and standadization are two different things.
- Derek said: “That’s like asking me, “Do you admit that according to Islam, Allah is God, Muhammad is the prophet, Islam is the truth, infidels are unclean and doomed to destruction etc.?”” The ONLY THING that Muslims here care about is whether the Qur’an is preserved according to the standards of Islam. Not Derek If I were to ask Derek the question: “Derek, do you think Muhammad would have accepted the Qur’an today as being preserved?”. What would he answer? If he answers yes, then that’s enough for us. We don’t care whether Derek thinks that this is a flawed method of preservation. We honestly don’t care. All we care about is whether it’s preserved the way that it should be according to Islam.
Apart from constant double standards and displaying sheer ignorance of this subject and being too arrogant and cocky to admit when he’s wrong, Derek also displayed his sheer dishonesty and confusion and inability to discuss anything related to this subject.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Reply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 24, 2012 at 8:04 amZawadi you got one part wrong. I am not trying to get the last word, you should know me better.
At this point though, my response will be postponed, and I will eventually be doing a series of posts on this topic. So consider this exchange over for now. To be honest when I do respond though, we night not need to interact further as you are repeating the same errors ad nausem.
It’s nearly impossible to deal with a person who reads their own theology into the text every time, no potential objectivity could possibly take place here. A key point to note here is no person who had never heard of these conceptions before could just start reading and read this out of the text, this is super-imposed by a tradition of hadith commentary which is highly uncritical and sympathetic toward a bias view..
To answer your final question. Whether you have the Quran according to Islam that depends what you mean. You certainly don’t have the Quran identical to the prophet Muhammad or the reign of Abu Bakr which consisted of multiple codices, that lasted for centuries even after these readings were mean’t to be destroyed they were still available. Do you have a redacted version of the Uthmanic Quran and does some element in Islam try to justify this? Yes
Take care
Derek
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 24, 2012 at 11:36 amMy fellow Muslim readers, take note of what Derek has said…
“this is super-imposed by a tradition of hadith commentary which is highly uncritical and sympathetic toward a bias view.”
I think all of us can get the gist of Derek’s methodology. Derek does not allow that we Muslims understand this whole topic in light of the hadith (i.e Prophet and his companions). Derek believes that this is “bias” and that somehow we need to follow his own criteria for what constitutes preservation.
Derek continues to forget or continues to not care about the fact that Muslims only care about how to achieve perfect preservation according to what is deemed acceptable by Islam. It is Islam itself, which claims that the Qur’an is preserved and it is Islam itself, which shows us how this was done.
What we have is a unanimous consensus of all the Prophet’s companions regarding the final codex. Derek has failed to show any OPPOSITION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE CODEX. Instead, Derek provided evidence of some companion’s initial opposition to the standardization process (not end codex and it’s contents) and how some companions refused to give up their readings to others like in the case of Abu Darda in Sham (which has nothing to do with opposition to Uthman), but Derek has NEVER EVER and CAN NEVER show any OPPOSITION TO THE “CONTENTS” OF THE UTHMANIC CODEX (where anyone ever argued that’s lacking any verses or containing false verses). That is a simple FACT that DESTROYS and rams Derek’s position straight into the ground (it runs so deep into the ground we might just hit oil). My Muslim readers need to always remember that.
Kind Regards,
Bassam,
http://www.call-to-monotheism.comReply Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham)May 24, 2012 at 12:43 pmZawadi it’s all very nice having final words. But did you really think I was going to let you distort my quotation right in front of me?
The criticism I made had nothing to do with accepting the hadith themselves.
Read again: “It’s nearly impossible to deal with a person who reads their own theology into the text every time, no potential objectivity could possibly take place here. A key point to note here is no person who had never heard of these conceptions before could just start reading and READ THIS OUT OF THE TEXT, this is SUPER-IMPOSED by a tradition of hadith COMMENTARY which is highly uncritical and sympathetic toward a bias view..”
As for showing “initial resistance” this is a false claim, one that you still haven’t substantiated. And I’m not playing burden of proof volleyball when you don’t have any to show.
Take care,
Derek
Reply Bassam Zawadi
May 24, 2012 at 2:56 pmI know what you said Derek, which is why I said “I think all of us can GET THE GIST of Derek’s methodology.”
We Muslims already know that how we understand the plain reading of the hadiths basically equals the hadith it self (supported by the understanding of the companions). We also saw your previous statements where you basically down play the importance of understanding preservation based on Islamic guidelines and you insist that we be “objective”.
Anyways….. ciao.
Reply Ibrahim
May 24, 2012 at 2:19 pmBook recomendation. I recommend the following book: The history of the Quranic text: from revelation to compilation by Hadith scholar Muhammad Mustafa al-A’zami. Published by Uk Islamic Academy. It is of course not free from errors, but a highly beneficial and interesting read.
Reply Ibrahim
May 24, 2012 at 2:26 pmThe book can be purchased from here
http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Quranic-Text-Compilation/dp/1872531652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337869268&sr=8-1, and downloaded from here:
http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/quran/history_of_quranic_text.pdfReply Abdullah
May 24, 2012 at 2:47 pmReading into texts that is what is …, Yet again Derek pounds us with a silly fallacy of his. You can’t win with Derek because he has his laws of logic.
On Derek’s logic if you have two narrations that are potentially contradictory then they are contradictory. Well, great if we use that logic then many readings of alot of text would be defunct because alot of things can be potentially contradictory. If I make a general statement and then qualify it, that would be potentially contradictory as well. That is why when you have a number of texts you try to give it a reading that takes all the facts into account. To claim a contradiction requires the burden of proof.
Reply 
qwerty
May 24, 2012 at 6:03 pmBassam, can you provide a translation of the link you posted
http://www.tafsir.net/vb/tafsir9051/ on your website or on the ahlalhdeeth multaqa? Baarakallahu Feek.
Reply erasmus
May 24, 2012 at 7:24 pm“Here Umar clearly recognizes that the verse of stoning is not meant to be added to the Qur’an. Rather, we he was thinking of adding it to the margin or as an appendix to remind the people that despite the recitation of this verse being abrogated, it’s ruling wasn’t.”
How do you get the ruling without the recitation? “Clearly recognises that the verse of stoning is not meant to be added to the Quran”. Must he not then clearly recognise that the ruling is not the will of Allah if the recitation that would justify it was never given by Allah? So Allah’s will is overruled by a man. Doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Reply Laun
May 24, 2012 at 8:55 pmThank you Bassam, I swear by Allah you did everything I wanted you to do as a muslim. You showed to everyone, to all those who get to read this, how a muslim is and should be. Derek on the other hand, showed how an arrogant human being he is and his behaviour proved this from the quran:
6. “Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.”
