Well Zawadi I enjoyed all the “loool” and “yawn” and “ummm”. But I just wish we had some “coherent” responses along with them. So let’s focus in on all the stuff that you could conjure up, not the irrelevant babbling and smokescreens.
Derek 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.”Correct, you haven’t said that. But I have given two arguments. First is that this is the logical consequences of your position. Meaning if NO ONE CAN REMOVE A story narrated by Allah, a statement of fact, or an attribute of Allah, not even Allah himself (since Allah only abrogates laws) then certainly a finite creature, a human Muslim cannot removed any readings.
“ 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.”Second you were challenged on this, the hadith you quoted doesn’t claim that each harf is a perfect Quran. This is utterly bogus. I challenge you to produce any hadith that says “each harf on its own is sufficient and considered A PERFECT QURAN”. By the way thank you for conceding that ONE HARF is “A QURAN”, therefore you have LOST 6 Qurans. That’s brilliant. Case closed.
You said: “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.”I am not contesting the part about 10 suckling’s, only the veracity of the hadith in question and the additional problems it raises for you.
“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.”The hadith in question does not defer to the Ahruf, hence it’s not evidence against the existence of the Ahruf. IT IS HOWEVER evidence that Uthman would not remove ANYTHING from its place. It is evidence that if you believe all three types of abrogations existed, you have Uthman has deliberately omitted this fact and confused the poor Muslim, in fact it's a deceptive explanation.
“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.”Not so fast stranger!
“Uthman said. “ O son of my brother! I will not shift ANYTHING of it from its place.”Next he says:
“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.”That is a separate debate. I am not contesting that for now. I will make a post about these problems in the future.
Next you said:
“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).”Thanks for your “evidence” Zawadi. Unfortunately for you, I’ve read this hadith. Here goes:
'”Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning,”
Hmm, nothing abrogated here? What about the next part?
“I am afraid that with the lapse of time, THE PEOPLE(MAY FORGET IT) and MAY SAY: WE DO NOT FIND THE PUNISHMENT OF STONIN IN THE BOOK OF ALLAH,”How would they "might" say "we don't find the verse". In fact if they verse wasn't there they ought to of HAD TO! Hello?
There is a better explanation. Umar is afraid that people “may” forget the stoning verse, and therefore they wouldn’t find the verse in the book of Allah. Remember the recitation is what constitutes the book of Allah, so of course they wouldn’t find it, if they had forgotten it. But maybe “the book of Allah” here refers to the physical copy in the possession of Umar. It's hard to tell the exact time frame. But if that is the case, we have a problem:
“ 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.”Umar’s candid admission here is stoning IS a duty laid down IN the book of Allah. So much for the “abrogation of recitation”. In fact the word, phrase and concept of “abrogation of recitation” is NO WHERE to be found in this hadith, and after all that laughing? What a terrible waste.
Zawadi must either be blind, or illiterate he is reading into the text again concepts that don’t even exist!
Zawadi has a great difficulty reading. Is Zawadi prepared to let go of his commentaries when they contradict the authentic reading of the text? I wonder?
Hey, maybe the former two following hadith will support Zawadi?
4191'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me. Allah has ordained a way for those (women). When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.
4192 'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication): (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.
Well once again we see that God “ordained” stoning in the context of having the VERSE revealed!.
Zawadi can let the people know what “ordained” means. Since him and I both know what God ordains is IRREVERSIBLE. Anything ordained by God cannot be undone. Zawadi has shot himself in the foot again.
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.”The question PRESSUPOSES these beliefs you have. The question is IF YOU ARE RIGHT, if UTHMAN had abrogations of recitations and abrogation of rulings and abrogations of both, WHY wouldn't we have a complete abrogation of recitation of ALL OF THE VERSES that had NO RULING? Or why would they KEEP the abrogated by ruling verses in the Quran, but not keep ALL of the recitations in the Quran?
Of course Uthman doesn’t answer the question how you would like, Uthman doesn’t say:
“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.”His real answer was:
“Uthman said. “ O son of my brother! I will not shift ANYTHING of it from its place .”Poor Zawadi...
You said: “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.”
Well that’s if you can demonstrate
- 1) One of them knew about this concept
- 2) One of them reported this to Uthman
Next you said:
“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????”However this is highly dubious for several important reasons.
But don’t take my word.
Take the word of Muslim Apologist Waqar Akbar:
“Here they find two alleged lost verses which the Holy Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- recited after Surah Bayyinah (No.98).
First of them being;
إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ
“Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magian.”
And second one;
لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ
“If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.”
The Truth:
The truth, however, is simply that neither of them was ever a part of the Surah Bayyinah. And Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- only mentioned these as explanation to words within the surah.
This is clear for two reasons;
1. In Mustadrak al-Hakim, the wording of the same narration testifies to this. There it reads;
عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ» فَقَرَأَ: {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ} وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا لَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ، فَأَعْطَيْتُهُ، سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا، وَإِنْ أَعْطَيْتُهُ ثَانِيًا، سَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ، وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ، وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ
Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited , “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists … ” (surah 98) AND IN ITS DESCRIPTION (he said) “If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given, he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” And religion with Allah is uprightness (hanfiyya), not Judaism, and not Christianity and whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected.” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2889. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)
This clearly states the alleged lost verses were not verses but prophetic description and commentary of certain points in the Surah.
“If the statements in question actually been part of the Qur’anic text, there wouldn’t have been any difference on their wording, as is the case with established text of the Qur’an. In the following lines I show variance in the words of the alleged verses.
a- Religion with Allah:
In al-Tirmidhi’s narration, it reads;
إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ
“Surely, the essence of religion (zaat al-deen) with Allah is upright Islam (al-hanfiyya al-muslimah) not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism.”
In a narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;
إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ
“Verily the religion (inna al-deen) with Allah is the upright faith (hanfiyyah), not paganism and neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203. Classified as Sahih by Shu’aib Arnaut)
At another place in Musnad Ahmad it goes as;
وَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ الدِّينَ الْقَيِّمَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ
“And verily this true religion (zalik al-deen al-qayyim) with Allah is the Upright Faith (hanfiyyah), neither paganism (ghayr al-mushrikah), not Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21202. Classified as Hasan by Shu’aib Arnaut)
In yet another collection the wording varies further;
إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ السَّمْحَةُ لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ وَلا الْيَهُودِيَّةُ وَلا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ
“Verily the essence of religion with Allah is pliable Uprightness (al-hanfiyyah al-samhah), not paganism (la mushrikah) , neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah, Hadith 1162. Classified as Sahih by the author)
In narration of Mustadrak, it is even different, with no mention of paganism;
وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ
“Verily the religion with Allah is uprightness (al-hanfiyyah) not Judaism or Christianity.” (Mustadrak, Hadith 2889)
This variation shows it was not the Quranic text. The simple fact that verses found in established text of the Qur’an i.e. verses of surah bayyinah are always reported without variation in all these reports but there is variance in these words shows the statement was never a part of the Qur’an, not even to the primary narrators.
In some narrations it is “inna al-deen”, in some it is “inna zaat al-deen”, in some it is “inna zalik al-deen al-qayyim.” In some narrations it is “al-hanfiyya al-muslimah”, in some it simply “al-hanfiyya”, in yet another variation it is “al-hanfiyya al-samha.” In one narration it says لَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ i.e. “not magianism” in others it is لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ i.e. “not paganism” and in one narration there is no mention of either of these. In one narration it says “ghayr al Musrikah” and in another it says “la mushrikah.”
Also in al-Tirmidhi’s narration it is مَنْ يَعْمَلْ and in other narrations letter و ‘waw’ meaning ‘and’ is added to it and it becomes ومن يعمل .
Also note the phrase ذَاتَ الدِّينِ “essence of religion” and the words الْيَهُودِيَّةِ “Judaism”, النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ “Christianity” and المَجُوسِيَّة i.e. “Magianism” have not been used in the Qur’an showing the style is non-Qur’anic.””Well that’s a fantastic summary. There is more, but this will suffice.
Next in trying to reconcile a contradiction Zawadi says:
“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). “Zawadi assumes the hadith “stays silent on the issue”. But in order to stay silent on an issue you have to assume you have knowledge and aren’t saying anything relevant to it. But the report is clearing speaking to the topic and does have something to say about it. 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)”. Both are apart of the Quran, that is the simple narrative and flow of the text.
Next Zawadi says:
“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 “The link (as I mentioned before you posted it) contradicts the direct exegesis of the report. But further more if you say it refers to “both” 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!
Next Zawadi says back to me:
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?”Zawadi we are not here to try to fix all the blunders in your authentic reports. The report says bluntly the 5th suckling is still part of the Quran after Mohammed’s death. You don’t have the 5th verse. Which is the
EXACT PROBLEM I mention in my summary. If you APPEAL to this narration to try to prove “abrogation of recitation” then you MUST CONTEND with the fact that BOTH narrations assume the 5th suckling verse is STILL part of the Quran.
“ 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.”
Umm yes it is, show evidence otherwise. Stop stalling.
“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”.Uh huh, so you have one lone isolated report that contradicts the rest, and attests to the fact that a verse not found in the Quran today was actually part of the Quran after Mohammed's death. Nice job Zawadi. Ha ha ha. But we still have sound reason to reject this report.
“Ahhhhh you mean the ones I refuted? Okay lol.”You haven’t refuted any of the exceptions. Abu Darda remains an exception. Simply brushing it aside as an “abrogation” or “incompatible with Uthmanic codex” is a claim. I challenge you to produce evidence that his reading was incompatible with the Uthmanic codex. I challenge you to prove his reading was abrogated. In fact it’s exactly what I said, you have lost a verse of the Quran, not because of Uthman’s codex or abrogation, but for whatever unknown mysterious circumstance it has not been preserved. So Zawadi you fail again. Quran 15:9 once again has been proven false.
Zawadi said in response to me:
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.”Well Umar, Ubay contradict you (you failed to address this fact). And your other sources are refuted by your Muslim buddy. The Aisha hadith clearly can’t be authentic for the 5 unrefuted reasons I’ve already stated.
Next Zawadi says:
“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).”Wow great damage control Zawadi. Interesting explanation, but let’s be clear here: “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.”
Now your claim is that this isn’t referring to the recitation of the verse, but the truth behind the recitation.
HOWEVER if that were the case that Phillips was not referring to the recitation of the verse but the fact behind the verse why does he then go on to say: “LIKEWISE, the divine promises and warnings are excluded, because Allaah doesn’t break His promises.” Hence the word "likewise" shows you have two cases in view.
Clearly Phillips is being logically consistent at this point. Since if God cannot undo the verse recitations (regarding facts, stories, attributes etc) LIKEWISE he can’t undo his divine promises and warnings since he can’t undo his promise. So it’s a parallel it’s symmetry, and logically consistent, one follows from the other.
One refers to recitation; one refers to the reality behind the recitation, both are immutable and consistent this results in a perfect harmony, win/win.
Next you say:
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).”Of course this is preposterous because the TRUTH CLAIM behind the “abrogated recitation” is LOST without that RECITATION!
Hence again proving the recitation is VITAL to understanding the TRUTH CLAIM and REALITY BEHIND IT. Both go hand in hand!
Gee, I wonder how much recitation and therefore the truth claimed behind it, Zawadi thinks we have lost?
Next in an attempt to answer me he says:
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!”
”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.”Back to the old begging the question eh Zawadi. But apart from actually demonstrating your point, you have shown that you can’t argue for it. Maybe you think its deduction. The verses don’t exist in the present Quran and therefore they must be abrogated? Well Zawadi this is called ASSUMING YOUR POISITION, a priori CIRCULAR.
Next Zawadi says:
“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.”
“ANY HARF FOR A VERSE THAT MUST BE IN THE QUR’AN IS SUFFICIENT”Thanks now just find the proof for that claim. Despite the fact that I’ve already pointed out that no such hadith exists. And I’ve already pointed in the exegesis of the hadith we can find no such thing.
“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?”“Why only say that for Abu Darda”
Oh boy. Darda’s house was in Sham. The reason why he was pressured like this is because he was from Kufa but living in Sham. Therefore we would not expect ALL Iraqi’s to be pressured, only by those living in Sham who believed the Syrians had an incorrect reading. Now you had asked for proof that Ibn Masud’s recitation and personal codex was more for more than just private use. The following hadiths (and many others) are direct evidence Masud’s recitation was the recitation most common to Iraq. And we have atleast TWO COMPANIONS (Abu Darda and Ubai) that both refused to give up their perspective recitations.
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. But if you are still not convinced:
"The Syrians," we are told, "contended with the `Iraqis, the former following the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka`b, the latter that of `Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, each accusing the other of unbelief" (Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A History of the First Recorded Version, tr. B. Weis, et al., Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1975, p. 23)
Next you say:
“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???????”I agree there is no unequivocal proof that he did submit to the pressure. You are right the hadith doesn't go that far. However you missed the point. The point here in essence that his reading was neither abrogated nor was it incompatible with the Uthmanic codex yet his reading is lost; it’s no longer part of the Quran. Hence we would expect to have his recitation preserved in his reading right? WRONG. Darda is attributed with the common reading.
Although the people of Sham tried to pressure Darda would not give up his reading of the text:
Volume 8, Book 74, Number 295 : Narrated by Ibrahim 'Alaqama went to Sham and came to the mosque and offered a two-Rak'at prayer, and invoked Allah: "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) good companion." So he sat beside Abu Ad-Darda' who asked, "From where are you?" He said, "From the people of Kufa." Abu Darda' said, "Wasn't there among you the person who keeps the secrets (of the Prophet ) which nobody knew except him (i.e., Hudhaifa (bin Al-Yaman)). And isn't there among you the person whom Allah gave refuge from Satan through the request (tongue) of Allah's Apostle? (i.e., 'Ammar). Isn't there among you the one who used to carry the Siwak and the cushion (or pillows (of the Prophets)? (i.e., Ibn Mas'ud). How did Ibn Mas'ud use to recite 'By the night as it conceals (the light)?" (Sura 92). 'Alqama said, "Wadhdhakari Wal Untha' (And by male and female.") Abu Ad-Darda added.'These people continued to argue with me regarding it till they were about to cause me to have doubts although I heard it from Allah's Apostle."Here we see they were almost successful but he holds on to his first hand testimony.
But why did these people argue and try to make him give up his recitation?
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 467: Narrated by Alqama I went to Sham with a group of the companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud). Abu Ad-Darda' heard of our arrival so he came to us and said, "Is there anybody among you who can recite (Qur'an)" We replied in the affirmative. Then he asked, "Who is the best reciter?" They pointed at me. Then he told me to recite, so I recited the verse: 'By the night as it envelops 'By the day as it appears in brightness; By (Him Who created) male and the female.' (92.1-3) Abu Ad-Darda' then said to me, "Did you hear it (like this) from the mouth of your friend ('Abdullah bin Mas'ud)?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I too, heard it (like this) from the mouth of the Prophet, but these people do not consider this recitation as the correct one ."Next we see his refusal to give up and follow their reading:
Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 468, p. 441-442; book 60 Narrated Ibrahim: The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abi Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said,"I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--'And by Him Who created male and female.' But by Allah, I will not follow them."
Sahih Muslim Hadeeth No:1799 'Alqama reported. We went to Syria and Abu darda' came to us and said: Is there anyone among you who recites according to the recitation of Abdullah? I said: Yes, it is I. He again said: How did you hear 'Abdullah reciting this verse: (wa'l-lail-i-idha yaghsha = when the night covers)? He ('Alqama) said: I heard him reciting it (like this) (wa'l-lail-i-idha yaghsha) wa-dhakar wal untha = when the night covers and the males and the females). Upon this he said: By Allaah, I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) reciting in this way, but they (the Muslims of Syria) desire us to recite: (wa ma khalaqa), but I do not yield to their desire.And it’s clear that Abu Darda learnt directly from the prophet, but he was also one of four men to have collected the Quran at the time of his death:
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 526 : Narrated by Anas bin Malik When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons;: Abu Ad-Darda'. Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring.Hence we have absolute evidence neither Ubai or Darda would not relinquish their recitations. Now Zawadi thinks he has evidence that Masud eventually gave in and accepted the Uthmanic Codex. 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. As Zawadi would say: “THIS IS A POWERFUL SILENCE”.
Next he says:
“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? “Well I have already given examples of Ubay and Darda refusing to give up their reading no matter what. As for claiming that Masud and others in Kufa didn’t insist on having their reading in the Quran this comes from your two faulty arguments that you gave a citation of Ali and that you have silence. I have pointed out some flaws in these. 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. As usual you beg the question. Provide your evidence that Ali’s claim is supported by Masud.
Sevenity (Seven in one) vs Trinity (three in one)
Zawadi now makes the funniest blunder of them all:“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!”As I’ve pointed out that’s a false interpretation. But you have more problems to worry about lol. And I surely do love quoting myself, here goes:
“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.”Next Zawadi says:
“Now………… you may not like that, but that is how our Prophet peace be upon him explained it to us. “I challenge you to prove the prophet explained it like this. Prove to me he thought of each harf as an INDEPENDENT QURAN, and a fully sufficient Quran. Then prove me your prophet AGREED that these harf could be destroyed and abrogated.
Next Zawadi says:
“God didn’t fail, rather there were people who failed to accept God’s Mercy and instead resorted to fighting and quarrelling.”Zawadi is playing games here. He knows that the Ahruf were revealed for the mode of ease for specific groups. He knows this was the will of God and how the angel taught the prophet, and how the prophet taught the people. So yes Uthman has corrupted the plan and design of God!
“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”.”Zawadi is getting desperate. Yawn. “Harf is sufficient for READING” This is not a claim to be an absolute Quran. Read again.
Next I will put my comments in brackets and emphasis. Zawadi says:
“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. <-- (Whooops , God can’t count or do math?)
- 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. (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = hmmm 1 ?, maybe Zawadi will give me the “one times” explanation, ha ha ha, this kid is to much).
- 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. (Yes one reading is enough, but Zawadi cannot even demonstrate what a “harf” is, so he doesn’t know if he has one harf, or whether he has a polluted intermixture of Ahruf and lost surah and ayatun.)
“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.”Of course a “harf” is not defined as an “incomplete Quran” or a “complete Quran”, so what makes it sufficient in terms of reading is actually mysterious to us. But Zawadi appeals to fallacies again. Zawadi concludes that a harf is a complete Quran because…well the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY!
Don’t worry about evidence, let’s go with beg the question! That’s the Muslim faith for you!
“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)” ----Wrong.
I asked you many specific questions. Let’s take your confusing answer and apply it to 15:9 then shall we?
Your answer is: there is ONLY ONE QURAN, but EACH OF THE SEVEN MODES ARE A COMPLETE QURAN.
Now apart from being a mathematical absurdity. 15:9 when it speaks of the Quran according to Zawadi must mean that when the Quran refers to itself it can refer to ANY HARF or any variant or AMOUNT of ahruf, since each HARF is the full Quran!
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.
Now apart from making a shambles out of the Quran, this will be a whole article in itself. This means that one of the very narrations that Zawadi appeals to, to prove that Ibn Masud recanted his view and accepted the Uthmanic Codex is refuted by NONE OTHER THAN ZAWADI’s ridiculous interpretation of QURAN AND AHRUF!
Note here is 15:6-13
“They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)! "Why bringest thou not angels to us if it be that thou hast the Truth?" We send not the angels down except for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold! no respite would they have! We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). We did send apostles before thee amongst the religious sects of old: But never came an apostle to them but they mocked him. Even so do we let it creep into the hearts of the sinners -That they should not believe in the (Message); but the ways of the ancients have passed away. The Prophet said… “so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you”.Now Zawadi knows “the message(thikri)” here is referring to the Quran.
The same Arabic word “thikri” is used elsewhere in the Quran to refer to the Quran being revealed to Mohammed but in the very same verse it refers to the previous followers of the Quran (from before Mohammed’s time):
And We did not send before you (arsalna min qablika) any but men to whom We sent revelation -- so ask the followers of the Reminder (thikri) if you do not know -- With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed TO YOU the Reminder (thikra) that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect. S. 16:43-44 Shakir
"And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder (thikri) if ye know not?" S. 21:7 Pickthall
"And indeed it is a revelation of the Lord of the worlds - brought down by the trustworthy spirit – upon your heart, so that you be one of the warners – [revealed] in a clear Arabic dialect - and indeed it is [also] in the scriptures (Arabic- Zubur) of old. Is it no evidence for them that the scholars of the Israelites know him [to be a true prophet]?" 26:192-197If it is still not made clear that the Quran was sent down earlier this will settle it:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, 'The recitation of the Quran was made light and easy for David that he used to have his riding animal be saddled while he would finish the recitation of the Quran before the servant had saddled it.' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 237)
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, 'The reciting of the Zabur (i.e. Psalms) was made easy for David. He used to order that his riding animals be saddled, and would finish reciting the Zabur before they were saddled. And he would never eat except from the earnings of his manual work." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 628)But the same Quran that Zawadi thinks is seven modes, and each of these modes is the complete Quran unfortunately never existed according to the top reciter and teacher of the Quran: Ibn Masud:
al-Masahif, 1/69, narrates with his chain from Fulfula al-Ja’fi who said, “I was one of those who went to Abdullah regarding the Masahif, so when we entered upon him one of us said, ‘We did not come here to visit you, but we came when this news reached us’, he responded, ‘Indeed the Qur’an was sent down to you Prophet from seven doors with seven different Ahruf (or Qira’ah, recitation style), the books that were before you were sent down FROM ONE DOOR, with ONE READING STYLE, and its meaning is one.”Zawadi’s bizarre interpretation that each Ahruf is the fully complete perfect Quran combined with the statements in the Quran and Authentic Reports contradict his favorite Ibn Masud narration. Ha ha ha. You gotta love it.
As it turns out the Quran never existed as seven Qurans.. (whoops modes: heh...mathematical absurdities eh!) until the Quran was sent down to Mohammed, yet the Quran and the Authentic Reports all teach the very same Quran sent to Muhammad was sent before hand! This my friends is the ultimate confusion of the Quran.
Zawadi also said:
“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?”Of course this is a mouthful as Masud was not on the committee, neither was Alqama (Masud’s number one pupil), neither was Darda. 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.
What these men were concerned about what preserving what the prophet had taught them and those who favored the Uthmanic version joined his team, and Uthman destroyed the rest. Of course the rest of the questions Zawadi is speaking from silence as he’s already admitted, but we know companions who would not give up there readings so this is pure nonsense. And we know his "two narrations" have no independent evidence, hence it is the burden of Zawadi to establish this.
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?”
Zawadi says: “They were against the standardization because they didn’t want to give up their personal manuscripts and readings.”That’s only half of the story. A half concocted truth. Here is the first half Zawadi appeals to:
“By Allah I will not hand this manuscript over to them. Allah’s Messenger –may Allah bless him- personally taught me more than seventy surahs and now I should hand this (manuscript) over to them? By Allah, I will not give it to them!” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2896. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)However, here is the rest:
فَغَلَّوُا الْمَصَاحِفَ. فَلأَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ مَنْ أُحِبُّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابت. فو الذي لا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ لَقَدْ أَخَذْتُ مِنْ فِيِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - بِضْعًا وَسَبْعِينَ سُورَةً. وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ غُلامٌ لَهُ ذُؤَابَتَانِ يَلْعَبُ مَعَ الْغِلْمَانِ
“So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”And:
“Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami’ Tirmidhi, hadith 3104)So Zawadi deal with all of the facts together.
There were several reasons:
- He did not like the fact that Zaid was in charge of collecting the Mus-haf, due to him being relatively young.
- He was not going to give his Mus-haf in because he heard that specific Qira'ah from Allah's Messenger himself.
- He ordered the people of Iraq to conceal their manuscripts and never copy the recitation of Zaid.
By the way I challenge Zawadi to prove Ibn Masud had no idea that Zaid was part of a four-man committee when he said to avoid copying his recitation.
I also challenge Zawadi to prove that Uthman, Zaid etc had the right to contradict the Prophets instructions:
“Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)”Zaid was not among these men. Clearly Masud was right. He ought to have rejected the corrupted committee.
Finally Zawadi said:
“SOOOOOOOOOOOO……. DEREK DO YOU AT LEAST ADMIT THAT ACCORDING TO ISLAM THE QUR’AN HAS BEEN PRESERVED?????”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.?"
It is also similar to asking, "Do you admit that according to conservative Christianity the Bible has been preserved?"
Clever ;)
Anyway in time I will be making full posts on each of these topics as well. Now apart from terrible arguments from silence, constantly begging the question and all the ridiculous contradictions, mathematical errors and fallacies you’ve come up with, you did a great job.
Since this has been over 16 pages make sure to leave your response whenever you have time, but we can come back to this exchange in the future.
Take care,
Derek
No comments:
Post a Comment