Hi Rav,
Thanks for your post. It seems that some of my points were either not conveyed clearly or not properly understood because some of your questions were already addressed. I don't mind giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the answers need some more elaboration which I hope to provide in the present post.
I must ask you this Ansar; you speak about books that are scholarly, and academic, but if we did that, would you seriously accept my references to academic material on the development of the Quran? What do you define as “academic” because the academic world in universities when studying the Quran and its development have come to very diverse conclusions about its origins and development, theories which differ greatly from the Islamic accounts of the Quran’s origins.
The book I have referred you to by M. M. Azami goes into great depth in its analysis of the various orientalist theories and fallacies in their discussions on qur'anic compilation, orthography, paleography, etc. So none of the material is new to me, I've studied the various theories and their refutations.
The same could be said about the Torah
I'm afraid not. As I've said before, I've gone through this point of discussion with many Jews and Christians and pointed out that[SIZE=-1] the liturgical tradition in Judaism is starkly different from the Muslim practice and the integral role recitation of the Qur'an forms in the daily prayers (3 of which are audible) not to mention the congregational prayers of friday, eid, and most importantly during ramadan. You cannot so easily dismiss the recitation of the Qur'an from cover to cover in front of the entire congregation from memory. While Jews do maintain some of their past oral tradition, prayers in Judaism can be done in any language (as noted in the Talmud) and prayer services have been done from Siddurim for the past millenium. So the annual cycle through the short parshiyot can hardly be compared to the integral recitation of the Qur'an in Muslim lives. Where in Judaism do you have the entire congregation listening to the Rabbi reciting the ENTIRE Torah cover to cover from memory?? Take another look at the description I provided you with, rav. Take Ramadan prayers in the Masjid al-Haram as an example. Huffaadh from around the world come with all the other worshippers forming a congregation of millions all behind the Imam reciting the Qur'an from memory, along with many others following along in the text. Where is the similtude of this in Judaism?
When we look at Christianity and Judaism, how many kids have memorized the Torah in Hebrew? Or the New Testament in greek? Forget kids, how many scholars, priests and rabbis of these religions have memorized the scriptures?? Bring me even one scholar of Christianity or Judaism who has memorized the scriptures in the original language, and I will bring you 50 children who have memorized the Qur'an in arabic.
[/SIZE]
Now the fallacy you make in your present post is that you respond to my comments on the memorization and recitation of the Qur'an by saying, "Oh, that doesn't prove the book is true", which is an absolute strawman. I've spoken about proving the veracity of the message through other points in other threads and I only mentioned these facts in relation to 1) the preservation of the Qur'an and 2) the fact that the Qur'an is unique in regards to its tradition of memorization, and you should have no problem acknowledging that.
So again, when you mention the memorization of the Qur'an does not prove its validity, that's a strawman, and when you mention that Christians and Jews are just as capable of memorizing that is another strawman. Remember, we're talking scriptural preservation.
As I quoted before from the work of Dr. Naik, he writes: “These might have been incomplete and with mistakes.”
This is exactly the point I elaborated on earlier!
Ansar Al-'Adl said:
When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion.
I explained in detail why the other parchments were burned. People had previously just been recording the verses on whatever they had available to them and there was hardly any verification. So after having compiled the authoritative text that was agreed upon by all the huffaadh and even each and every verse had been verified not only in the memories of the companions and their recorded parchments but with two independent witnesses having recorded it
directly from the Prophet himself*, he then ordered that all other parchments should be disposed of and copies should be made from this authorised and verified compilation. Copies were then made from this and sent with a recitor to all the major cities of the Muslim empire. Why were all other copies disposed of? 1. Because they may have been written in a manner specific to one dialect creating confusion 2. With everyone having their own hand-written parchments there was also the possibility of scribal errors, and that is the point mentioned by Dr. Naik which you keep quoting.
*I'll give just one example of where this is mentioned:
Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two companions bore witness that the received his dictation (for the writing) from the Prophet himself. (Fath al-Bari, ix: 14-15).
The Quranic text we have today is the one that was endorsed by the then 3rd Caliph of Islam, who burned all the obtainable copies of the Quran that differed with his version of the Quranic text. Does that sound anything like perfect revelation sealed flawlessly?
It wasn't just the 3rd caliph! This copy was verified not only by the memories of all the companions who had memorized it and the various parchments they possessed with the verse written on it, but for each and every verse TWO independent witnesses were required each having the parchment on which they had recorded the verse directly from the prophet himself. It doesn't get anymore meticulous and stringent than that!
If he burnt other dialects to lessen confusion, than first, is it proper to burn the Quran in any dialect?
Yes!! This is considered a dignified way of disposing of God's words. And this should not surprise you because many Jews do it too!! To quote one Rabbi:
If one of the seven names of G-G-d is explicitly used in Hebrew, of course it is improper to dispose of these
divrei Torah sheets except in a
geniza, or perhaps to
burn or bury them in an very proper manner.
...In the case of the English
dvar torah sheets that quote full verses of the Torah in English, and use various translations of the names of God that explicitly denote the Divine in English, halacha prohibits one from disposing of these sheets in an irreverent manner, such as simply discarding them in a garbage can full of rubbish;
however, they need not be put in a geniza and can be disposed of in some other proper manner, such as burning in a dignified way, or even perhaps bundling them neatly together and putting them in a recycling bin or the like. The reason for this is that when the name of God is used in a language other than Hebrew, no technical prohibition against erasing it attaches, but yet it is improper to dispose of this material in an undignified manner. For more on this, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:17
14). Of course, one cannot take such reading material into a bathroom of the like. [
SOURCE]
So yes, when these parchments were burnt, a lot of them could have been perfect without any mistakes. But simply because they had not been verified and there was the possibility that they
could contain mistakes, no chances were taken with the Qur'an.
Second, as I said before: Apparently, it was more than just a pronunciation thing. If that were the case, it would only have been an effortless task of replication Hafsa's version and sending it out. But he didn't do that. He commissioned an assembly to contrast the copy with other versions.
I'm afraid that's incorrect. First of all, the process I describe with the two witness and whatnot was done under the supervision by Zaid ibn Thabit for BOTH times - the compilation during the reign of Abu Bakr (which was kept with Hafsa) AND the compilation during the reign of Uthman. Now one may wonder why the same process would be repeated during the reign of Uthman when he could simply copy the manuscript Hafsa possesed. The reason, as explained by Azami based on all the historical evidence, is that Uthman's compilation was an autonomous compilation as many of the companions - who had been fighting in the armies and had been absent during the first compilation process with Abu Bakr - had now returned and thus the process was repeated for further verification. Once the final product was found to match the copy with Hafsa, copies were made of the Uthmanic manuscript and delivered to the major cities in the Muslim world.
Let us assume for now that Hafsa's version is the perfect and definitive version. And hence this would mean that Hafsa's version was already in the Quraishiite form. However, it appears not. Since, Uthman had to instruct the scribes:
Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."
How can there be disagreement when Hafsa's version was ‘perfect’?
As mentioned above, this point is easily understood in light of the fact that the compilation done with Uthman was autonomous and the witness process was repeated. The role of Hafsa's copy was simply further verification of the end product.
Plus, I remember reading in the Hadith that if the person heard someone recite a verse and he could fine no one else, but he “remembered” the verse or hearing of it, he would add it in and count himself as the second witness. Could you clarify this?
You'll have to show me the hadith you're talking about.
Also an example:
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):
'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)
Yes, this is exactly what demonstrates the point I made earlier about the witness process. You will find hadith which mention that at the end the companions found one sentence was missing and they needed witnesses for and could only find one witness for it. The question: how did the companions know this phrase was missing? Because they had memorized the Qur'an. So they knew which verses they had gotten witnesses for and which verses remained, and at the end they got 2 witnesses for every verse - meeting the criteria I previously mentioned - and they got one witness Abu Khuzaimah for this verse and it was actually the fulfillment of a prophecy because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had told this companion that his witness was the equivalent of two witnesses and consequently he was actually known by everyone with the title of "Dhul-Shahadatain", the person who witness is that of two witnesses. So when the companions found that this was the only verse they had one witness for and yet this was the man who had been called Dhul-Shahadatain by the prophet, the realized the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Abu Bakr had not authorised him to record except what was already available [on parchment]. That is why Zaid refrained from including the final âyah of Surah Barâ'a until he came upon it in written form, even though he and his fellow Companions could recall it perfectly well from memory. (Fath al-Bari, ix:13)
Also, about the Tashkent Quran, here are some things I have read about this copy, please correct me if I am wrong Ansar, because I have no use to attack Islam or Christianity, but live my life in peace since many opinions within Judaism say Muslims can go to heaven! I therefore, in the process of taking classes in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, must have a few things clarified which people do learn.
Not a problem.
Azami examines these slight differences in the ancient manuscripts and discusses them in detail noting their extreme scarcity and provides a number of explanations, which for me to regurgitate would turn an already long post into a multipage essay. Suffice it to say that the presence of the teachers alongside each official copy, the ubiquitious recitation and memorization amongst muslims, and the countless other copies available for cross checking are the very reasons why even the slightest scribal error is immediately and outright rejected by the Muslim populace.
Also, if we read what Mawlana Modudi states in his tafseer
On which verse?
one cannot fail to realize that if the Quran had been so preserved then how such discrepancies could occur… right?
It would only be a case in point if an error had gone unnoticed and resulted in a variant text amongst Muslims. But Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants and even the slightest mistake could be recognized and rejected even by a child.
I have a huge amount of reading material that I would love for you to go over, but I don’t want to trouble you.
As I said, Azami does an excellent job of refuting the various orientalist theories you allude to and exposing their fallacies, all in a nice concise readable format, so I would refer you to his book for the response. I've examined this subject in quite some detail so I'm already familiar with the allegations.
Can we really trust all of the preservations though? Two witnesses? There could have been one mistake, right? Is just one all it takes?
You haven't been looking at the criteria I outlined. For each verse, the companions already have it memorized and probably dozens of parchments with it recorded, but that wasn't enough. They declared that for each and every verse two witnesses would have to come forth, each having recorded it on their parchment directly from the Prophet. So the witness's testimony was verified against the companion's memorization and the written parchments available. If even a child can spot a mistake in reciting then how could a congregation of the scholarly companions along with numerous parchments allow it to go unnoticed? Plus we even have the final checking with the manuscript of Hafsa! Its verification upon verification upon verification.
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 523:
Narrated 'Alqama:
While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas'ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him), "It was not revealed in this way." Then Ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle and he confirmed my recitation by saying, 'Well done!' " Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him, "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?" Then he lashed him according to the law.
First, when you quote a hadith could you please mention which source book you are quoting from (i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, etc. etc.). Simply providing the reference within that book is not enough.
Secondly, I have no clue what you are trying to demonstrate by quoting this narration. Please be more explicit.
Have you heard of the Alaama Siyootee and Mulla Ali Qari regarding Quranic text collections? Can you explain their significance?
I missed this in my earlier post. Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti and Mulla Ali Qari are two people, muslim scholars, not books.
-I have heard that in books like AL-Itqaan by Suyooty, quite a few centuries back can come across evidence in which they evidently tell us that people used to have Quran’s with different sura’s and verse orders eg ibn masood, abu moosa, ubaee bin ka'b etc. Can you comment on this, or let me know the information you have about this? Thank you in advance.
Sure. This subject is also explained in Azami's book if you're interested, and is the topic of an entire chapter (13).
First of all, the fallacy here is in forgetting the fact that individuals had their own personal copies for prayer use (remember the integral role of the Qur'an in muslim practice) and hence they included in their personal copies surahs they would frequently recite, and sometimes supplications (Duas). So when you'll read narrations like the one saying that surah 1, 113 and 114 were absent from Ibn Mas'ud's personal copy, it doesn't prove anything. It was their personal reading copies, never something they declared to be a complete and authoritative mushaf.
Secondly, most of the narrations on this topic have serious defects in their chains of transmission and are all weak or fabricated. And this is precisely the problem non-muslims and even many lay muslims have when approaching Islamic sources. They don't realize the difference between something like Al-Itqân fi Ulûm al-Qur'ân and Sahîh al-Bukhârî and regard narrations found in either of them on the same level. The reality is that the first book collects all narrations on specific topics relating to the sciences of the Qur'an, irrespective of their level of authenticity, while the latter contains authentic narrations only. Consequently, hadith scholars like the famous Imam An-Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hazm rejected such reports as spurious and inauthentic while others like al-Baqillani demonstrated their incoherence.
-Sunnis have their own Hadith collections like Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Nisaee, Abu Dawud and Ibn Maaja etc etc. These are rejected by Shiites as forgeries. Likewise Sunnis have their own Fiqh collections like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Humbly etc. which are also rejected by Shiites.
-The Shiites also have their individual Hadith collection recognized as Al-Kafi by Imam Yaqub Kalayni. And similarly they have their own Fiqh by name of Fiqh Al-Jaferia. These are rejected by Sunnis completely as forgeries.
So why can we not trust their copies and their accounts, and are there main differences?
The short answer to the question of why shias and sunnis have different sources is that shias consider many of the most prominent companions of the prophet outright liars and instead rely on the shia infallible imams for guidance. The long answer is to actually go study the tremendous body of knowledge called
'Ulûm al-Hadîth (sciences of the prophetic narrations) and learn for yourself the details concerning the meticulous methodology used in the grading and analysis of prophetic traditions. Your question is a bit like asking why some people accept conventional medicine over 'witch-doctor' treatments - the answer entails a little bit of familiarity with both.
Likewise, when you ask which sect one should pick, it is like asking which is right - Judaism or Christianity. It would require a little more than a slight tangent from this thread to do justice to the topic so I would advise checking the sectarian section on the forum to learn a bit more about these differences.
Can you explain them to me, or direct to links of Islamic commentaries?
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 522:
Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:
Once 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud delivered a sermon before us and said, "By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle . By Allah, the companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah's Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them." Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech).
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) : By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom.
What do you want me to explain? The commentaries are in arabic so you'll have to be more specific to let me know what you're looking for.
And once again, please cite the sources.
Your comments on Arabic I will have to respectfully disagree with, on the account that Islamic and Judaic logic in this matter differ.
You are free to disagree with anything I say. You have my permission!
Warm Regards
