Thanks Joseph.
When the Quran speaks of a source of authority, I feel the most natural position is to assume one canonised text providing that authority and not multiple sources.
That's fine. It's good that you are backtracking a bit from your position in the article. You are taking a "default position based on silence" instead of the "Positive position against..." stance in the article.
That was the main thing I wanted to achieve. I know our positions differ (and I will be addressing ALL the proof texts you have used from the Qur'an for proving the Qur'an alone in the future inshallah. I'm only addressing some minor issues now. We will get to the meat of our differences in due course inshallah).
I find that the default position of one small community speaking in one dialect the most cogent. As one moves away from a central community, the general language may remain the same but dialects may differ. This can be observed in practice, hence my appeal to the most probable default position.
You are assuming the Arabs the Prophet was sent to all spoke the same
dialect. On what basis do you assume such a thing? On what basis could you say that it's most cogent?
HOW DO YOU KNOW the community was small? How small?
Why do you deny things no body questions? If history records that the Arabs spoke in different dialects, how is that something so unbelievable to you?
We aren't even discussing ahaadith here. Just basic secular history. Why are you so skeptical of the entirety of history?
The responsibility to pass on the message as witnesses (shuhadaa – plural) to mankind was given to believers. This much is clear in the verse. I have intimated that the very seeds of en masse transmission of the Quran are enshrined in this passage.
Yes, and warsh was passed on by witnesses too and it's
validity is recognized by the majority.
Where does the passage in question say anything about the
majority of witnesses being right?
On what basis do you intimate "that the very seeds of en masse transmission of the Quran are enshrined in this passage"
I see that no where implied in the verse.
Are you sure you are performing exegesis instead of eisegesis?
I have already cited why I made an appeal to mass transmission and the reason was supported by the Quran itself. If you are not willing to accept best evidence from the Quran
I am still waiting for this support by the Qur'an you are alluding to. Show it to me again please. Show me where the Qur'an says that the majority of witnesses is to be preferred over the minority. I am waiting Joseph.
It means that 5% are following a variant transmission which does not have the support of en masse propagation. You can assign whatever epithets you respectfully deem fit; my position has been cited clearly.
And SINCEEEEE you believe that the one true Qur'an is Hafs, then by default you believe that those 5% are following a not perfectly preserved Qur'an.
So not only do you believe that Muslims are following false ahaadith, but are also following false Qur'ans too.
Yes, yes.... I know Joseph....... it's not to be comparable in the same sense because you believe that ahaadith are whole sale fabrications while the differences with Warsh are very minor. But THE FACT AND PRINCIPLE - REGARDLESS OF EXTENT - remains the same....... just as there are Muslims believing false traditions, there are also Muslims following a wrong transmission of the Qur'an in your view.
Or am I wrong?
They were simply cited to underscore the expectation of the Quran which is simply to take the best of the word that reaches one. If 5% of the population have deemed that their variant script is correct, it is not for me to pass judgment. That is all.
Come again?
The fact remains, 95% of the Muslim world recite one transmission in one recitation.
The fact remains that this means absolutely nothing. What if it happened to be 70%, would it still matter or is the number 95% the divine benchmark?
With respect, I do not. Study of history is a fundamental part of my academic endeavours and always has been. My conclusion however is that it retains 'no authority' in the name of religion.
I find it very surprising that you study history as an academic endeavour, yet you have displayed so much disrespect to the historical method by sweeping things under the rug by the lift of a finger without attempting to seriously deal with the material.
What for you constitutes a historical fact? What is your criteria for historical truth?
I have provided best evidence from the Quran, the earliest source of Islamic history. Therefore I humbly feel I am in a very good position to critique sources which were not at times canonised until centuries after the Prophetic ministry for which the Quran gives no warrant. You are continuing to argue from an unauthoritative position and seem not to be able accept this.
Where have you provided any shred of evidence that the Hafs reading was the popular one before the 20th century? Where?
To this day, only one transmission in one recitation is recited by approx 95% of the Muslim population. The reason to accept mass propagation has been argued. However, I cannot make you accept the evidence.
Brother, with all due respect..... no where have you provided any evidence that the Qur'an asks us to allude to "en masse transmission" or "majority" acceptance of transmission. No where.
The only verse you provided in support was:
And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.
Out of this you derived.......
That we should accept the Hafs reading which is recited by the majority of Muslims today.
How on earth you derived that is beyond me and it makes me doubt the seriousness you have when it comes to only accepting things from the Qur'an. I hope you clarify this point better for me.
Note: I've been debating for 8 years, I could get argumentative, but not personal. Don't take things personally.
Thanks,
Bassam