Messages

[one of the alternatives]

I was reading brother Joseph's article here http://quransmessage.com/articles/thief%20hands%20FM3.htm

Some thoughts I had were:

- Why does 5:38 have to be understood in light of 5:33-34? 5:38 talks about cutting off a hand, while 5:33-34 talks about one of the alternatives being cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides. So this is a different punishment (as an alternative) meted out for a different crime. So where's the clear connection between these two verses?

- Why does 5:39 have to be understood as implying from forgiveness from corporal punishment? Just because someone endured the corporal punishment that doesn't necessarily imply that Allah has forgiven him his sin. There is still room for punishment in the afterlife. Hence, one could endure the corporal punishment, yet still require God's forgiveness in order to spare himself from the punishment in the after life. So... it's possible that 5:39 is talking about this forgiveness (i.e. from punishment in the afterlife) and not forgiveness from corporal punishment. Given this, the condition of "insistence" doesn't appear to be very clearly laid out now does it?


Also, I have seen Qur'an only Muslims explaining "cut" as only meaning "mark". How does one clearly refute them based on the Qur'an alone? If the Qur'an was so crystal clear on it's own, why did they fall into this exegetical error?


Thanks,

Bassam

Thanks Joseph.

I kept on asking questions, since I knew it would reach a limit to where one of us wouldn't be able to tackle them directly head on. That has been my experience..... if you keep asking, you would eventually reach a limit. Falsehood could only offer a limited number of counter responses. An exchange or two could end with no clear position standing superior, but continuously going on would in most cases dissolve that problem.

I think we could end this round of discussion as well. I will leave it to the readers to decide the following...


- Has Joseph truly justified his appeal to 22:78 to show that one should appeal to the majority reading of today? Where are the exact words of the Qur'an which justify this?

- Joseph said that he "feels" this is the default position. Are Joseph's "feelings" authoritative? If the Qur'an is detailed and clear the way Joseph believes, then why does he have to "feel", instead of "know" what the Qur'an says regarding the correct transmission to adhere to?

- Even if we assume for the sake of argument alone that the Qur'an does tell us to adopt the most widely transmitted reading....... How does Joseph know that prior to the 20th century that Hafs was the most popular reading? Others argue that it's Warsh. What counter evidence does Joseph offer us?

- Given that Joseph believes that we must adhere to the Hafs reading and given that Warsh has minor differences with Hafs, does that mean that the places where Warsh disagrees with Hafs are errors? If no, then what's the point of only following Hafs? If yes, then that means that at least 75 million Muslims today recite a Qur'an with errors in them. So that means that mistakes have crypt into the Qur'an being followed by 75 million Muslims today.

In light of the above, I believe that brothers such as Joseph are in a predicament....

- First, they assert that we could only take our religion from that which the Qur'an clearly teaches, yet no where does the Qur'an provide any clear guidelines on what to choose between Hafs and Warsh (by the way... out of generosity I am leaving out the other several readings from this discussion). Brothers like Joseph could only subjectively "feel" what is the most appropriate, but not derive something clear from the Qur'an.

- Brothers like Joseph claim that Hafs is the most popular reading, yet when asked to prove if that has always been the case prior to the 20th century, he couldn't say anything meaningful in response. He can't appeal to the historical method in order to prove his point, since utilization of the historical method would only crumble his entire theology. All he does is "assume". Which non-Muslim historian could ever ever take this stance seriously?

- Brothers like Joseph view the hadith system to be problematic, since it contains errors, yet his rejection of Warsh necessitates that he also believes that 75 million Muslims today recite a Qur'an riddled with errors (i.e. where Warsh disagrees with Hafs). He claims that this is not comparable, but the "extent" is not what is being discussed here. It's the result at the end of the day.


It is my personal belief that if anyone were to read the exchange between myself and Joseph very carefully - word by word - one would notice that Joseph hasn't offered direct and convincing responses to the above questions.

Joseph thinks otherwise.

What do you (the reader) think? That is for you to decide.

I think everything that had to be said has been said already. Please don't judge anything based on this post of mine. Please, DO READ everything that has been said.


Thanks,

Bassam

[and we have what is written in this paper as well. I asked, what is written in this paper? He replied, (The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.]

Even a single hadith from Bukhari iteself will demolish the claim that ahaadith is from GOD.

Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283: Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I asked Ali, Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well. I asked, what is written in this paper? He replied, (The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.

Can you let me know if there is any footnote for the above hadith (from any scholar) saying that it is unauthentic?

Notice the bit...

and we have what is written in this paper as well. I asked, what is written in this paper? He replied, (The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.

That's all that Ali had written with him at the time.

Of course much more clarification could be given, however I don't see the point since you apriori appear to reject traditional sources.

I just want to bring to your attention that it's wrong to cherry pick this hadeeth and ignore the other narrations containing 'Ali. For example, if Ali were truly a Qur'an Only Muslim like yourself would he have said...

Narrated `Ali:
Allah's Messenger () prohibited Al-Mut'a marriage and the eating of donkey's meat in the year of the Khaibar battle. (Bukhari, Book 72, Hadith 50)

Make sure if you want to cite one hadeeth, then allow the others to clarify.

I strongly believe that in view of verse 8:17 mentioned above the act of thowing could be be interpreted to mean actually people on top of the mountain thowing the stones but attributable to birds to establish Allah's direct and complete control of the whole incident and to confirm the point that it was ultimately Allah who destroyed the enemey.

I think this is an example of why Qur'an Onlyism is problematic. It allows us to interpret things the way we see fit.

Surah 8:17 emphasizes Allah's complete control, while in Surah 105 it makes no sense to say that it's human beings throwing stones off mountains, but attributable to birds in order to "confirm the point that it was ultimately Allah who destroyed the enemey". I can't see how attributing it to birds instead of Allah like in 8:17 achieves what you say.

Again, this is the problem with Qur'an Onlysim. There is standard for interpretation.

["feel"]

Not at all. The Quran was sent to an Arab man named 'Muhammad' who spoke a particular dialect, whatever that dialect was. The Quran was revealed in Arabic but its intended linguistic scope was 'arguably' limited to the central town and those around it.

042.007 (part)
"And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran, that you may warn the mother city (Arabic: ummal-qura) and those around it (Arabic: waman hawlaha)..."

This provides sufficient warrant for me to appreciate that the scope of the language and the dialect changes as one goes further afield. This can be seen in general practice too.

How do you know that "those around it" spoke the same dialect as the mother city? Even today I observe people with different dialects outside the city of Riyadh and Damascus (heck, the dialect of those in Damascus suburbs today is different from those in the city).

In my humble view, this is an absolutely irrelevant question. The initial recipient of the Quran was the Prophet himself. The Quran arguably was revealed in his dialect which would have been the dialect of his immediate community / mother town and those around it (waman hawlaha).

And how do you know what that dialect was? And how do you know that it was the same in both the mother town and those around it?

I do not dispute this. Arabs were arguably not contained to one area which can be evidenced from the Quran. I dispute the assertion that the Quran was revealed in multiple dialects.

Sooo..... given that Arabs spoke different dialects and there are manuscripts of the Qur'an reflecting differing variants that have been transmitted steadily... how do you explain their existence? What is the reason for these variant readings, if not the traditional view? What is your hypothesis?

On what basis? If you say secondary sources, then you once again argue from a position of no authority. With respect, this is getting tediously repetitive.

What do you mean what is my evidence?

Are you saying that Warsh is some late new invention? If yes, then by employing a consistent methodology, what is your evidence that Hafs in particular goes back to the prophet?

Why should it? The default position of en masse transmission under the supervision of the Prophet with Divine protection is sufficient evidence from the Quran.

But you offered no evidence that prior to the 20th century the Hafs reading was transmitted en masse since the Prophet's time. You haven't proven this historically or from the Qur'an.

Why should it you ask? Well, because you keep saying that the Qur'an alludes you (in some way I still don't fully understand) to accepting the Hafs transmission. Sooo... where does it say or imply that? Can you cite for me the exact part of the Qur'an, which makes you think that "en mass transmission" held by a "majority" is the transmission to follow?

I cited 22:78 and shared my reasons why. If you cannot accept the argument then that is your prerogative, but respectfully, please do not present it as an absent attempt.

But you didn't show me where in the verse it says anything about "majority" or "en mass transmission". You just showed me "witnesses" and then added your personal interpretation to it.

This is considered an absent attempt.

I could question the objectivity of the exegesis that you rely on, but this would become a personal matter. Let us stay on the topic please.

I didn't interpret anything yet. You are against using secondary sources to interpret the Qur'an. Fine.... but it's clear that you are using a secondary source to interpret 22:78, since the plain reading of the Qur'an no where alludes us to accepting the "majority" preference of the Muslim Ummah when it comes to the Qur'anic transmission.

This is a key point you aren't addressing head on effectively. To say... "Bassam, it's your problem if you don't like my explanation" isn't really the right approach for you to take here. I think you need to really help me understand what it is that you see in 22:78, which I don't. Cite for me the EXACT words from 22:78 and then interpret those words for me (with justification) so that I could understand how you came to the conclusion that the Hafs reading is the one we must all accept.

Therefore, I feel the best default position from the Quran is one to expect that the scripture was transmitted en masse by believers with Divine sanction.

So do you "feel" or are you certain that the best default position from the Qur'an is to expect the scripture to be transmitted en masse?

How do you know that Hafs for last 1400 years was the one that was always en masse transmitted consistently?

Why can't we consider Warsh to be transmitted en masse? 5% of 1.5 billion Muslims is still quite a lot. Why can't they be "en masse" on their own?

This does not mean that the large majority of the Quran that they accept is false.

So a very small minority (i.e. where Warsh disagrees with Hafs) of what they accept is false?

If the answer is yes, then yes you believe that their Qur'an isn't perfect.

If the answer is no, then you only accepting Hafs has no meaning.

I'm not looking to create a shock-effect, just looking for you to call a spade a spade.

My evidence is for one transmission transmitted en masse.

But your evidence that Hafs was transmitted en masse from the Prophet's time isssss....?

Please can you provide me one scintilla, iota or shred of evidence from the Quran that:

The Quran was revealed in different recitation modes
The Quran was revealed in different transmissions
The Prophet sanctioned different recitation modes of the Quran
The Prophet sanctioned different transmissions of the Quran

No I can't, nor do I feel the need to, since I am not a Qur'an Only Muslim. I never sought to do so in this discussion. My main task initially was to address your article where you attempted to pose that the Qur'an positively asserts that it was revealed in one mode. You have backtracked from that position and took a more passive "The default position based on silence" stance.

There is not one verse in the Quran that confirms this. Please do not shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is with you to prove this as you make the claim for the above.

When I am done addressing the so-called proof texts, which you have used in your articles for trying to show that the Qur'an teaches Quran Onlyism, we will observe that the ball is truly on your half of the court.

Then I would sincerely hope that in the 8 years that you have not simply become a product of the abrasive styles that you may have encountered by your critics. I would hope that you have become wiser, softer and as the Quran demands a man of 'qawlan layyinan' (gentle, smooth, soft, delicate, malleable mild speech) - 20:44.

Jazakallah khayr for the reminder.



Kind Regards,

Bassam

[dialect.]

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

[birds in flocks, Striking them with stones]

In one word, to answer you, the objective standard for us should be if it is from God.

I agree with you..... we should first find out God's true word and then determine what is absurd based on that.

We cannot in our quest for truth reject something by claiming it's absurd.

This is why the argument "this hadeeth is for sure not from God because it's absurd" isn't a convincing argument to the traditionalist.

You are simply shooting in the air to make confusion in the mind of ordinary people in your attempt to justify some of ridiculous and absurd hadiths collected by hadith compilers and presented to us as authentic reports.

That's your own personal opinion backed with no objective evidence.

The Quran did not mention in the verse the birds threw stones.

Surah 105: 4-5:

And He sent against them birds in flocks, Striking them with stones of hard clay,

[recognize the validity of Warsh?]

Thanks Joseph.

With respect, it also cannot be used to deny it.

I didn't make a positive case for the seven ahruf from the Qur'an. I was only interested in addressing your claim that the Qur'an positively affirms only one recitation mode.

My default position is taken from the Quran. The orthodox default position of different 'ahruf' and 'qiraat' is taken from the secondary sources whose authority is moot.  In my humble view, there is no 'Quranic warrant' for the latter. I see no cogent reason for the Quran to be revealed in different modes given that the intention was to give guidance to the primary Arab audience of a particular locale, who arguably spoke in one dialect.

There is a difference between saying that the Qur'an is silent on whether it has been revealed in more than one mode and saying that the Qur'an categorically affirms being revealed in only one.

You are making the latter claim. I say there is no warrant, nor proof for that. It's best you retract to a more passive position, which is saying "The Qur'an is silent on it".

The Arab audience spoke in several dialects as is well known. If you don't trust history, then remain silent and don't say things like "who arguably spoke in one dialect", since you have no evidence for that assertion.

The appeal to 'Ad populum' in this instance finds direct support from the Quran. Arguably, the responsibility to transmit the Quran's message en masse (and as witnesses - 22:78) was given to the primary audience under the auspices of the Prophet's supervision during his ministry.  The protection of the Quran's message was also guaranteed by God Himself (15:9). Therefore, the default position which appeals to the 'majority reading' finds direct validity from the Quran.

I fail to understand how 22:78 can be used to justify your selection of Hafs as the only reliable Qur'anic transmission. Can you please highlight the specific part of the verse for me?

Secondly, how does 15:9 help you either? Is there evidence that Warsh has not been transmitted faithly? In fact, in your article you appear to affirm that Warsh has been transmitted faithfully. Soo.... how would 15:9 justify your selection of Hafs over Warsh?

Since when did "majority" become a criterion for truth? Isn't this an appeal to authority?

Furthermore, the differences as argued in my article are so immaterial that they do not introduce new verses, chapters, omit them or change the overarching message of the Quran. In the ambit of the 'variant', the overarching integrity of the Quran still remains assured. Furthermore, an analogy with the Ahadith corpus is wholly inappropriate with superficial intent, as the the nature of the two corpus's are different as is the level of agreement on integrity.

Soo....... it's okay for the Qur'an to not be preserved down to the letter then as long as the meaning remains intact?

If yes, then how we should understand preservation?

If no, then does this mean that 5% of Muslims are following a corrupt (doesn't matter how small) version of the Qur'an today?

Are the 5% of Muslims following the 'majority' reading? The answer is simply no, even though they will be governed by the underlying wisdom of verses 39:18 and 39:55. They are simply following a 'variant reading' which is not authenticated by en masse transmission.

Again, I don't understand how 39:18 and 39:55 justifies taking the majority position. Who says that "Hafs" has the "better meaning" of Warsh? Also, who objectively determines what is "best"? You do realize that the majority of Muslims disagree with your "Qur'an only" stance right? So why do you find the majority opinion to be authoritative only on this topic?

You keep appealing to the 95% of the Muslims who recite Hafs, but don't you realize that those very same Muslims you appeal to recognize the validity of Warsh? So again...... how are you using this whole "majority is right" criterion of yours? Help me understand your utilization of it.

The above statement in the paragraph and what follows thereafter is simply based on secondary sources and is imbued with unwarranted subjectivity. Unless one can round up all the Muslims extant at the time of the Prophetic ministry and conduct an experiment to ascertain the majority 'recitation', this will remain an argument from silence and moot evidence.

This is based on manuscript evidence and known history. It's known that Hafs began to spread just in the past 100 years. Why should we ignore things that no one is disputing by burying our heads under the sand like ostriches? Is there anyone who has argued that Hafs has always been the majority reading?

Just because you don't believe in a "divine" secondary source, that doesn't mean you should ignore history all together. This is unwarranted skepticism and burying your head in the sand unnecessarily.

This lends to the argument that the en masse recitation of Hafs was the most popular and hence adopted. Unless one conducts an experiment to ascertain the 'majority reading' by rounding up every single Muslim extant at the turn of the 20th century, the general sentiments in the paragraph will remain inconclusive at best.

Do you have any evidence that Hafs was the most popular and en masse recitation before the 20th century, or at least some good reasons for assuming so?

Once again, citation of 'history' is respectfully flawed based on 'authority' which has been a major contention in our respectful discourse. This citation also assumes that every single manuscript that was ever written by the earliest Muslims is available for inspection and comparison. This is another example of an argument from silence and the citation of questionable evidence.

This particular argument from silence is damning, since if Hafs was truly the most popular and en masse transmission, since the very beginning we would expect it to be reflected in the manuscripts we have.

What evidence do you have in the face of it? Absolutely nothing. All you have is...

- Well the majority of Muslims today recite Hafs. So what? How is that authoritative according to the Qur'an?

- Your non-evidence backed assumption that Hafs was always the most popular reading.

Having more extant codices of any one transmission from an ancient historical perspective is not ipso facto proof that the particular transmission was the most prevalent. Therefore with respect, your appeal to 'historical sources' in this instance is wholly unwarranted and remains inadmissible from a Quranic perspective.

But it makes it more plausible. Given you can't offer a single historical argument for the popularity of Hafs since the beginning, you really are in no position to critique the other position (especially since you have no Qur'anic verse to back your choice of sticking to the majority).

The Quranic perspective I have respectfully argued is for the majority reading transmitted en masse.

No where have you shown that the Qur'an directs us to the majority reading.



Thanks,

Bassam

[will not be reading a different Quran]

I was reading brother Joseph Islam's article over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/seven%20readings%20FM3.htm.

Some of my thoughts...


- 75:17-18 cannot be linguistically used to negate the possible revelation of Qur'an in different modes. The singular "recitation" is in reference to the "Qur'an". Even traditionalists affirm one Qur'an, not seven Qur'ans. Traditionalists believe that it's been revealed in seven modes however. Even Joseph Islam recognizes this logic and says "Therefore, a Muslim in Morocco or Algeria, will not be reading a different Quran with extra verses, missing verses, different religious edicts or directives. The Quran will essentially be the same." So Joseph recognizes that despite there being two different transmissions (Warsh and Hafs), that doesn't necessitate there being two different Qur'ans. Hence, looking back at 75:17-18 it doesn't necessitate one mode of transmission, rather it only implies one Qur'an and that is something the traditional Muslim agrees with.

- 19:97 doesn't say "vernacular". That's a personal interpretation. It could easily refer to the Arabic language. Again, that doesn't stand in contradiction to the notion of Seven Ahruf.



Now.... the problems I find with brother Joseph's article are....


- Joseph provides us with no historical or rational evidence as to why the Hafs transmission is the one to be followed. He simply says that 95% of Muslims follow it and that is all. But isn't this committing the ad populum fallacy?

- Is Joseph saying that the 5% who go for Warsh today are following a "not 100% purely preserved" Qur'an? So does that mean that the Qur'an just like the hadith (though not to the same extent) has suffered "infiltration"?

- Joseph fails to realize that Hafs wasn't always the most popular reading. In fact, many argue that Warsh used to be the most popular reading historically and some even argue that the Prophet himself used to recite Warsh. Some argue that Hafs became popular only by an "accident". Its beginnings are from what is known as the King Fu'ad edition, the Egyptian edition, printed originally in 1337/ 1918. Far more than any other editions, it has been adopted in the most important centres of publishing the Qur'an in the Middle East: Egypt, Saudi Arabia (especially the King Fahd Complex for printing the Qur'an in Madina, Beirut and Turkey. The King Fu'ad edition produced in 1337/1918 was not by an individual, but by a committee of four. In 1342/ 1923 it was adopted by a committee set up by King Fu'ad I under the supervision of the Azhar authority, and was printed at the official Bulaq Press. It became known as the amiri mushaf  and became the model to be followed in Egypt and outside. This edition adopted Hafs as the reading which went on to become standard for the Madinah mushaf, the most popular edition of our time. Historically speaking, however, Hafs has been almost absent from Qur'anic manuscripts. Check "The Qira'at Identified In The Qur'anic Manuscripts" at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/qirmans.html. The reading of Abu `Amr, the Basran, was prominent in the past. After that comes readings from Warsh, Qalun and Hamza. The earliest reading that was most popular appears to be Ibn Amir. This is not surprising given the fact that Syria was first conquered and held by Muslims. Furthermore the reign of the Umayyads lasted for quite a long time which could have helped in popularizing the reading. Given the historical data, many would not argue that the Qur'an has been preserved in the reading of Hafs.



So I find the Qur'an only Muslim at this point to be in a jam.

On the one hand, his hadeeth rejectionism doesn't allow him to make sense of the reading and manuscript variances we find for the Qur'an. His literal sole reliance on the Qur'an alone doesn't indicate to him which is the exact transmission to follow.

At the same time... if the Qura'nist attempts to delve into history to try and make sense of this whole scenario then that means that the Qur'anist recognizes the validity of the historical method to a certain extent. But the problem would then arise for the Qur'anist to deal with the historical evidence refuting his Qur'an only stance.

I think the Qur'anist is in a jam here.



Note: When I say "Qur'anist", I simply mean someone who is following the Qur'an literally alone. Sometimes I say "hadeeth rejector" and other times "Qur'anite", etc. I'm not using it as an offensive term. I obviously cannot simply call you a "Muslim", as pinpointing the exact people I am talking about is necessary for the sake of clarity.


Thanks.

Bassam

[wisdom]

The person who asked the question  is actually pointing out another clear hadith from  Umar where Umar  says he had read  stoning verse as part of Quran (not as part of hadith) and you are trying to justify the same stating that Quran and hadith complement each other.  Are you saying that a statement in a hadith can be termed as a verse of the Quran?

I don't think you have fully understood the three kinds of abrogations which Sunnis believe in. You need to learn more on that, since your question is posed in a way which leads me to believe that you don't.

What about 98% of the hadiths rejected by Bukhari?

That's a myth spread by people who are ignorant. See http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

You yourself saying here you assume.

Hmm... I don't think you know what assume means. It simply means to "take as granted or true". Whether one assumes based on evidence or not is something based on context. I don't believe I have provided any reason for you to assume that I merely believe based on blind faith.

Please tell me which scholars?  If there are differences of opinion among scholars shall we  go for a majority voting to confirm so and so hadith "complement" with Quran and hence a divine revelation?

Oh there is many... Bashar Ma'ruf, Al-Albani, Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut and many others.

If they differ on certain narrations then you could do research and compare and contrast between their arguments and take the view you find strongest. It's not possible to find a consensus on every single thing in the world (not even in the interpretation of the Qur'an). Sometimes we need to get off our lazy behinds and do some research. Otherwise, if you don't have time then you could put your trust in the scholarship of the scholar whom your experience tells you is most reliable.

Furthermore, these differences almost usually never lead to a difference in fundamentals of theology.  The difference in fundamentals in theology mostly occurs due to the difference in exegetical methodology on the very same sources.

You are simply guessing and I will say a childish justification not expected from you being a person who participates in academic discourse (I saw your youtube video).  If it was to test the commitment to Sunnah there was  absolutely no reason to spread  stories in Sahih Bukhari about Umar mentioning about a stoning verse.   The prophet simply need to give a clear direction through a hadith to test commitment to Sunnah. 

One is free to make Ijtihaad to guess the wisdom behind rulings in the Qur'an and hadith. Sometimes Allah commands things and doesn't say the exact reason why. We could guess, no problem. Our guessing isn't the basis for believing, but is an attempt to try and understand. So there's a difference.

It's not for you to question the methods of God or the Prophet. No double standards please. If you want to question the wisdom behind things in hadith, then you could equally do the same with the Qur'an if you were to be consistent.

Why should I bring a counter response?   I do not need to check the isnaad  to reject the hadith.

Well you were the one who was trying to respond back to me by making me doubt my view of the isnad. I simply pointed out that you were ignorant of hadith criticism and if you truly want to critique then examine the isnad. If you don't want to, then move along.

What is the criteria for a 'sophisticated issue"?  I will wait for your reply whether we shall go for a majority voting when there are differences among "scholars". 

A sophisticated issue is a issue which requires in depth studying by a qualified person and isn't very straight forward.

Hmmm...... so you tell me....... how come the Quranists differ with each other about the interpretation of the Qur'an? Should we got with a majority voting as well?

Consistency please.

There is no need for you to discuss for the sake of argument assuming the story is authentic, since Matan is irrelevant when you are convinced any hadith is fabricated. 

That's your opinion, but in the world of debating that's called "Not leaving your opponent with any room to breathe".

Soo..... I first pointed out that the chain is not authentic.

SECONDLY, JUST IN CASE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FIRST POINT you still don't make a case because.......


That's a technique. No need to continue discussing such irrelevant points.



Anyways...... I hope we don't digress any further than we have. I hope we stick to the original topic of the thread.

And I really really hope you are not the type of person who only responds just for the sake of it just so that you "get the last word", because I really don't have time for that.

Thanks.

Salam brother Bassam,

Salam.

Kindly post the youtube link you mentioned above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A

Well, can you answer the question  from Amat Abidin September 28, 2012 at 4:34 AM (in the link provided above), in which he said:But it is still confusing. In other narration, Umar said he had recited the verses regarding the stoning of the adulterer during the life of the Prophet as part of the Quran. On the other hand, how come such an important law concerning the human life would not be mentioned in the Quran, while other trivial matters were detailed in it.

There's a false premise behind his question... "Quran Onlyism". Seeing that I have no problem believing that revelation came in the form of Qur'an and Sunnah and both complement each other, I don't question why one thing is mentioned somewhere and not the other. It's like me asking you why Allah mentioned one thing in a certain Surah, but not in another. I can ask you why Allah repeated some stories in a number of Surahs, but didn't do the same with other stories. It's just pure guesswork and stepping into unknown territory we shouldn't be doing.

1. In the beginning of the article it is said "Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not?"   Is this applicable also for all hadiths from Al-Sihah al-Sittah [The Six Authentic Books of Hadith]?

For Bukhari and Muslim, we assume it's authentic without checking. As for the others, yes we have to check. The scholars already did the job of verification and we just need to check the footnotes.

2. You said  "a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur'an implying that it was not meant to be Qur'an integral part". Can you tell me a satisfactory explanation for why the revealed commandment was not allowed to be written as part of Quran, BUT the ruling mentioned in it is still valid?

To test the commitment to the Sunnah.

3. In addition to Ibn Majah, this hadith has been relayed in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13  and I can quote for your many fatwas and articles from scholars who consider this hadith as authentic.  Are you telling us that each and every muslim when they come across this hadith must spend days researching the authenticity of this hadith and come to your article and accept your arguments and reject the hadith as unauthentic?  How do you justify the contradictory view points from different scholars?   There can be difference in interpretation by different scholars but there should not be a different opinion regarding the fact of an issue.  In other words, assuming hadiths are necessary for our guidance, you are indirectly stating that the prophet  failed to covey the complete guidance in the correct form without corruption.

Please send me the many fatwas and articles from scholars whom you are talking about.

It doesn't matter how many books have collected this hadeeth, what matters here is the isnaad. I gave you a link which critically examined the isnad, so unless you have a counter response I don't think there is anything left to discuss.

Laymen are supposed to refer to the scholars when they deal with sophisticated issues such as these. When they go to the scholar, the confusion would go away.

4. Finally, why do you make an comment towards the end, "even if we accept the narration in question..."?.  This is totally unwarranted in academic discourse.  You either prove the hadith an authentically report and accept it or disprove the same and reject it.  Even if any fact mentioned in any hadith can be logically found to be true, no one has any right fabricate any hadith.  It is unfair to give an implication that there is no problem even if someone accepts the narration and by the way, it is funny you say "perhaps" (completely guessing!) "'Aisha had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more".   There is no clarity in your stand.

Your English seemed pretty poor here, hence I'm not sure of everything you said. I will just repeat my position once again:

1) The isnaad is not authentic, hence I don't believe in the story.
2) EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ALONE the story is authentic, the narration doesn't compromise the preservation of the Qur'an as I explained in my public debate.


I hope it's clear now.

Bassam

Adil,

I wouldn't mind addressing each and every single point you raised, since they've been addressed already by traditional Muslims.

However, it's not related to the topic of this thread.

Thanks

I don't think the arguments for the existence of God are subjective at all. I believe there are sound rational arguments for his existence which hold true regardless of time and place and aren't dependent on one's personal experience and opinion.

[objective]

Again, you aren't answering the question. What is the objective standard for determining what is absurd or not? Can you tackle this question directly please?

As for taking those things from the Qur'an metaphorically..... well I see no evidence for doing so. There is nothing metaphorical about them. Musa either parted the sea or he didn't. Musa's staff either transformed into a snake or didn't. The context no where shows that it's metaphorical.

Given that they are literal... again.... why aren't those "absurd" but things from the ahaadith are?

Bassam

"The aa'yaa on stoning and nursing of babies were lying in book form that was kept in the patio. When the Holy Messenger passed away, we became busy in his funeral. During this time, our domesticated pet goat ate the manuscript of these two aa'yaa.  And so these aa'yaa were wasted."

First of all, this tradition is not considered authentic according to traditional Muslim standards http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html

Secondly, even if the tradition was authentic according to traditional Muslim standards it still wouldn't compromise the preservation of the Qur'an. See how I address it in my debate with Nabeel Qureshi on youtube.


Regards,

Bassam

[http://www.tolueislam.org/Bazm/Wadud/AW_caq_5.htm]

Salam Optimist,

Wassalam,

I think brother Joseph Islam has explained the points with clear proof from Quran.  You seem to rely on "sound historical proofs" (according to you).   At your convenience, kindly go through Chapter 5 of "Conspiracies Against the Quran" written by Dr. Syed Abdul Wadud.   Dr. Wudud has mentioned about the so called "sound historical proofs" and all traditions dealing with the compilation of the Quran.  He has quoted more 18 traditions  and how those traditions contradict each other.  You can read online those traditions (starting from just after a few paras)from the following link;

http://www.tolueislam.org/Bazm/Wadud/AW_caq_5.htm

Regards
Optimist

He gives the same usual worn and torn arguments that have already been addressed. If you find an article which offer counter rebuttals and doesn't simply reinvent the wheel, then let me know. Thanks.