Isnad of the Qur'an

Started by Sleepysoul, September 22, 2017, 04:25:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sleepysoul

SalamunAlaykum,

The other day I was having a debate/argument with someone about the Qur'an and hadiths. I asked this person about the isnad of the Qur'an as they were claiming that denying hadith is denying the Qur'an. They told me about the "isnad of the recitation warsh 'An nafii'" and a diagramm of the chain.
So I googled it, according to the wikipedia page the man Imam Warsh seemed to have lived quite a long time ago. So apparently there are "verbal" isnads of the Qur'an (or recitations? I'm not well versed on this topic) so I'm not sure how to respond to this 'argument'.

Maybe the way I wrote this sounds a little confusing but some replies would be nice.

Nura

Salam HealerofWorlds,

I am not sure about the premise of your argument relating to isnad but this is my understanding, please do clarify in future posts if I am misunderstanding your position. Isnad or chain of narration is not really a determining factor of divinity of religious sources. The primary religious source, the Quran, does not appeal to Isnad as a factor of consideration when it comes to determining its divinity. The Quran asks us to deeply ponder the arguments presented in its verses to decide whether its source is a divine one or not. The Quran does not ask to believe in it because of its chain of narration, isnad. The Quran mentions the role of narration and memorization of the zikr as a way of preservation of the zikr along with its written form. The Quran is divinely protected by means of memorization  and written documents, both working in tandem, preserving the message as promised by God. God assures us that He will preserve the Zikr. The role of narration, isnad, is one of preservation and transmission, ensuring that there is minimal scribal/human error when it comes to the transmission of the Quran, not of proving Quran's divinity.  It does not ask to even believe in its divinity because of Prophet Muhammad's pious character. It only informs us that Muhammad was pious and he can be trusted. To drive this point home, the Quran even says that had Muhammad tampered with what God wanted to reveal, He would have had severed Muhammad's jugular vein. So, we are not even asked to believe based on the prophets words or activities. It is helpful to keep in mind that most revelations are  ahad (only witnessed by one person) transmissions initially, be it the slabs of the Torah given to Moses or the verses of the Quran revealed to Prophet Muhammad. The isnad is not really an issue nor is authenticity/inauthenticity of hadiths be it based on isnad (chain of narration) or matn ( wording of the narration). It does not matter whether a hadith has an authentic isnad or not when the Quran does not give it authority. The Quran does not give religious authority to any other source other than itself when it comes to religious guidance of believers.

Hadith is simply not a source of Islam because God did not mention that it was in the primary source, Quran. In fact, there are verses in the Quran where the prophet is reprimanded for some personal decisions indicating that he was also human and capable of making wrong judgments in his personal sphere of life. We are asked to consider the divinity of the Quran only when we are convinced by the arguments presented in it,  not because it was revealed in Arabic, in Arabia to an Arab Prophet or for any other worldly reasons.

The issue is one of authority, not of authenticity or any other factor.

Not all those who wander are lost - J.R.R. Tolkien

Sleepysoul

Quote from: Nura on September 22, 2017, 09:15:45 AM

The Quran does not give religious authority to any other source other than itself when it comes to religious guidance of believers.


Yes, I agree.

However, what I meant was that there are Muslims who claim that denying hadith is denying the Qur'an because both were transmitted in the same way (I believe they weren't, simple). But then some bring forward the "Qur'an's isnad" because if we know how both were transmitted (through chains) then why would we take one and not the other? Is it as simple as "because the Qur'an says it is divine so we believe so"?  I don't have a problem in believing that Qur'an is divine. I believe it to be so.
The thing is that I don't want to be confused or stuck about this issue anymore where it comes to explaining why hadith are not divine and not a part of Islam.

I also know about the matn/content points about the hadith but that's not really my point here.

And Joseph Islam used the "Qur'an's isnad" argument in one of his articles too which I thought was a good argument until I found out that the Qur'an apparently has isnad too. Verbal, apparently.

Even though I don't think this is necessary but to avoid someone being rude or something, I'd like to say that no, I don't belong to a sect. I'm a Muslim. So I made this post here because I wasn't sure how to respond to this "Qur'an's isnad" argument when it was brought to me.
Maybe I should research more about these "different recitations of the Qur'an."

Shahmatt

You can also look at the problem this way:

Let us say you were given a book on another topic, say economics, how would you establish the truth of it? It would be by weighing the arguments in the book and the citations used within. This would be the method you would use with any book or source of information.

The same method can be used for the Quran. What is important is the arguments the Quran makes. For example it cannot be denied that, regardless of religion, we all have a sense of justice, fairness, right and wrong, shame, and innate belief in a God. Why this is so the Quran explains. The Quran points out the miracle of life and the world and the universe and asks us to reflect. The Quran points out that life is struggle and asks us to reflect. It is the result of this reflection and subsequent appreciation of the Quran's accurate portrayal of life that is evidence of its authenticity.

On this basis it is not necessary to our belief in God that the Quran have a traceable isnad. Even if such a thing were to be established it should not matter to us. However by the Quran's own words we would take the matter of its accurate reproduction as an article of faith. If it could be established through fact then that's fine as well.

Contrast this with the Hadith canon which try to obtain authenticity by relying on isnad and the Quran. IMO this is somewhat illogical and not how one would naturally approach the problem.

Nura

Salam HealerofWorlds,

The Quran is not really transmitted like the way Hadith is transmitted. I believe your question is answered in the links below:

http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20FM2.htm

I am quoting an excerpt from an article, the link of which I have provided below,

QuoteRegrettably, many Muslims assert that the Quran has also reached us in the same manner as the Ahadith and Sunna. As discussed, the Ahadith corpus is primarily an oral propagation reliant mainly on 'ahad' transmitters and later committed to text. The Sunna remains a practical propagation of certain practices which possess the consensus of the community.

The Quran on the other hand, has reached us both by a rigorous oral and written form along with the complete consensus of the Muslim communities.
"...Thus, if the Qur'an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as those in different transmissions of the original document of the Constitution of Medina would be found.  But neither is the case with the Qur'an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption. The oral transmission of the Qur'an was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out, nor anything be put in..."

Of greater importance however, the Quran does not seek support because it has community consensus. Rather, it requires one to believe in its veracity once it has presented you with its clear arguments. No scripture can be accepted purely on the basis that the same community profess its Divine origins and have themselves sought to protect it.

Rather, an outsider can only accept its veracity based on the strengths of its claims.

So indeed, there exists a similarity with the Sunna in that the Quran has the consensus of Islamic communities. However, the practices of the communities have no authority in by themselves. Rather, they can only achieve 'religious sanction' from the 'lens' of the Quran's scrutiny.

Furthermore, if belief in the Quran's veracity is admitted, it is clear that the Quran does not support any type of 'Sunna' that does not find sanction from the Quran. For example, both 'Salah' (prayers) and 'Zakah' (alms giving) have scriptural support as to its establishment.

Therefore, Sunna practices of the early communities with regards prayer and alm's giving would be supported by the Quran. On the contrary, Sunna practices for example, involving kissing of the Black Stone, or whispering the 'Iqama' (similar recitation to the Adhan) in the ears of a new born child finds no support in the Quran and therefore should not be regarded as being part of the 'religion' instituted by the Quran.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20and%20sunna%20FM3.htm

The Quran or any other book for that matter will have a chain of transmission, but that chain does not say anything about the divine applications or religious authority of the transmitted material. The chain of transmission can only help us determine how accurately the information has been transmitted and also the degrees of separation from the original reporter/orater. Hadith is not a source not because of having an isnad, it is not a source because the primary source says that it (Quran) is the only source. After being convinced by the Quran's arguments of its divinity, the matter is really as simple as saying ' because the Quran says so'. This can be an answer to a lot of religious questions because the Quran a lot of times does not elaborate about the reason behind a prohibition, e.g. pork meat, is prohibited, but nowhere in the Quran does God give a reason why.

Sometimes, 'because God/Quran says so' is the only answer to a question.
Not all those who wander are lost - J.R.R. Tolkien

Joseph Islam

As-salamu alaykum "HealerofWorlds" *

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 04:25:49 AM
I asked this person about the isnad of the Qur'an as they were claiming that denying hadith is denying the Qur'an. They told me about the "isnad of the recitation warsh 'An nafii'" and a diagramm of the chain.

For one to believe this argument, one would have to believe in the authority and authenticity of the Ahadith corpus in the first place. This is because it is potentially a 'hadith' or 'ahadith' (with its own isnad(s)) that inform us that Quran had an isnad or a particular recitation was attributed to a particular recitor. Thus the argument becomes 'circular'.

The Quran makes no claim of such a transmission. Rather, the Quran's own testimony appealed to the whole community to spread the message en masse as witnesses from the source which was God who transmitted the words from the mouth of His chosen prophet (22:78 et al).

Therefore, do we believe the Quran's testimony or an allegation based on other ahadith?

Furthermore, I have cited in the detailed article [1] below:

"Little significance, however, should be attached to the Qur'an being known according to transmitters belonging to a century and a half after the Prophet..." [2]

I know of no comprehensive Ahadith corpus that lists each and every isnad of every verse of the Quran. Therefore, to suggest that the Quran was transmitted in the same manner with 'isnad' would require the claimant to produce the evidence of an isnad for every verse which carries the 'matn' (content) for scrutiny.

Finally, as I have shared a number of times and as other respected members of the forum have already kindly shared in this thread as well: The veracity of the Quran is not founded on the claim that the faithful claim that the scripture was 'preserved'. After all, the scripture could simply lead back to a false prophet and thus, its preservation would be meaningless as would it's content. Blind acceptance is what many faithful do with the religions they were born into. Rather, one should accept the truth of a claim by the arguments it presents.

I also have an illustration which may assist to demonstrate that the two transmissions (The Quran and the Ahadith corpus) are not alike [3].

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 02:53:05 PM
Maybe I should research more about these "different recitations of the Qur'an."

I trust that the reference already shared as [1] below kindly assists.

* Finally, may I kindly, humbly and respectfully request that you consider changing your Username please? For all intent and purposes, your Username could read 'God' or 'Allah' as it is a powerful description which in my humble view is only befitting the Almighty God and not one that should be used for oneself without context. For example, 'Allah is the HealerofWorlds' may be better. Therefore, when I have greeted you, I have used inverted commas as it is not an attribution I am assigning to you (of course). I trust that you will take my humble request with the sincerity with which it is imparted  :)

With respect and warm regards,
Your brother in faith,
Joseph


REFERENCES:

[1] THE SEVEN AHRUF, RECITATIONS (QIRAAT), HAFS AND WARSH
http://quransmessage.com/articles/seven%20readings%20FM3.htm
[2] BROCKETT. Adrian Alan, Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qur'an, University of St. Andrews, Department of Arabic Studies. PhD Thesis 1984, Part Two, The First Century and a Half, Page 93
[3] WAS THE QURAN REALLY TRANSMITTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE HADITH
http://quransmessage.com/charts%20and%20illustrations/en%20masse/enmasse%20FM2.htm
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Sleepysoul

Quote from: Joseph Islam on September 22, 2017, 05:54:34 PM
As-salamu alaykum "HealerofWorlds" *

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 04:25:49 AM
I asked this person about the isnad of the Qur'an as they were claiming that denying hadith is denying the Qur'an. They told me about the "isnad of the recitation warsh 'An nafii'" and a diagramm of the chain.

For one to believe this argument, one would have to believe in the authority and authenticity of the Ahadith corpus in the first place. This is because it is potentially a 'hadith' or 'ahadith' (with its own isnad(s)) that inform us that Quran had an isnad or a particular recitation was attributed to a particular recitor. Thus the argument becomes 'circular'.

The Quran makes no claim of such a transmission. Rather, the Quran's own testimony appealed to the whole community to spread the message en masse as witnesses from the source which was God who transmitted the words from the mouth of His chosen prophet (22:78 et al).

Therefore, do we believe the Quran's testimony or an allegation based on other ahadith?

Furthermore, I have cited in the detailed article [1] below:

"Little significance, however, should be attached to the Qur'an being known according to transmitters belonging to a century and a half after the Prophet..." [2]

I know of no comprehensive Ahadith corpus that lists each and every isnad of every verse of the Quran. Therefore, to suggest that the Quran was transmitted in the same manner with 'isnad' would require the claimant to produce the evidence of an isnad for every verse which carries the 'matn' (content) for scrutiny.

Finally, as I have shared a number of times and as other respected members of the forum have already kindly shared in this thread as well: The veracity of the Quran is not founded on the claim that the faithful claim that the scripture was 'preserved'. After all, the scripture could simply lead back to a false prophet and thus, its preservation would be meaningless as would it's content. Blind acceptance is what many faithful do with the religions they were born into. Rather, one should accept the truth of a claim by the arguments it presents.

I also have an illustration which may assist to demonstrate that the two transmissions (The Quran and the Ahadith corpus) are not alike [3].

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 02:53:05 PM
Maybe I should research more about these "different recitations of the Qur'an."

I trust that the reference already shared as [1] below kindly assists.

* Finally, may I kindly, humbly and respectfully request that you consider changing your Username please? For all intent and purposes, your Username could read 'God' or 'Allah' as it is a powerful description which in my humble view is only befitting the Almighty God and not one that should be used for oneself without context. For example, 'Allah is the HealerofWorlds' may be better. Therefore, when I have greeted you, I have used inverted commas as it is not an attribution I am assigning to you (of course). I trust that you will take my humble request with the sincerity with which it is imparted  :)

With respect and warm regards,
Your brother in faith,
Joseph


REFERENCES:

[1] THE SEVEN AHRUF, RECITATIONS (QIRAAT), HAFS AND WARSH
http://quransmessage.com/articles/seven%20readings%20FM3.htm
[2] BROCKETT. Adrian Alan, Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qur'an, University of St. Andrews, Department of Arabic Studies. PhD Thesis 1984, Part Two, The First Century and a Half, Page 93
[3] WAS THE QURAN REALLY TRANSMITTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE HADITH
http://quransmessage.com/charts%20and%20illustrations/en%20masse/enmasse%20FM2.htm

Salam,

Thanks for responding.

So basically as Nura said, it does boil down to "Because God says so". I have no problem with that.
I just wanted a different way to explain this to hadith followers but I'll see. I didn't do so bad in the first place.

Thanks for the articles. I believe I've already read them before, as well as the one Nura quoted.

As for my username, it is for Allah. It was never for me and I think maybe you should have assumed, that as a Muslim, I would already understand that. It makes no sense for a human to be a healer of worlds. "Healer" in my username refers to God. Thanks for the request though. Maybe I will change it but for now, I think I'll keep it.  :D

Sleepysoul

Quote from: Shahmatt on September 22, 2017, 03:19:18 PM


On this basis it is not necessary to our belief in God that the Quran have a traceable isnad. Even if such a thing were to be established it should not matter to us.


I see what you mean. Thanks for responding.  :)

Sleepysoul

Quote from: Nura on September 22, 2017, 04:05:31 PM
Salam HealerofWorlds,

Sometimes, 'because God/Quran says so' is the only answer to a question.

SalamunAlaykum,

I agree.

Thanks for responding, Nura. As mentioned, I have already read these articles as far as I remember.

Sleepysoul

I guess I'm mostly over the arguments that hadith followers bring forward but not very often, there are a few things that make me wonder a little bit. I guess that's probably normal though.

Apologies if I was rude to anyone.

Salam. 

Joseph Islam

As-salamu alaykum

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 07:14:41 PM
So basically as Nura said, it does boil down to "Because God says so"

That was not the essence of my post.

In summary, it was as follows:


  • Any claims of recitation belonging to a particular reciter are based on reports / Ahadith whose 'religious' authority is contestable / moot
  • The Quran's transmission was en masse from source through Muslims protected both orally and via a written transmission. This is not the case of the Ahadith which found provenance in a corpus form, centuries after the death of the prophet.
  • There is no Ahadith corpus that provides an 'Isnad' for each and every verse of the Quran
  • The veracity of the Quran is not simply based on the maxim 'because God says so'. It is based on subjecting the Quran to immense scrutiny and then reaching the unequivocal conclusion that it was sent by an Almighty God.

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 07:14:41 PM
Thanks for the articles. I believe I've already read them before, as well as the one Nura quoted.

I also sent an illustration which depicted the difference between transmissions. You also intimated further research of 'different recitations of the Quran' therefore, I shared an article which may assist.

Quote from: HealerofWorlds on September 22, 2017, 07:14:41 PM
As for my username, it is for Allah. It was never for me and I think maybe you should have assumed, that as a Muslim, I would already understand that. It makes no sense for a human to be a healer of worlds. "Healer" in my username refers to God.

I gave a very sincere request / advice and it was never my intention for you to assume that I thought that you were referring to yourself.  :)

However, I understand a username on this forum to be used as identification for a person. That is why I felt it was arguably inappropriate to be used for oneself as a username. I would also request usernames such as 'Allah' / 'God' / 'Yahweh' or 'Forgiver of All Sins' to be changed to identify an individual. I trust that you will kindly appreciate that both the moderators and I can respectfully exercise the right to assess usernames under 2 (h) of the forum policy.  No hard feelings intended at all :)


Regards,
Joseph

'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Sleepysoul

Yeah, no hard feelings either.

I changed my display name (didn't see option to change username) because I saw you changed your last post with the wording and such. :)

Salaam.


Joseph Islam

JZK ShatteredEmblem. Please always feel welcome here  :)

Wa alaikum assalam

Your brother in faith,
Joseph
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell