Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[optimist]

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.

Wassalam,

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 am really shocked to read the last sentences from you.  What about 98% of the hadiths rejected by Bukhari?   Are you saying  that  Bukhari and other hadith collectors were divinely inspired by Allah to collect exactly those hadiths that complement with Quran and reject those hadiths that do not complement with Quran?         

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.

You yourself saying here you assume.   Have you read Quranic verse that states assumption can by no means take the place of truth.   According to you, except for Bukhari and Muslim we have to check and the "scholars'  footnotes to confirm whether they are authentic or not.   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?

To test the commitment to the Sunnah.

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. 

By the way, according to your convenience kindly read the following news that came up in last week newspapers from Qatar referring to an article from a respected Islamic scholar there; Stoning not supported by Islamic law:  Slowly the light of Quran is getting spread. Insha Allah.

http://www.middleeastnews.net/index.php?sid/214296302/scat/940f2bfd509e743b

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.

Why should I bring a counter response?   I do not need to check the isnaad  to reject the hadith.  You may argue and prove hadith collections like Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal contains fabricated traditions that cast doubt about pure preservation of the Quran.   Anyhow, ultimately you will have to realize the fact that it is the hadith corpus that cast doubt about pure preservation of Quran (as pointed out by Joseph Islam).

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.

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". 

Your English seemed pretty poor here, hence I'm not sure of everything you said.

Sorry for creating confusion.  I will tell you in one sentence what I wanted to convey.  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. 

Regards
Optimist

[Bassam Zawadi]

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.

[optimist]

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

Salam,

There is also another fantastic method used by hadith compilers not to leave the opponent with any room to breath.  They collected all the unauthentic, weak, unsound, fabricated hadiths (and it is said) to prove that the prophet did not say so and so things.  What a twisted logic! And the poor ordinary people has to search for footnotes (as per your suggestion in a previous post) to verify whether any hadith narrated to them is authentic or weak.  Amazing logic!

This is my last post. Sorry if I deviated from the topic under discussion. 

Regards
Optimist

PS: Thank you brother Joseph Islam for your articles on the subject and the postings here. I enjoyed reading your comments.