Joseph Islam's Article "THE SEVEN AHRUF, RECITATIONS (QIRAAT), HAFS AND WARSH"

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Bassam,

As-salam alaykum

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Please see my responses to your observations which I have highlighted in red.


75:17-18 cannot be linguistically used to negate the possible revelation of Qur'an in different modes.

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

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.

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.

- 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?

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.

- 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"?

Indeed some variances exist in Warsh transmissions which are followed by 5% of the population of Muslims. This is by no means, by any stretch of any given language ‘a majority reading / consensus’ in the Muslims world.

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 nature of the two corpus's are different as is the level of agreement on integrity.

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.

With respect, it is as simple as that from my humble perspective.

- 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"...

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 edition adopted Hafs as the reading which went on to become standard for the Madinah mushaf, the most popular edition of our time."

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.

"Historically speaking, however, Hafs has been almost absent from Qur'anic manuscripts."

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.

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.

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.

To respectfully re-iterate, much is once again assumed here from ‘secondary sources’. My view has been given from the Quran, the earliest source of Muslim history and the source most contemporaneous to the Prophetic ministry.

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

I wholly trust that you are not attempting to seek confirmation bias on your part from the 'Quran-centric' view that is being kindly shared with you. Rather, you are ardently and sincerely attempting to ascertain whether there is a sound basis for the contention with the 'authority' of the Islamic secondary source corpus and the overarching Quranic view that is being offered.

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.

The Quranic perspective I have respectfully argued is for the majority reading transmitted en masse. The appeal to Islamic secondary sources which arguably have 'no authority' provide no basis for one to embark upon a scrutiny which would underpin the need to 'make sense' of the reading of manuscript variances.

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.

There is no warrant to take this approach as has been consistently argued.

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.

Only God knows what the intent is behind making use of such distinguishing labels and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity dear brother. Having said that, I would have no reservations in citing you as a 'Muslim' (albeit orthodox) as I would a sincere soul from a Shi'a perspective. That is why I often cite you as my brother in faith, regardless of what you may think of me.

With utmost respect,

Your brother in faith,
Joseph. 

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Bassam,

As-salam alaykum

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Please see my responses to your observations which I have highlighted in red.

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 have taken what I feel is the default position from the earliest Muslim historical source which is the Quran. At no place in the Quran does it sanction multiple readings or transmissions. 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. You are arguing for your default position simply from secondary sources. Therefore, the burden of proof is for you to first provide authority for that source, until which I feel the default position of one Quran in one transmission stands undisputed.

You are free to disagree but I feel until you concede this point, there is a stalemate in our perspectives from which the respected readers can draw their own conclusions.

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.

This is once again a circular argument. The sources you are appealing to have no authority from a Quranic perspective. 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.

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?

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.

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

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 at the expense of unauthoratative secondary sources, then this is another confirmation of a stalemate from our academic perspectives.

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

I never made such a claim

If yes, then how we should understand preservation?

You assume an affirmative response from a claim that I never made.

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?

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.

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"?

Verses 39:18 and 39:55 were not cited to justify the majority position or a better meaning of ‘warsh’. 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.

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?

The same Muslims may also sanction practices from Islamic secondary sources. This does not falsify the veracity of the Quran. Similarly, they may be happy to argue, as you do, the validity of another transmission on the authority of the Prophet. This is an appeal from secondary sources whose authority remains in dispute between the both of us. The fact remains, 95% of the Muslim world recite one transmission in one recitation.

This is based on manuscript evidence and known history.

This is based on a dearth of 'extant' manuscript evidence which is not to be equated with 'comprehensive' or 'complete' manuscript evidence. Your reference to 'known' history is unduly repetitive and highly contestable remaining without warrant.

Just because you don't believe in a "divine" secondary source, that doesn't mean you should ignore history all together.

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.

This is unwarranted skepticism and burying your head in the sand unnecessarily.

I have hitherto remained very respectful to you. But your latter personal comment is wholly unnecessary.
 
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.

Not at all. It is no secret in the ambit of scholarship, that there exists a dearth of manuscripts from the 1st century of Islam. I have argued that the extant manuscripts provide absolutely no concrete proof that the Hafs variants were recited by the Prophet’s contemporaries.

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).

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.

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

I have argued a default position why I feel the Quran's own testimony best lends to the notion that one transmission was propagated en masse and provided my reasons why in this post and the penultimate one. 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. That is a prerogative you respectfully have. However, I leave this thread and its contents for the scrutiny of the other discerning readers.

I am somewhat disappointed that you have felt that I have 'buried my head in the sand unnecessarily'. It was a sentiment wholly unnecessary on your part. With respect, such personal fluid remarks have no place in a respectful academic discussion.

I have respectfully felt that you have only one purpose. To legitimise the secondary sources in the name of religion for which you have not provided one iota of evidence for its authority.

With respect,
Joseph.

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Bassam,

As-salam alaykum

Please see my responses to your observations which I have highlighted in red.

You are assuming the Arabs the Prophet was sent to all spoke the same dialect.

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 the community was small? How small?

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).

If history records that the Arabs spoke in different dialects, how is that something so unbelievable to you?

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.

With respect, I get the impression that either you are inadvertently dismissive or you have not sincerely studied critical scholarship with regards the so called 'history' that you repetitively cite. As I don't assume the latter, I therefore feel you are being unduly dismissive, albeit inadvertently.

It is unbelievable to me because the history you speak of is not contemporaneous to the Prophetic ministry but at times century removed and secondly, it has no authority from the Quran.

Just basic secular history

With respect, what is that exactly? There are arguably Non-Muslim sources which are more contemporaneous to the Prophetic ministry than Muslims sources [1]. What you are presenting is at times hagiographical, romanticised historical sources of later fallible men which were not canonised until at times centuries after the death of the Prophet. Please do not make light of this point.

[1] NON MUSLIM SOURCES OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S (pbuh)  MINISTRY
http://quransmessage.com/articles/non-muslim%20sources%20FM3.htm

Yes, and warsh was passed on by witnesses too and it's validity is recognized by the majority.

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.

Where does the passage in question say anything about the majority of witnesses being right?

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.

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.

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.

Are you sure you are performing exegesis instead of eisegesis?

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 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.

You are unduly misrepresenting my position. I claimed in respect to verse 22:78 that "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." I also cited 15:9 as God's own testimony that he would guard the message of the Quran. 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 not only do you believe that Muslims are following false ahaadith, but are also following false Qur'ans too.

The Ahadith have no authority, the Quran does. Please note this repeated contention which I consistently feel you are obfuscating.

5% of Muslims accept slight variants which are not supported by a transmission which is accepted and recited by a 95% majority. This does not mean that the large majority of the Quran that they accept is false. I would trust that you are not attempting to make sweeping statements simply for shock effect. I am consistently trying to keep this discussion non-argumentative and civil. Please at least try to do the same, otherwise we can curtail our discussions. It is only the wider readership that will lose out.

"because you believe that ahaadith are whole sale fabrications"

Once again you sadly misrepresent me. If you do not know my position, then please research it before you engage in a discussion with me. My humble musings are in full public view. Otherwise, we are simply wasting each other's time.

I question the 'authority' of hadith and do not focus on its 'authenticity' which is mute from a Quranic perspective. I have never stated that the Ahadith corpus is replete with wholesale fabrications. Even on my website, I have explicitly stated that:

"Many Ahadith reports, irrespective of their authenticity contain wisdom, exquisite narratives and in keeping with the teachings of the Quran. However, their agreeable content does not amount to prima facie evidence, that they were actually said by the Prophet."

Come again?

I do not pass judgment on how our Lord will deal with those relying on variants who took them to be sanctioned. In this regards I cited the underlying wisdom of two verses.

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?

A majority is 51% and greater. This point need not be laboured. If the Hafs and Warsh were recited closer to the 51% mark equally in the Muslim world, then I would entertain your musings. Until now, I respectfully feel that you have only attempted to pick at holes so that you can provide support for a corpus which has no authority from the Quran.

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. 

Dear brother, you assume so much about my endeavours for which you have no warrant to judge. There is a lot I can assume about the ambit of your study on display thus far, but hitherto I have only afforded you respect. May I kindly ask that we remain civil and not personal.

It is my humble academic endeavour which has caused me to reach the conclusions that I have. I invite you to study critical scholarship to see whether the ‘historical’ sources you cite stand up to scrutiny rather than what I humbly perceive is ‘partial’ 'history which confirms your biases.

What for you constitutes a historical fact? What is your criteria for historical truth?

From an academic perspective, multiple sources, from multiple individuals transmitted contemporaneous to the period they are narrating.
Not late sources canonised at times, until centuries after the period they narrate by fallible men based at times on nothing bur hearsay; reflecting the sentiments and requirements of the sectarian milieu of which they were a part.

From a believer’s perspective, I cite the requirement of authority of the source from the Quran. The Ahadith corpus has none.

Where have you provided any shred of evidence that the Hafs reading was the popular one before the 20th century? Where?

My evidence is for one transmission transmitted en masse. 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

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.

Note: I've been debating for 8 years, I could get argumentative, but not personal. Don't take things personally.

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 from 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.

I have presented myself with a hand of friendship and a view for honest discussion. Not a cue for possible argumentation. If I suspect the latter, I will curtail my discussions with you as this will be nothing but a discussion for one-upmanship for which I have no interest. With respect, I trust that you will concur.

Regards,
Joseph.

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Bassam,

Please see my responses to your observations which I have highlighted in red.

When I asked for crucial evidence, you have cited:

"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"

Therefore, my default position from the most contemporaneous source to the Prophetic ministry, i.e. the Quran, stands. You have provided me no warrant to challenge it other than claims from an unauthoritative secondary source position. This remains noteworthy.

Furthermore by your standards, I assume you accept that you have no proof that the Quran we have today was actually from the Prophet without recourse to dubious historical sources which were at times canonised centuries after the death of the Prophet for which the Quran gives no authority.

By your standards, I also therefore assume you accept the notion that because we do not have unequivocal historic proof of a tangible manuscript from the Prophet that the Quran we have in our hands can never be guaranteed as 100% from the Prophet.

I am actually quite happy that you have presented your critique asking the questions that you have in the manner that you have. It shows how critical your approach actually is when you seek to provide a contention but quite dismissive and nonchalant when it comes to providing authority for your own extremely late fallible sources which you accept in the name of religion without warrant.

By your method, it is clear to me that your position is extremely precarious and will continue to be exploited by those that you will engage with. I haven't felt the need as yet to do so as my focus was to sincerely give you responses to the questions you asked. I feel non-Muslim critics do a good job of exploiting your position in this matter anyway although I hope they wouldn't from my perspective as your brother in faith. But it is the nature of the sources that you protect that leaves you extremely vulnerable.

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.

With respect all you have done is seek to provide a conduit to support the Islamic secondary sources and repeatedly ask questions whose responses you appear not to be invested in. It begs the question, why else would you repeatedly dismiss the need to prove authority of these late sources that you repeatedly cite and rely upon to make your case?

I have endeavoured to answer your questions in the best manner that I can. With respect, I have felt that you have offered little but a barrage of questions. sometimes irrelevant, sometimes unduly repetitive with a permanent foothold in an unauthoritative secondary source corpus.

I understand you have much invested in this topic as you have peddled this view debating it very publicly. I had hoped that you would consider the thrust of my argument from the most authoritative source, the Quran, but I gather, that would have been too much to ask as I appreciate that you have too much at stake to even consider conceding a nuanced or a retraction of your position. This is especially true considering the stance you take with the unauthoratative Ahadith corpus. This is truly disappointing from my humble perspective, but indeed your prerogative.

Now if you ever have clear, unequivocal evidence for the 'authority' of the Hadith corpus from the Quran, I look forward to reading it in due course.

Until then, I feel I have exhausted my perspective on this matter. Let us respectfully end this discussion here with respect.

As-salam alaykum

Regards,
Joseph.

[Bassam Zawadi]

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

[Joseph Islam]

Dear readers,

May peace be with you all.

Please see my concluding remarks to brother Bassam's comments in red.

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 it only fair to allow the readers to make a judgment on what is 'falsehood'. My appeal has been purely from a Quran's perspective, the only criterion to judge between right and wrong while brother Bassam's appeal has been to unauthoritative, late, fallible sources such as the Ahadith corpus.

Another experience I am quite conversant with is to oft receive questions with questionable relevancy, at times with a view to badger despite having shared clear responses to them.

I feel brother Bassam has repeatedly asked questions which have a fundamental premise sourced from an unauthoritative source, the Ahadith corpus.

I have consistently argued that the most superior position for any sincere ardent student / exegetic is an interpretation from the earliest Muslim source, the Quran. Yet, it appears that brother Bassam has consistently dismissed this at the expense of later, fallible, unauthoritative secondary sources.

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?

Or better still, has 'Joseph' provided a sufficient case from the most authoritative source, the Quran, that en masse propagation would have been strongly implied from verses such as 22:78 where it was the responsibility of the believers (plural) to act as witnesses (plural) to mankind with the message of the Quran?

Would the earliest Muslims have transmitted the Quran en masse or in isolation where only a few had the 'correct reading'? This needs to be considered along with verse 15:9 where God also took responsibility to guard His message.

It is highly probable that the believers would have responded to the Quran's testimony that the Quran was made easy to remember. I have argued that the term 'dhikr' has a wide connotation, least in the expression 'Walaqad yassarna alqur-ana lildhikri' (and certainly we have made the Quran easy to remember - 54:17 et al) where it can also imply the ability to recall, study to remember and remembrance.

The tradition of 'memorising' the Quran en masse would arguably have become a rigid tradition that was initiated during the Prophetic ministry in much the same way as it is alive today.

Would God have allowed an incorrect reading to have been preserved in the memories of believers and read by the majority?

What is most plausible to you as the reader?

- 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?

What you as the reader need to respectfully consider is whether the default position from the Quran, the most authoritative source, is the most superior. Respected brother Bassam believes that the Quran was revealed in 7 modes and recitations, a view purely based on late, fallible, unauthorised sources and when asked to provide evidence from the Quran, he remained at best coy, as he knows that the Quran provides absolutely no evidence for this.

It is not a question of whether my feelings are 'authoritative'. The question that I feel needs to be asked by the respected reader is whether the view I have humbly shared is the most cogent given that I have strived to make use of the most authoritative source, the Quran to make my case.

The Quran - which is historically the most reliable source to the Prophetic ministry and the earliest document of the Muslim religion.

The expression 'feel' simply implies my best interpretation underpinning my opinion. Only God 'knows' best.

- 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?

As has been repeatedly demonstrated, is it plausible to accept that the least popular reading throughout the Muslim world (only read by 5%) is the one most likely given the testimony of God to guard His message (15:9)?

One must sincerely ask themselves, was the 'Hafs' reading adopted by 95% of the Muslim world as the most popular reading merely on a whim? Or is it more likely, that the 'Hafs' reading was always the most prevalent reading given the strong tradition of transmitting the Quran en masse?

What is most likely?

- 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.

The Quran is fully preserved in the en masse Hafs transmission which is recited by 95% of the Muslims today.

5% of Muslim read isolated variants in the variant reading of the Quran they possess. This is not the majority reading. However, the majority of the Hafs reading is no different from Warsh.

Brother Bassam quotes 75 million Muslims today reading the Quran with errors in them, yet one would argue that nearly a billion Muslims interpret the Quran through unauthoritative sources such as the Hadith corpus which skews their interpretation of the Quran and in effect, leaving what 'they read' effectively shackled.

I would be far more invested in addressing the latter concern, than worrying about 5% of Muslims that read a slightly variant script where the majority of their reading is no different from the 95% ‘Hafs’ reading.

Therefore, there are no mistakes in the majority reading. The Quran remains in-tact. 5% of Muslims read a variant script which has variant readings which is not directly supported from a Quranic perspective of one majority reading.

It is imperative to remember that only the small variants that are read (however immaterial and inconsequential) have no support. The vast majority of the remaining Warsh script is no different from the Hafs transmission. Therefore the 5% of Muslims in the main, without dispute read a Quran no different from the majority.

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

This may be brother Bassam’s view but with respect, I strongly disagree. I have consistently asserted that the position brother Bassam appeals to which is one from unauthoritative sources such as the Ahadith corpus is the most precarious, least cogent and the innately most destructive position in terms of religion and argumentation.

- 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.

The Quran explicitly and unequivocally states that it is the only source of guidance in the name of God's ordained religion. Therefore, the best position needs to be argued and evidenced from the Quran.

If brother Bassam has better evidence to share from a Quranic perspective, the most authoritative source, then he needs to provide this evidence.

As yet, no such view has been offered by brother Bassam. His appeal is only to unauthoritative, late fallible sources such as the Ahadith corpus.

- 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?

A sincere ardent historian must consider what is the earliest historical source to best represent the period under investigation. This is indisputably the Quran. In my humble opinion, no sincere scholar or academic worth his / her salt would dispute this fact.

However, brother Bassam would like the readers to believe that sources which were not canonised until at times, centuries after the death of the Prophet provide the most superior basis for historical analysis superseding the Quran's own testimony. These sources, apart from romanticising history, provide hagiography and remain a product of the late sectarian milieu in which they found provenance.

These sources are extremely late into the literary record (at times centuries late based on hearsay) and not contemporaneous to the Prophetic ministry.

However, brother Bassam classes these sources as authoritative. It is these very sources that also cast complete doubt on the preservation of the Quran including claims such as:

• That verses of the Quran were missing and a goat ate the stoning verse with regards to adultery  [1]
• That the Prophet of God introduced the Satanic verses  [2]
• That Caliph Uthman burnt the extant copies of the Quran  [3]
• That there was a missing suckling verse (Ten clear sucklings which made the marriage unlawful, then it was later abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and then was somehow removed or missed from the Quran altogether  [4]
• That there was a missing Ibn Adam verse (regarding Ibn Adam's possession of a wadi of property)  [5]
• That there was a missing 'pleasing' verse from the Quran (regarding those that were slain at Bi'r Mauna which included the verse "Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have met with our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied our desires)  [6]
• And many others, from al-Baraa, verses that were lost with dead Muslims, cancelled and repealed verses and those forgotten by the Prophet himself and those lost by Quranic reciters   [7]

In my humble opinion, brother Bassam's response to such narratives is usually met with nonchalant dismissal, quite a contrast given the kind of methodology he employs when critiquing another's opinion and at best, responses which are presented with apologetic zeal.

- 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).

Yes, 5% of Muslims read 'some' variances which are not supported. However, one begs to ask the question, on what stretch of the spoken language is this to be understood as a Quran 'riddled' with errors? The large majority of the Warsh script is no different from the Hafs.

But is it possible that respected brother Bassam has never really studied the differences with ardent academic appeal which has caused this somewhat 'Freudian slip' which is indicative of his own understanding of the differences which are arguably disproportionate?

I would invite discerning readers to read the following PhD thesis below [8] so that they can formulate their own views as to the nature of the differences.

Here is a summary of the nature of the differences between the two transmissions as noted by a specialist scholar.

"Most of the variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. Within a given transmission, such as Hafs', that never varies. It must also be said that there is no clear dividing line between reading and chanting, so some variations are purely recitative." [9]
 
"The variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. Within a given transmission, such as Wars', that never varies" [10]

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.

The result is simply that some variances are read by 5% of Muslims which have no support from the majority reading. However, the vast majority of the reading is no different from the Hafs. That is simply the context.

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.

I would hope that I have made it clear that the best interpretation of religious history and religious interpretation is from the Quran, the most contemporaneous and only 'authoritative' source to the Prophetic ministry.

In this regard, I have presented clear arguments from the Quran.

Brother Bassam has not provided any authority for his use of Islamic secondary sources and no evidence for a better view from the Quran.

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

I resonate the above sentiment. It is indeed for the discerning reader to decide keeping in mind ‘historicity’ and ‘authority’ of the sources being used as best evidence by both brother Bassam and myself.


REFERENCES:

[1] SUNAN IBN MAJAH, Book of Nikaah, Number 1944, Hadith in Arabic,  [online] http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&TOCID=638&BookID=29&PID=1934 [Accessed 13th April 2011]
[2] AL TABARI, Ta'rikh Volume 1
[3] SAHIH BUKHARI, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, Translator: M. Muhsin Khan. Source: University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, Translation available [online] http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php [Accessed 11th March 2013] 
Such narrations have the potential to open up serious contention for the Shia that a 'Usurper' of power had been somehow responsible for the Quran's preservation and therefore the true Quran had to exist with their infallible Imams.
[4] SUNAN IBN MAJAH, Book of Nikaah, Number 1944, Hadith in Arabic, [online] http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&TOCID=638&BookID=29&PID=1934 [Accessed 13th April 2011]
[5] BURTON. J, The Collection of the Qur'an, Cambridge University Press 1977, First published 1977, First paperback edition 1979, Re-issued 2010, Pages 82-83, Note (31) and (32) quoted. Note (31) - Burhan al Din al Baji, Jawab, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur majami no. 207, f.17. Note (32) Itqan, pt 2,, p.25
[6] BURTON. J, The Collection of the Qur'an, Cambridge University Press 1977, First published 1977, First paperback edition 1979, Re-issued 2010, Pages 48-49, Note (3). Note (3) Ibid. p26 (from previous reference Itqan, pt2)
[7] SAHIH MUSLIM, Volume 1, Book 5, Book of Zakat (Kitab al-Zakat) Number 2286, Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, Source: University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, Translation available [online] http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/005-smt.php [Accessed 11th March 2013]
[8] BROCKETT. Adrian Alan, Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qur'an, University of St. Andrews, Department of Arabic Studies. PhD Thesis 1984
[9] Ibid, Variations between Hafs Copies, page 45
Any emphasis in bold black, are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.   
[10] Ibid, Variations between Wars Copies, page 77

[Truth Seeker]

Salaam,

After reading the long thread on this topic, I feel that Bassam is dragging on the conversation. Joseph's position has been made very clear so there is no point in going around in circles.

As far as I can gather, it seems that Bassam agrees that the Quran was revealed in different variations...even 7 as per the historical sources?

My issue is that if this were true, why do we only have 2 transmissions in propagation today. God promises that the Quran will be protected so where are the other 5 variations?? If they were God ordained then why are they missing??

Also Bassam is saying that we cannot say that the people in and around the 'mother town' did not speak different dialects and the historical evidence confirms that they did, then is he saying that the prophet when receiving wahi, learnt 7 different versions of the same Ayah.

How would this be practical ? To me it defies logic. Surely it is up to Bassam to show us the 7 variants as he is of the belief that they existed.


Thanks

[Bassam Zawadi]

Who said that the other transmissions are lost?

I said Joseph can't say that the surrounding towns spoke the same dialect, since the Qur'an is silent on that and he refuses to appeal to history in order to investigate that.

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace all. A good discussion and I would like to thank both debaters very much.

I take it then we have no proof that the Quran was revealed in 7 Ahroof or qiraat  to Muhammad (saw) until we believe what the faulty history / hadith tells us? But then, the faulty hadith tells us all kinds of things and then we rely on more opinions of human beings who don't always agree!!

Although I am not sure that bro Joseph gives all the evidence that is possible from the Quran, but he does say a lot of convincing things. His position seems very stable. He also gives the only argument from a Qurans view and in that he is the most persuasive over a Hadith view!

It seems that bro Bassam is often only nit picking because I think he has to prove his position from Hadith at no matter what cost ......which were not collected properly after the death of the Prophet 100 of years later. So bro Bassam will possibly do anything to destroy any view that comes from the Quran as he does not accept this view...... But I do think his questions were responded to quite well!...

Who has the better evidence? I think it is obvious for me. I would trust any view that comes from the Quran first!!!! Thank you.

[Duster]

I said Joseph can't say that the surrounding towns spoke the same dialect, since the Qur'an is silent on that and he refuses to appeal to history in order to investigate that.

Bro Joseph rightly says >>>

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)

This is a forceful view and suggestion from bro Joseph as Allah could have said the Quran was revealed in Arabic and then full stop!!! Why did Allah say "surrounding towns" in 42.7? Wasn't the Quran meant for everyone that spoke Arabic? Why the restriction??

So  I do not think any further proof needs to be given as even where I am from the local areas and surrounding areas have a certain dialect but as you go out more from our city, the accent and dialect changes. I think this is a good standard position that bro Joseph takes from a Qurans view. Thank you.

[Truth Seeker]

 Salaam Bassam,

Your response to my post was:

Who said that the other transmissions are lost?

I said Joseph can't say that the surrounding towns spoke the same dialect, since the Qur'an is silent on that and he refuses to appeal to history in order to investigate that.

You didn't answer my questions. If the other transmissions are not lost and you believe that there are 7 variants, where are they?

Also do you then believe that the prophet, when receiving wahi, learnt 7 different versions of the same Ayah ?