Sunday, December 28, 2008

Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b on the 100+ Verses Missing from Surah 33

Muslims claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. They can only make this claim, however, by employing their standard apologetic strategy--namely, rejecting their own sources and calling the early Muslim scholars "liars." As I argued here, such an approach will ultimately lead to skepticism about Muhammad. But if this is how Muslims want to argue, so be it.

Indeed, I'd like to see my Muslim friends reject even more commentary from early Muslims, who were in a better position to know what really happened. Let's consider two passages in which Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's most trusted reciters of the Qur'an) and Aisha (the "Mother of the Faithful") declare that approximately two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Both passages are taken from Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fada'il-al-Qur'an.

Ibn Abi Maryam related to us from Ibn Luhai'a from Abu'l-Aswad from Urwa b. az-Zubair from A'isha who said, "Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today."

Isma'il b. Ibrahim and Isma'i b. Ja'far related to us from al-Mubarak b. Fadala from Asim b. Abi'n-Nujud from Zirr b. Hubaish who said--Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three," I answered. Said he, "Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the verse of Stoning."

I brought up Aisha's claim in a debate with Bassam, and Bassam, if I recall correctly, confidently proclaimed that the passage had been "fabricated." I hereby ask my friend Bassam to provide evidence that the Muslims in the chains I've presented were inventing false claims about the Qur'an. I would also like Bassam to say that Abu Ubaid (who was called "the ocean of knowledge" by his fellow Muslims) was ignorant and sloppy in his investigation of these passages.

(Note: If you ever wondered what happened to the "Verse of Stoning," which was supposed to be part of the Qur'an but instead came up missing, Ubayy ibn Ka'b says above that it fell out with the other 100+ missing verses of Surah 33).

48 comments:

Bassam said...

http://seekingilm.com/archives/405

David Wood said...

Bassam,

Before I respond to the article you've shared, please help me out on two points.

First, you said that the narration had been fabricated. The article you linked to, at best, shows that one narrator isn't completely reliable by the standards of the Hadith scholars. But there's a tremendous difference between saying (1) "Narration X is fabricated," and (2) "I'm not sure I can trust narration X because I'm not sure I can trust transmitter Y." If (2) is the case, the narration might be true or false.

Do you see the difference? Imagine a random person comes up to me on the street and says, "The President just got shot!" Can I completely trust a man I don't know? No. But does this mean that his story is false? No.

So, before I continue, please explain to me how you know that the narration from Aisha is a fabrication.

Second, please tell me which transmitter(s) you object to in the second narration.

george said...

bassam,keep it up u r on the way to truth.as u reject ur own islamic sources to save ur game and one day u will reject quran and its author muhamamd .
u know what is truth then why u are hanging on something which only gives u money but not joy of truth and hope of salvation? www.sakshitimes.com

Ibn said...

You Christians are blowing things out of proportion. Just because those traditions (not all traditions, and keep that in mind) which you guys rely on to attack Islam have been declared inauthentic doesn't mean Bassam or any other Muslim rejects his own sources.

Matthew said...

Just because those traditions (not all traditions, and keep that in mind) which you guys rely on to attack Islam have been declared inauthentic doesn't mean Bassam or any other Muslim rejects his own sources.

They are declared inauthentic because you can't stand the truth. Shabir Ally once declared that whenever something declares violence, it's fabricated.

Islamic apologetics are based solely on circular reasoging.
"We are a religion of peace."
"What about all this is violence?"
"It is fabricated."
"How do you know."
"Because we are a religion of peace."

I will say it again:
http://shonari.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/circular-reasoning.png

Ibn said...

Matthew:They are declared inauthentic because you can't stand the truth.

Actually, it is you guys who can't stand the truth. That's why you go out of your way to demonize Muslims who refute your false allegations.

Moreover, I did say that not all the traditions which you guys rely on to attack Islam are false.

Matthew:Shabir Ally once declared that whenever something declares violence, it's fabricated.

Where did he declare that?

Alforreca said...

I may be wrong, but such claims that these “traditions” are fabricated are only defended in non muslim areas... where it's convenient to present a more acceptable face... in muslim traditions there’re all sort of affirmation that everything can be said an denied at the same time according to convenience… As Mohammad-Ali Amir-Moezzi said: «c’est une question de dire ce qui apporte plus d'avantages pour l'Oumma ...
»
((Petite histoire de l’islam, 123))… being so, it’s not a surprise to find that muslims can’t grasp the conceptof “truth”…

Muslim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gay Muslim said...

;).. Hi, you guys... I just want to say that WE EXIST... ;)... I love you all you guys... ;) kisses and kisses... ;)

Matthew said...

«c’est une question de dire ce qui apporte plus d'avantages pour l'Oumma ...»

My french sucks but I think I can translate this for those who suck even more than me:
"It's a question of saying what gives the bigger advantage to the islamic community."
Excuse my lack of eloquence.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ibn: You go out of your way to demonize Muslims who refute your false allegations.

Whoa, slow down friend! We go out of our way to demonize Muslims who refute our false allegations? Oh how flawed this statement is - let me count the ways!

1 - I can't remember demonizing anyone.
2 - No one's refuted us.
3 - Our allegations weren't false.

But all joking aside, what's with Muslim apologists and their melodramatic language? "Demonize"? In addition, when I clicked on the link Bassam provided, it started out by saying "The enemies of Islam, primarily those who attempt in vain to attack the authenticity of the Qur’an..."

This kind of language reminds me of the stereotypical american teenage drama queen. Perhaps the apologists who frequently employ this mode of speaking would be taken more seriously if their speech were less tainted with bias?

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Just because those traditions (not all traditions, and keep that in mind) which you guys rely on to attack Islam have been declared inauthentic doesn't mean Bassam or any other Muslim rejects his own sources."

You're missing the point. Bassam has attacked the credibility of an early Muslim historian and jurist. Yet the transmitter who came after him considered him reliable, as did the great scholar Abu Ubaid.

Now multiply this instance times thousands of others. Here we find that the early Muslim community was filled with unreliable transmitters, and yet even noted scholars were deceived into accepting the traditions of these noted scholars.

The conclusion remains: By declaring, over and over again, that the early Muslim community was filled with liars and unreliable transmitters, Muslim apologists are casting doubt on the reliability of the entire community.

Thus, I once again leave you with the following dilemma: Either (1) you can accept the general reliability of the early Muslim scholars, in which case you must accept, e.g., the Satanic Verses and the corruption of the Qur'an, or (2) you can cast doubt on the general reliability of the early Muslim scholars, in which case you should admit that we can't really know anything about Muhammad. Indeed, if the latter is your approach (as it seems to be), I see no reason you shouldn't follow your fellow Muslim Sven Kalisch in denying that Muhammad existed.

Matthew said...

when I clicked on the link Bassam provided, it started out by saying "The enemies of Islam, primarily those who attempt in vain to attack the authenticity of the Qur’an..."

Lines up great with Tabash's "The Carrier-Licona debate was a debate between an atheist historian and a Christian fundamentalist historian."

How not to begin writing an article.

Matthew said...

Indeed, if the latter is your approach (as it seems to be), I see no reason you shouldn't follow your fellow Muslim Sven Kalisch in denying that Muhammad existed.

I think there's a "why" missing after "reason".

I hope Kalisch will soon publish on this topic (we both live in germany), so I can understand how he come to this conclusion.

David Wood said...

Matthew,

Kalish has already put an article out. Perhaps you could translate it.

Matthew said...

David, I will look for that article. I will try to translate it.

Matthew said...

I was looking for his articles, but I only find interviews. This one is informative:
http://www.zeit.de/2008/41/P-Kalisch

He claims that he can't prove or disprove Muhammed's existence, but he thinks nonexistence is more plausible.

He later states that he has always been sceptical of the islamic transmissions of the life of Muhammed. He always accepted Muhammed's existence and some facts about his life.
After looking at the old and New Testament he looked at the early islam and noticed problems where he had not noticed them before (someone should tell James that I think I found the consistent muslim).

He says he will publish his argumentation on the internet, I will search for that article.

He is asked to give some examples:
- Why isn't islam mentioned in non-islamic sources?
- Why did it took 66 years until they coined a coin (excuse my lack of eloquence) with "Muhammed is the messenger of Allah"?
- Why did an islamic ruler put a cross in front of an inscription addem by him?
- There is a big difference between the account in islamic sources and archeological findings and non-islamic sources.

He states that all islamic sources were written much later and he suspects them of constructing a reality afterwards (the consistent muslim?).
There are only few original sources from the first islamic centuries and their authenticity is questioned. They also have many inconsistencies.

He goes on saying that the origin of islam is probably a heretical christian group. The arabical form of christianity created their own empire, which became it's own religion for political reason, to support this empire.

He thinks it is possible that the Qur'an began as a christian text (doesn't surprises us). He says that the islamic historiography is almost definately not historically trustworthy.

I am still searching for the article in which he discusses his argumentation.

Matthew said...

ok, I found the article in which he explains his argumentation:

http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/religioesestudien/islam/_v/kalisch_islamische_theologie_ohne_historischen_muhammad.pdf

I will give you his argumentation later.

Matthew said...

I just skimmed through the article, he seems to have 2 main points:
- no reliable early sources
- strong gnostic influences

David Wood said...

If you want to put together a summary of the German article, I can post it here on the blog.

Matthew said...

Give me some time to translate it, I think I will manage to finish the summary in this year.

Bassam said...

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to go back and forth on this, so let me just say whatever I have to say and then leave:

1)On the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron, David brought up this narration. I said that the narration is "weak", I didn't say "fabricated". There is a big difference between these two words in hadith terminology. A narration is fabricated if it was narrated by a well known condemned liar or if the narration has no source while a weak narration could have a deficiency in its chain due to other reasons and actually has a source.

2) If someone wants to argue that Muslims are rejecting their own sources simply because they declare several hadiths to be weak is only an ignoramus that has no idea what he is talking about and its not a surprise to see why Muslims get baffled at such ignorance.

Of course we reject several hadiths, but the question is how and on what basis. We don't reject narrations for simply not liking what it states as some ignorant people say. Rather, there are three independent processes that have occured.

1) Collection of narrations.
2) Investigation of narrators.
3) Grading of the narrations as either authentic or weak.

These were three processes done independently of one another and this is something that many people fail to understand and appreciate. They assume that processes no. 2 and 3 overlap one another and are done simultaneously.

Ignorant people think that the scholar will attack the narrator if he reads a hadith he doesn't like. That's absurd. Rather, independent research has already been done on the narrators, the one who grades the hadith will check that research and then grade the hadith accordingly based on the information he obtained regarding the narrators.

So there is no issue of bias going on here (i.e. let's attack this narrator because he narrated so and so hadith that we don't like)

3) There is not a single scholar in the entire history of Islam that I know about who hasn't made a mistake declaring a hadith to be authentic while it wasn't. Not a single one. Not the four founders of the schools of thought, not Ibn Taymiyyah, not Sheikh Albani, not one. This is not disrespecting them, rather it is a recognition of their fallibility. What is important is that we have the ability to know where they went wrong.

Just because we point out errors in Muslim sources, that doesn't imply they aren't trustworthy at all. Rather, we always appeal to the hadith standard to figure out what is reliable and what isn't.

4) I am willing to grant only for the sake of argument that the narrations regarding Surat Al Ahzab are true, this doesn't come as a shocky in anyway to Muslims. Muslims believe that there are three types of abrogation:

1)Abrogation of recitation
2)Abrogation of ruling
3)Abrogation of both ruling and recitation


Thus, even if the narrations were true, Muslims will simply respond back by saying that those verses from Surah 33 that we don't have today come under the third category I mentioned above. The reason why this isn't a problem is because this was something accepted for many other verses and it was accepted by the consensus of the companions of the Prophet. Thus, this is a teaching of Islam, which I am bound to accept, thus the argument doesn't pose a real threat, for I see nothing internally inconsistent about such a belief.


To learn more about this you can visit the Quranic Variants section of my site here:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/qur_anic_variants


By the way to Nakdimon: your rebuttal was a joke and good job with the semantical game of redefining the word "willingness"

As for those Sahih Muslim narrations about Christians and Jews supposedly getting punished in the place of Muslims, I already explained those in my rebuttals to Shamoun, for anyone who is interested in the answers.


Gotta run...

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassam,

I understand you're busy, so I'll just repeat a very minor question (before I respond to what you've said).

Do you or do you not have an objection to the other chain of narrators, i.e. the chain that goes back to Ubayy ibn Ka'b?

Semper Paratus said...

Bassam: "Just because we point out errors in Muslim sources, that doesn't imply they aren't trustworthy at all. Rather, we always appeal to the hadith standard to figure out what is reliable and what isn't."

Where does the Hadith standard come from? If it comes from the Hadith, then how do you know it is reliable?

David Wood said...

Semper said: "Where does the Hadith standard come from? If it comes from the Hadith, then how do you know it is reliable?"

That's almost exactly what I'd like to say. Bassam keeps emphasizing that all Muslim scholars are fallible. But if they're all fallible, how can Muslims pretend that the methodology they developed is perfect? And if the methodology is flawed, how can Muslims reject sources based on this flawed methodology?

Moreover, the Hadith scholars understood that their methodology wasn't to be universally applied to all sources.

Even worse, the methodology of the Hadith scholars is quite contrary to the methodology of non-Muslim historians. (Ibn Taymiyyah was a notable exception. I think he was on the right track, even if the Muslim methodology held him back somewhat.)

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bassam said...

"Even worse, the methodology of the Hadith scholars is quite contrary to the methodology of non-Muslim historians."

More like thank God.

"But if they're all fallible, how can Muslims pretend that the methodology they developed is perfect?"

Cmoon David, why are you asking these kinds of questions?

Its like me saying "Well since those who decided what books should belong in the Canon were fallible men, how can David trust their methodology?"

Each person is fallible, but a group of persons working together can form something infallible as one expert corrects and avoids the errors of the other.

We believe the same thing for each companion of the Prophet. We believe each one is fallible, but their consensus is not.

Anyways, I don't want to delve into these matters.

Let me just go straight to your question:

"Do you or do you not have an objection to the other chain of narrators, i.e. the chain that goes back to Ubayy ibn Ka'b?"

The scholars seemed to have differ over Asim b. Abi'n-Nujud, for they criticized him for his memory.

However, the main problem is al-Mubarak b. Fadala, he was declared weak by top scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al Nasai and Ibn Hajar accused him of tadlees.

Scholars have declared other narrations weak because of his man, thus this chain is at best weak.


But again David, really go ahead and make whatever point you were trying to make if we were to assume that it is authentic. It seems like the concept of abrogation bothers you, so go ahead and discuss it.

I mean, if I am not willing to admit this specific example of Surah 33, I am willing to admit the verse of stoning not being with us anymore. So let's go with what we both see as true, the verse of stoning.


Regards,

Bassam

Nakdimon said...

Bassam wrote: "1)On the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron, David brought up this narration. I said that the narration is "weak", I didn't say "fabricated". There is a big difference between these two words in hadith terminology. A narration is fabricated if it was narrated by a well known condemned liar or if the narration has no source while a weak narration could have a deficiency in its chain due to other reasons and actually has a source."

Bassam,

I find it highly amusing to see you talking about "weak" and "strong" narrations. I somehow get the feeling that all the sayings of your prophet which you don't like are "weak" and the sayings that you like happen to be "strong". The irony here is that you will have to proof that the hadith is fabricated. It is also VERY convenient, just like the revelations of your prophet, that ONLY the hadith narrations that are devastating to your prophet and your religion are always found to be "weak". You will never hear a hadith narration that makes Muhammad look good being labelled as "weak". Since your most entrusted sources are all from a period where people were making up more stories about Muhammad than all the Hollywood tabbloids do about all celebs altogether, we have every reason to think that those Muslims at that time would make up their own isnads as well. You muslims are extremely funny. It is as if your early scholars were saying: "the ahadith are authentic when we say they are. I can claim "weaknesses" and "strengths" to any hadith that doesn't make my prophet look good."

As long as these ahadith are in your most trustworthy sources, they are authentic, period! You can call them weak, they are in your most authentic hadith sources and they will be used as proof that either your most entrusted hadith sources are untrustworthy or that your Qur'an wasn't perfectly perserved as you muslims have been claiming for centuries as proof that it's divinely inspired. Which it isn't since it, again, doesn't live up to it's own standards of divine revelation.

Bassam wrote:
"By the way to Nakdimon: your rebuttal was a joke and good job with the semantical game of redefining the word "willingness" "

Bassam, it wasn't a game that I was playing. I challenged you to define the word "willingness" because the way you were reasoning was a totally nonsensical. If we would present you the phrase where Yeshua would say "I am going to the cross willingly", you would still come back and say "well... maybe he was saying unwillingly that he was going willingly to the cross."

If my rebuttal was a joke then I challenge you to respond. The gospels are very clear: the immediate context of Matthew 26:39 shows that Yeshua went willingly to the cross. But I understand that chopping up sources and dividing them into pieces you don't and do like to use them as will is Islams favorite practice, as we have seen in the plagiarized stories in your unholy book. (plagiarizing from the infancy gospel and then editing out the part where Yeshua speaks in the cradle that he is the Son of God) And that is exactly what islams adherence does, too. I don't blame you, that is the product of Islam. Historically you and your religion have nothing to stand on, with all those historical FLAWS in your most holy book. EVERYTHING that the Qur'an claims that can be investigated historically can be proven to be false!

Bassam, since you claimed that there are other methods to prove that Islam is true apart from the historical method, you should have no problem to share with us what that method is that can prove Islam to be true, when all the available historical data contradicts Islam's claims.

Please share with us what that method is. I somehow have the slightest feeling that we will never hear from you about that method.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Matthew said: Islamic apologetics are based solely on circular reasoging.
"We are a religion of peace."
"What about all this is violence?"
"It is fabricated."
"How do you know."
"Because we are a religion of peace."



HAHAHAHAHA! AINT THAT THE TRUTH!

When they like it, they endorse it, when they don't like it, they repudiate it.

Even Bukhari has weak narrations nowadays. Consider islamic scholars' commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari:

"Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and worked extremely hard to collect his Hadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Bukhari Abu Abdallah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja'fai was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of Hadith is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 Hadith (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of Hadith."


And after all this praise, even Bukhari is untrustworthy. According to Bassam, this report on Bukhari's hadith is "weak" at best, BOGUS at worst. (LOL)

Nakdimon

Bassam said...

Nakdimon said:

"You will never hear a hadith narration that makes Muhammad look good being labelled as "weak""

How ignorant can you be? I can provide several examples of hadiths that excessively praise Muhammad (peace be upon him) and are rejected by scholars as fabrications.

"Since your most entrusted sources are all from a period where people were making up more stories about Muhammad than all the Hollywood tabbloids do about all celebs altogether, we have every reason to think that those Muslims at that time would make up their own isnads as well."

Don't you realize that at every point in time there is always a group of people somewhere making up stories and lies (including the time the Gospels were written)? According to your logic, there is no way someone can set up a methodology in order to combat this problem.

Make up isnaads? Again, utter ignorance of hadeeth methodology. Go read some of the articles on my site defending hadith methodology.

"As long as these ahadith are in your most trustworthy sources, they are authentic, period!"

Loooool, oh man I knew I shouldn't have wasted my time making an audio counter rebuttal. You are a neophyte thinking you know what you are talking about.

No Muslim reasons this way, no one reasons this way. We have a hiearchy of what is most authentic:

1) Quran
2) Bukhari
3) Muslim

etc. etc.

Why would there be a hierarchy if each one is equally authentic 100%? My fourth most trustworthy book might be 90% accurate. According to your logic, because it is one of my most trusthworthy books I am forced to accept the other 10% that is proven to be weak from it.

Give me a break man.


You want to know my arguments for Islam, watch my debate with David.

I have nothing to stand on you say? Oh yes, I am sooo intimidated by your "evidence", which is about a bunch of documents authored by God knows who that have contradictions and mistakes in them and seem to be clearly human only (i.e. seems like any other biographical book). Oh yes I am intimidated indeed.

Give me a break Nakdimon, your just a neophyte trying to gain fame. Go learn some new and real arguments before speaking. If you want to insist on historical errors in the Qur'an, make sure you know how to refute all our rebuttals to them first if you want to gain our attention. Otherwise, your just another nobody repeating silly refuted arguments in our eyes.


Regards,

Bassam

"Bassam, it wasn't a game that I was playing. I challenged you to define the word "willingness" because the way you were reasoning was a totally nonsensical."

My definition of the word "willingness" was voluntarily. The whole time I was arguing that Jesus was commanded and forced to go through this whole process and it wasn't something that he wanted to do.

Bassam said...

"And after all this praise, even Bukhari is untrustworthy. According to Bassam, this report on Bukhari's hadith is "weak" at best, BOGUS at worst. (LOL)"

Why are you lying? When did I say that any fully connected chain of transmission from Saheeh Bukhari was weak?

Nakdimon said...

Here is an interesting report on "weak" narrations that I've picked up from islam online. I came accross this when investigating the Satanic verses and reading the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir on it. you guys might find it interesting. I have compiled and arranged it and am still working on the compilation on the SV:

Ibn Kathir says about the SV:
How the Shaytan threw some Falsehood into the Words of the Messengers, and how Allah abolished that

At this point many of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned the story of the Gharaniq and how many of those who had migrated to Ethiopia came back when they thought that the idolators of the Quraysh had become Muslims, but these reports all come through Mursal chains of narration and I do not think that any of them may be regarded as Sahih. And Allah knows best. Al-Bukhari said, "Ibn `Abbas said,
(in his recitation (of the revelation).) "When he spoke, the Shaytan threw (some falsehood) into his speech, but Allah abolished that which the Shaytan threw in.''

However Imam Malik said:

1. The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists is that the mursal of a trustworthy person is valid as proof and as justification for a practice, just like a musnad hadith.6 This view has been developed to such an extreme that to some of them, the mursal is even better than the musnad, based on the following reasoning: “The one who reports a musnad hadith leaves you with the names of the reporters for further investigation and scrutiny, whereas the one who narrates by way of irsal (the absence of the link between the successor and the Prophet), being a knowledgeable and trustworthy person himself, has already done so and found the hadith to be sound. In fact, he saves you from further research.” (Source: Yusuf ibn `Abdullah ibn `Abdul Barr, Tajrid At-Tamhid lima fi l-Muwatta’ min Al-Asanid (Cairo, 1350), 1:2.)

2. Imam Abu Hanifah (d. AH 150) holds the same opinion as Malik; he accepts the mursal hadith whether or not it is supported by another hadith (As-Suyuti, 1:198.)

3. Imam Ash-Shafi`i (d. AH 204) has discussed this issue in detail in his Ar-Risalah; he requires the following conditions to be met before accepting a mursal hadith:

a. In the narrative, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that it be reported also as musnad through another isnad; that its contents be reported as mursal through another reliable source with a different isnad; that the meaning be supported by the sayings of some Companions; or that most scholars hold the same opinion as conveyed by the mursal hadith.

b. Regarding the narrator, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that he be an elder Successor; that if he names the person missing in the isnad elsewhere, he does not usually name an unknown person or someone not suitable for reporting from acceptably; or that he does not contradict a reliable person when he happens to share with him in a narration.

On the basis of these arguments, Ash-Shafi`i accepts the irsal of Sa`id ibn Al-Musayyib, one of the elder Successors. For example, Ash-Shafi`i considers the issue of selling meat in exchange for a living animal: He says that Malik told him, reporting from Zaid ibn Aslam, who reported from Ibn Al-Musayyib that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the selling of meat in exchange for an animal. He then says, “This is our opinion, for the irsal of Ibn Al-Musayyib is fine.”10

4. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. AH 241) accepts mursal and (other) da`if (weak) hadiths if nothing opposing them is found regarding a particular issue, preferring them to qiyas (analogical deduction). By da`if here is meant hadiths which are not severely weak, e.g. batil, munkar, or mawdu`, since Imam Ahmad classified hadiths into sahih and da’if rather than into sahih, hasan and da`if, the preference of most later traditionists. Hence, the category da`if in his view applied to hadiths which were relatively close to being sahih, and included many hadiths which were classed as hasan by other scholars.11 Overlooking this fact has caused misunderstanding about Imam Ahmad’s view on the place of da`if hadiths in rulings of fiqh and in matters of fada’il al-a`mal (virtues of various acts of worship).

5. Abu Dawud (d. AH 275) accepts the mursal under two conditions: that no musnad hadith is found regarding that issue; or that if a musnad hadith is found, it is not contradicted by the mursal hadith. (Al-Hazimi, Shurut Al-A’immah Al-Khamsah (ed. M. Z. Al-Kauthari, Cairo, N.D.), p. 45.)

6. Ibn Abi Hatim (d. AH 327) does not give a specific opinion about the mursal Hadith. However, he did collect an anthology of 469 reporters of Hadith, including four female reporters, whose narratives were subjected to criticism due to irsal. This collection is known as Kitab Al-Marasil.


http://www.islamonline.net/English/HadithAndItsSciences/HadithMethodology/2005/05/01.shtml#7


It turns out that many of your scholars accept mursal ahadith, Bassam. Since ALL of your earliest sources report the Satanic Verses and are, according to you, "weak" and we find no ahadith that contradicts them, most of these scholars find the SV report acceptable. In fact, your most authentic source, Bukhari, supports the Satanic verses, because of it's report of the pagans bowing down with your prophet when he recited the Surah that so conveniently was tied in with the Satanic Verses.

So it is safe to say that your prophet spoke for the Devil. Let's face it: When someone speaks for God, he is called a prophet of God. So evidently, when someone speaks for Satan, he is called a prophet of Satan.

Therefore Muhammad is .....

you fill in the blanks!

Nakdimon

Bassam said...

"Since ALL of your earliest sources report the Satanic Verses and are, according to you, "weak" and we find no ahadith that contradicts them, most of these scholars find the SV report acceptable."

umm no sorry, too bad. there are narrations that contradict it. There are atleast two to three narrations, which state that the Prophet never uttered them and that the Muslims never heard them.

Refer back to my exhange with David under his comment on Satanic Verses debate with Adnan.

"Bukhari, supports the Satanic verses, because of it's report of the pagans bowing down with your prophet when he recited the Surah that so conveniently was tied in with the Satanic Verses."

Umm nooo, I provided another possible explanation for this. Go back to the exchange with David.


As for the mursal hadith, I will wait for David to bring this up when we debate to show how you people don't understand squat.

You people think you can just read a couple of articles on the internet and then act like you know what you are saying.

Think for a second, if really the founders of the schools of thought accepted mursal narrations as you think they did by quoting those statements, then why did every single scholar in their schools of thought still insist that the chains of transmission were corrupt for the Satanic verses?

You can't argue back and say that they did it because they didn't like the narrations. No that won't be a valid answer and that would again expose your ignorance. If the scholars wanted to reject it only because they disagreed with its content, they would have then attacked the MATN of the hadeeth, not its ISNAAD.

But because these scholars understand the statements of the founders of their school of thought in context of their other statements, they wouldn't be on your side.

But I am saving that for the debate and not wanting to blow it now.

Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassam,

I'm going to respond to your comments in new posts. (You've given me enough material for at least six or eight posts.)

But one quick question here. You mentioned a debate on the Satanic Verses. Have you had any thoughts on when to do this?

Bassam said...

"Have you had any thoughts on when to do this?"

I need a few more weeks to decide, either in Connecticut like before or in London in April.

David, are you or Dr. White willing to debate "Do Islamic Teachings Affirm the Full Textual Authenticity of the Bible?" or do we have to decide on another topic?

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

Bassam said: "I need a few more weeks to decide, either in Connecticut like before or in London in April."

America would be best for me, since I've already agreed to a number of topics in London. Plus, if you come to the U.S., you can probably get a debate with James.

Bassam said: "David, are you or Dr. White willing to debate "Do Islamic Teachings Affirm the Full Textual Authenticity of the Bible?" or do we have to decide on another topic?"

No, I think Muhammad was quite inconsistent on this issue (as on many other issues). So I'm sure there are plenty of things you can point to. How about: "Has the Gospel Been Corrupted?"

Nakdimon said...

Bassam said: “How ignorant can you be? I can provide several examples of hadiths that excessively praise Muhammad (peace be upon him) and are rejected by scholars as fabrications. “

Where can I find them?


"Don't you realize that at every point in time there is always a group of people somewhere making up stories and lies (including the time the Gospels were written)? According to your logic, there is no way someone can set up a methodology in order to combat this problem. "

No, that is not what I said. Again, you use skewed analogy, Bassam. When will you stop using analogies on the level of “comparing sticks to stones”? Allow me to show you how you are grasping at straw men yet again. The NT wasn’t written centuries after the people who witnessed the events it describes. It was written in the time of the eye witnesses and even by the eyewitnesses. To say the things that they said were fabricated and there is nothing from the witnesses to repudiate those fabrications is very unlikely, nearly impossible. In fact, the witnesses themselves repudiated all the fabrications that were circling around. We find these things in their writings.

However, we don’t have that luxury in your hadith reports, do we? No, instead we have someone hundreds of years later saying “I heard from Jack, who heard from Jill, who assumed that she heard from Jane…”, etc. And at the end of the day, no one could separate head from tale. [sic] THAT, my friend is the crucial difference between what se possess and what you possess. So my analogy still stands.

”Make up isnaads? Again, utter ignorance of hadeeth methodology. Go read some of the articles on my site defending hadith methodology.”

Sorry, I will skip your site and read some real scholarly literature on hadith methodology instead. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but ….. errr… I don’t!


”Loooool, oh man I knew I shouldn't have wasted my time making an audio counter rebuttal. You are a neophyte thinking you know what you are talking about.

No Muslim reasons this way, no one reasons this way. We have a hiearchy of what is most authentic:

1) Quran
2) Bukhari
3) Muslim

etc. etc.

Why would there be a hierarchy if each one is equally authentic 100%? My fourth most trustworthy book might be 90% accurate. According to your logic, because it is one of my most trusthworthy books I am forced to accept the other 10% that is proven to be weak from it.

Give me a break man. “

Since your number one source is extremely untrustworthy, (thinking plagiarism, historical inaccuracy, inaccuracy on religious beliefs of Jews and Christians, scientific inaccuracy since Muslims claim scientific accuracy, etc) why should we trust your number 2 and 3 sources?

Since the Qur’an claims that the Ka’aba was built by Abraham, I would bet you that if tomorrow the best archaeological team was to set foot in Mecca and do some investigation on the origin of the Ka’aba, they would date it a few centuries prior or after the Common Era, no later. But that’s why Islam keeps those people out. Again, we can’t blame them, but this nonetheless is a stinging indictment against Islam’s truth claims. Islam happens to be the only religion to persecute and kill those that do historical research on the religion and dare to publish their findings. I wonder why.


“You want to know my arguments for Islam, watch my debate with David.“

Have done that and my arguments still stand!

”I have nothing to stand on you say? Oh yes, I am sooo intimidated by your "evidence", which is about a bunch of documents authored by God knows who that have contradictions and mistakes in them and seem to be clearly human only (i.e. seems like any other biographical book). Oh yes I am intimidated indeed. "

Even if what you are saying is true, it is extremely curious that these documents which are “clearly human” origins only, have more historical reliability than your number one source, the Qur’an, which you claim is divinely inspired, but can be clearly shown to have human origins, since it plagiarizes from our rabbinic sages time and again. Your hero Shabir Ally tried to defend those plagiarized stories in his debate with Jay Smith by claiming that these stories might have been from the Oral Law, which is supposedly given from God to Moses. Not only is there no such thing as an “oral law” given from God, but most of these stories aren’t even from the Mishnah, but from the Gemarrah, which is not even considered to be the part given on Sinai! Furthermore, some are even AGGADAH, which is mythical storytelling that the rabbis used for the sole purpose to communicate messages of wisdom. So that story doesn’t work and the charge of plagiarism of stories from our rabbis of blessed memory still stands.


”Give me a break Nakdimon, your just a neophyte trying to gain fame. Go learn some new and real arguments before speaking. If you want to insist on historical errors in the Qur'an, make sure you know how to refute all our rebuttals to them first if you want to gain our attention. Otherwise, your just another nobody repeating silly refuted arguments in our eyes. “

LOL! Although I am a neophyte, you really shouldn’t flatter yourself. If I was half as hungry for fame as you claim, I wouldn’t be talking to you, but someone a little more challenging. Sorry, but Bassam Zawadi is not that prominent of a figure.


”My definition of the word "willingness" was voluntarily. The whole time I was arguing that Jesus was commanded and forced to go through this whole process and it wasn't something that he wanted to do.”

As I pointed to you in my audio, Yeshua went voluntarily. You take one verse that seems to support your case, but totally and utterly disregard all the rest that came before it and after it.

And by whom was he forced? Where do we see him getting forced? Again, compare Yeshua’s example acting on His own accord to Muhammad’s ordeal in the cave of Hira and tell me who acted voluntarily and who was forced!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Bassam: "You can't argue back and say that they did it because they didn't like the narrations. No that won't be a valid answer and that would again expose your ignorance. If the scholars wanted to reject it only because they disagreed with its content, they would have then attacked the MATN of the hadeeth, not its ISNAAD. "

This argument makes no sense! YES, they can attack the isnad instead of the Matn, because BY attacking the Isnad you weaken the Matn and can make the claim that the story is "weak" or "fabricated".

So again, my argument still remains!

El-Cid said...

This is the first time I have seen Bassam engage in name-calling and insults.

Bassam, you are one of my favorite Muslim apologists. I'm hoping you won't begin engaging in "mud-slinging" fights. That would be dissapointing.

Nakdimon said...

I wrote: "And after all this praise, even Bukhari is untrustworthy. According to Bassam, this report on Bukhari's hadith is "weak" at best, BOGUS at worst. (LOL)"


Bassam: "Why are you lying? When did I say that any fully connected chain of transmission from Saheeh Bukhari was weak?"


I am not lying. What I said is the sum total of your argumentation. Your sayings here aren't in line with the praise of the scholars' commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari. What does the following mean:

Sahih Bukhari is a Collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and collected his Hadith. Each report in his Collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters, or isnad, had to be established"

Since the veracity of Bukhari was established, how can it contain "weak" narrations?


Bassam: "Umm nooo, I provided another possible explanation for this. Go back to the exchange with David. "

Sir, you gave me your explanation and I rebutted, but didn't find any response to my rebuttal. Your argument was that the pagans prostrated with the muslims because the recitals were beautiful. I pointed out that that explanation doesn't work, since they stepped up the persecution of the Muslims after that. Why did they do that? The only explanation is because they didn't like Muhammad's recitals before an-Najm and after he took his words back when "Gabriel cleansed" him they didn't like his recitals either.

So you still owe us a decent and satisfactory explanation.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Matthew: "My french sucks but I think I can translate this for those who suck even more than me:"

Errrm... That would be ME!!! LOL

KeithTruth said...

Bassam face facts. Quran has been changed and I think a goat ate a few verses as well.

On a side note. Here is my article refuting your assertion about Jesus supposedly mistreating his mother.

http://keithtruth.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-biblical-jesus-such-great-person.html

El-Cid said...

KeithTruth,

Yes, it seems there was a run-away hungry goat:

Narrated Aisha: "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were written on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."

(References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13)

Nakdimon said...

El-Cid: "Yes, it seems there was a run-away hungry goat:

Narrated Aisha: "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were written on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."

(References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13)"

Man, Its amazing how Islams own sources manages to lynch itself. Oh, wait, wait... this narration is "weak" right? (hehe)

Gay Muslim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
El-Cid said...

Nakdimon:

"Man, Its amazing how Islams own sources manages to lynch itself. Oh, wait, wait... this narration is "weak" right? (hehe)"

Haha! Oh...of course...it must be "weak".

I think it's proof that poetic justice still exists in this world. I have seen some pretty bizarre explanations offered by Muslims to explain the Quran-eating-goat incident.

It just seems so obvious that Muslims today believe a lot of things about their book, and their prophet, that the companions and early scholars of Islam never believed.

Alforreca said...

Yes, friend Matthew... the translation is perfect...

I didn't want to do it myself...

It’s painful to see the turns and twists muslims are prepared to do in order to defend the indefensible…

once I heard a muslim apologist shouting out loud, in front of a non muslim audience, that the Quran doesn’t have a single verse inciting to violence… then someone quoted a particular sura that did precisely that… do you believe that he said that that sura was considered apocryphal?...

A month latter the same muslim apologist used that SAME sura in order to proof that an order commanded from God, even if it orders violence, it’s a just command…

Dude…

One day I bet we all see a muslim saying that his both parents had moustaches (beneath their nose… I mean…) just in order to defend that a true muslim has to live like Muhammad…