Thursday, May 15, 2014

Ibn Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an or not ...

I have just finished a new leaflet for Christians to give to their Muslim friends about the preservation of the Qur'an and while writing it I considering the following familiar hadith:
Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at (sura 9). I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a slirah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:" Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi 2.) and" that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13). (Sahih Muslim: bk. 5, no. 2286)

This hadith mentions suras that were once recited but are now not part of the Qur'an. However, what I had not noticed before were the surrounding hadiths to the above hadith:

Anas b. Malik reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying this, but I do not know whether this thing was revealed to him or not, but he said to. (Sahih Muslim: bk. 5, no. 2283)

Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it. and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. 1413 And Allah returns to him who returns (to HiM). 1414 Ibn Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an or not; and in the narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an, and he made no mention of Ibn Abbas. (Sahih Muslim: bk. 5, no. 2285)

What struck me with these hadiths is the open way in which they say that major companions like Anas b. Malik and Ibn Abbas did not know whether this was part of the Qur'an. These hadiths lend support to the other hadiths which say the Qur'an was gathered together from different sources; it was not that the major companions had memorized the entire Qur'an and simply wrote it out.

A point of application for this is that sometimes Muslims attack the Bible by saying there were some books in the New Testament that the early Christians discussed as whether or not they were authentic while all of the Qur'an was universally accepted by all Muslims. Most of the New Testament was homologoumena, that is, accepted by all the churches without exception. However there were a few documents that were antilegomena, that is, spoken against by some but received by the majority. However, these hadiths show that Islam too had its homologoumena and antilegomena material.

10 comments:

Carlos said...

@Brother Green

I've opened the link that u gave

http://engagingwithislam.org/leaflets/Preservation_Quran.pdf

And I've caught up with this chapter
------------------
Chapter 11: Does the chain of narration for the modern Qur’an guarantee it is authentic?
----------------


The answer is: OF COURSE NOT!

However I have another strong reason for this which I noticed u haven't mentioned, so if I may add to your explanation;

Imam Hafs ibn Sulayman , the narrator of Hafs version of Quran (used by 80-90% muslims worldwide)is actually recognized
by ALL muslims scholars
as A LIAR

Quoted from Islamic Website al-Mawrid
-------------------
this is what is written about Hafs Ibn Sulayman, perhaps the most famous and most widely acclaimed of all the disciples of the major qurra’:

‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim says that he is matruk al-hadith. Nasa’i says that HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY. In the opinion of Yahya Ibn Ma‘in as quoted by Abu Qudamah Sarakhsi and ‘Uthman Ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY . ‘Ali Ibn al-Madini says: he is weak in matters of Hadith and I have forsaken him voluntarily. Abu Zur‘ah also says that he is weak in matters of Hadith … S~alih Ibn Muhammad al-Baghdadi says that the Ahadith narrated by him are not worth writing and all of them mention unfamiliar things in religion. Zakariyya Ibn Yahya al-Saji narrates from Simmak and ‘Alqamah Ibn Marthad and Qays Ibn Muslim that his Ahadithare not reliable. ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim says that he asked his father about Hafs. His father said that his Ahadith are not even worth writing. He is weak in matters of Hadith, cannot be attested to and his Ahadith are not acceptable. ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Yusuf says that HE IS A GREAT LIAR, worthy of being forsaken and forges Ahadith
------------------

Source http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=515


Being confronted with this undeniable proofs, muslims excuse themselves by saying that Imam Hafs ibn Sulaymn is unreliable ONLY in the field of Hadith but he is fully trustworthy in the field of transmiting Qiraat.

THIS EXCUSE IS SO LAME & IRRATIONAL!

There are many classifications for Islamic narrator. One for example is "weak memory" , if that was the case then the narrator was considered HONEST but weak in field of memorization.

However It's absolutely different with identifying a person as A LIAR

A LIAR IS SIMPLY MEANS HE LIKES TO LIE..PERIOD!

Another evidence is ALL islamic scholars agree that Imam Hafs LIKES TO FABRICATE NARRATIONS(MATRUKUL HADITH).




How could 80-90% of worldwide muslims put themselves in such idiotic position for fully trusting AN ACKNOWLEDGED LIAR ?




.

Carlos said...

Another addition to above

Imam 'Asim bin Abu al-Najud was the ONLY one whom Imam Hafs transmitted the Hafs Quran from.


Imam 'Asim himself is considered as DELUSIONAL in transmitting narration

(source: http://muslimscholars.info/manage2.php?submit=scholar&ID=10729)

In other words HE HAS A WEAK MEMORY!



So here it is 80-90% of worldwide muslims fully depend their believe on the authenticity of Quran from A Delusional Person(Imam Asim) and An Acknowledged LIAR(Imam Hafs)





----------------
Another nail to the coffin, the Qaloon version of Quran (used by 1% of Muslim ) was transmitted from a DEAF PERSON
[source http://www.abouttajweed.com/qaloon/index.php]


I think it's fair & not too harsh to say that this religion was intially propagated by a bunch of RETARDS !

David Wood said...

So Muhammad had three categories of companions: (1) those who believed it wasn't part of the Qur'an, (2) those who believed it was part of the Qur'an, and (3) those who didn't know whether it was part of the Qur'an.

But Uthman settles all disputes by burning everything.

Carlos said...

Guys if u notice the link I gave earlier about 'Asim bin Abu al-Najud

http://muslimscholars.info/manage2.php?submit=scholar&ID=10729

the funny thing is it will open to link about Abu Harb bin Abi al-Aswad who is a different person from Imam 'Asim.

I've just noticed this awkwardness.

However if u go to http://www.muslimscholars.info/

and then type "Asim bin Abu al-Najud" in search section, u will be directed to Imam Asim' profile where it clearly stated that he was an honest(Saduq) yet DELUSIONAL person in transmitting narration

RMuhammad said...

Typo alert:

And we used so recite a slirah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat

should read

And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat

Just want to make sure the correct version is incorporated into any printed material distributed to Muslims. In their attempt to defend Islam, they will grasp at any straws to dismiss the material being presented to them exposing Islam.

Samuel Green said...

Brother Sam just showed me a few small typos which I have corrected.

Thanks Carlos and thanks for the links. I am aware of this issue but for this leaflet I wanted to keep it short and base my conclusions on the commonly available material.

Samuel Green said...

Carlos, we need to write an article just on the points you have raised.

rivan said...

Brother Samuel Green,

I checked out your website engagingwithislam.org and I found it really good. I cant wait to use the tools and resources there. Thanks for the effort. I will share this site with others too. Along with answeringislam and ur site, must say we Christians are more than well equipped to deal with Islam and also to take the Gospel to muslims with confidence. Thanks!

Carlos said...

@Brother Green

I'll just leave it to u & the rest of answeringmuslims & answering-islam team in perfecting the argument I've raised on Qiraat narrators.

If u wouldn't mind there is also one other topic I would like to raise in the matter of Quran preservation.

Which is the Basmalah contradiction.

I've read your explanation in Answering-Islam
---------------
The four Imams who founded the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools disagree as to whether the Basmalah is part of the revelation at the start of each sura. Imam ash-Shafi'ee and Imam Ahmad believed that it was, while Imam Maalik and Aboo Haneefah believed it was not

.....Therefore, while both of the Qur'ans we are examining contain the Basmalah, in the Hafs Qur'an it is considered part of the revelation, while in the Warsh Qur'an it is not considered part of the revelation but du'a
----------------


If I may add,

FIRST, The Hanafis & Malikis themselves differ in understanding the Warsh version.

Hanafis: Basmalah is an independent verse of the Qur'an before every Surah but certainly not part of those Surahs.

Malikis:Basmalah is not a verse of any Surah of the Qur'an (except Qs 27:30) and Basmala is placed at the beginning of every Surah merely to distinguish one surah from another.

So, the reality is, from all 4 Madhabs of Suni muslim, 3 Madhabs recognize its "Quranity" and 1 Madhab rejects it(Malikis).

..........

SECOND, by defining Basmala as not part of revelation then Maliki' madhab clearly violates the Quran itself (Q5:10,Those who reject faith and deny our Ayats will be companions of fire in the hereafter.)


THIRD, by defining Basmala as d'ua (which means regarding it as some sort of hadith) then Maliki' madhab also violates the prohibition from an authentic hadith for not to write any writings other than Quranic writing in the same Sheet/Manuscript with Quran

It was narrated from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Do not write anything from me; whoever has written anything from me OTHER THAN THE QURAN,LET HIM ERASE IT and narrate from me, for there is nothing wrong with that." (Narrated by Muslim, al-Zuhd wa'l-Raqaa'iq, 5326)

One of the most common & acceptable interpretation of the hadith above is explained by Bassam Zawadi===== And it was said that the prohibition mentioned in the hadeeth referred to WRITING AHAADEETH ON THE SAME PAGE AS QUR'AAN, lest they become mixed and thus the reader would be confused when looking at this page.=====

Carlos said...

Continuation

FOURTH, for the Hanafis while they recognize the "Quranity" of Basmalah in all 113 Surahs however their contradiction in this matter is their claim that Allah spoke Basmalah ONLY ONCE in middle of Qs 27:30. [source: Hanafi website]

In other words they claim these so called "113 independent verses" before every surah was not spoken directly by Allah.

Shafi'i schools instead believe Allah spoke directly those 113 verses and even more they're all incoporated as part of every surah in Quran.

So to Shafiis : Allah ABSOLUTELY DID SPEAK Basmalah 114 TIMES.

Yet to Hanafis: Allah ABSOLUTELY DID NOT SPEAK Basmalah 114 times.


There are two obvious contradictions here:
==================
a)Absolutely Did is undeniably irreconciliable with Absolutely Did Not

One of those madhabs should be condemnable as heretic for either adding or deducting Allah' Speech.


b)Quran has been regarded as direct speech of Allah & that's the signature in distinguishing itself from Ahadith

By that premise then the Hanafis should also be condemnable for degrading 113 verses in Quran to some sort of ahadit' status.
=====================


FIFTH, the Salafis themselves who follow the mazhab of Imam Ahmad Hanbal are also divided in viewing Basmala. The Salafis of Mecca&Madina are leaning toward the Hanafis while the other than them are leaning toward the Shafiis

This is why in Masjidil Haram (Mecca) and Masjidil Nabawi(Madina) the Basmala has never been recited aloud and always quietly.


SIXTH, unlike Bible variants Basmala' contradiction actually shakes the core of Islam.

To do the obligatory Salah prayer correctly then the recitation of Fatiha must be correct, if not then the prayer is unacceptable to Allah.

================
Shafii school: Basmalah should be recited ALOUD since Basmalah is part of Fatiha

Hanafi school: Basmala should be recited QUIETLY since it's not part of Fatiha

Maliki school: Basmala shouldn't ever be recited since it's not part of Quran, however it's still permissible though HATED By Allah(Makrooh)

==========
Makrooh are things that near unlawful to Allah yet though not fully forbidden Allah still hates those who are doing it.


Hope these insights might be useful