RE: Quran and Hadiths
June 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm by Rayaan.)
Finally, here's my reply to this article. Better late than never. So here it goes.
I didn't reply to every single sentence in the article, btw, but only the ones which I think are the most important to be addressed. The article is too long anyways.
My Refutations of the Turun Durusn Article
Yes, the verses were being written on scraps of leather and similar things. But also know that the Quran was being transmitted in an oral process and through memorization, not only through writing. After the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, ordered for the Quran to be copied from the various different materials on to a common material which was in the shape of sheets and tied with strings.
The statement that "all of them were burnt" does not prove or indicate that the Quran has been changed. Why? Because they were destroyed after he completed the official manuscript of the Quran. There was no need to keep the loose materials anymore since all the verses of the Quran were safely gathered by Abu Bakr [/i]before[/i] the burning took place. That's why, it doesn't matter if the earlier copies of the Quran were burned or not.
I never heard about that before, but if this is true, then again, that's not a problem because Abu Bakr didn't write the Quran, he only compiled it, from various other manuscripts. After doing that, Uthman began the job of putting it together into a complete Quran by consulting with Qaris (those who memorized the Quran). That's why it doesn't matter if the compilation was burned or not. If Uthman faithfully copied from Abu Bakr's compilation, then it's more reasonable to think that the Muslims would certainly not burn the original one unless if there was a way to reproduce it.
That is either a lie or a misinformation because the manuscripts during the time of Uthman do exist which you can see in the link in my first post in this thread. There were other personal collections of the portions of the Quran that people had with them. So, Uthman appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Quran in order to preserve the original text of the Quran (or the actual revealed words).
There is a context to that hadith which needs to be clarified and here is the explanation from the same book that the author used (Al-Ittiqan).
"The saying of Anas (RA) does not prove that except these four no other companion had memorized the whole of Quran and that his saying is the ultimate truth because here his words merely imply that Anas (RA) did not know anyone except these four to have memorized the whole of the Quran. And while the companions had spread in different cities, how could it have been possible for Anas (RA) to know (about each one of them)? It would be possible only if Anas (RA) had met each of them individually and asked him if he had collected the whole of Quran during the Prophet's (PBUH) lifetime and if each of them had replied in negative. This is obviously out of question and if this statement is taken only to be according to the knowledge of Anas (RA) then it does not mean that his statement is actually true." - Al-Ittiqan 1/170, Section 20
Again, that is not true because memorization of the Quran was a widespread phenomenon during that time, as well as today. Many of the memorizers were also being killed in battlefields.
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari: "Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra (those who know the Quran by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Quran" (Sahih Bukhari, 4603).
Another reason why memorization of the Quran was widespread is because the Quran was being revealed over a period of 23 years, each verse supporting each other, and by the death of the Prophet, Islam engulfed the Arabian peninsula, with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in the mosque all throughout these areas, and that within a few short years after the death of the Prophet, Islam engulfed Persia, the Roman Empire, and North Africa with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in their prayers.
Firstly, that's not an acceptable claim. It was necessary to make new copies to strengthen the authenticity of the original one by drawing from a larger pool of sources.
Also, there were seven different modes of recitation that existed during Muhammad's time and they are known as the seven ahrufs (or modes of expression). He allowed his followers to recite any of those modes of expression they preferred because this would make it easier for them to read the Quran and especially to memorize the Quran: "This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you" (Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 582).
The earliest manuscripts didn't have vowel dots on the letters because they were written in the Kufi script, and secondly, there wasn't even any need for the vowel dots at the time. Why? Because the Arabs had the freedom to recite the Quran according to their own dialect, which varied amongst the Arab tribes, and that's why it was not necessary to put any of the signs and dots on the vowel letters to aid in the pronunciation. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Quran because they could read it without the dots.
Some people argue that the present copy of the Quran that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Quran that was present at the Prophet's time. But they fail to realize that the word "Quran" means a "recitation." Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Quran is what is important irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels or not.
That's an easy question, and the answer is that the main reasons for making more copies of the Quran by Uthman's scribes were to (1) to strengthen the authenticity of the original one, or Hafsa's copy, by comparing them with all the other copies; (2) to universalize the dialect of the Quran by writing it in the Kufi script so that Muslims can recite the Quran in any of the seven dialects (because the Kufi script has no vowel dots on the letters); and (3) to make separate copies of the Quran and then send them to other locations.
Only later, when the Quran was being distributed to the non-Arabs in other parts of the world, it became necessary for the vowel signs to be added in the Quran since otherwise non-Arabs would be confused on how to pronounce the words correctly.
I don't know who is Hammad Ibn Zeberkan. But 3 things come to mind:
(1) I did not find this information anywhere else on the internet; (2) The author doesn't give a citation for this; and (3) It only says that he "recited" them like like that which does not necessarily prove that the letters are different.
Same thing as above: No reference, cannot find this information anywhere else, and a difference in recitation does not necessarily indicate a change in words or letters. Also, these difference may have been limited to their personal manuscripts only, in which they can add commentaries and/or synonyms into the Quran. I will explain this more thoroughly in the next two comments.
I don't know whether or not every single letter in the Quran has been unchanged. But again, I didn't see any proof that such differences in letters have been carried down to the Quran that we have today. These differences may have been limited to some of the early manuscripts only. Also, we know that there were manuscripts which had additional sentences, and these additions are only meant to be interpretations and meanings of the original text of the Quran which means that the additions are not a part of the Quran.
The fact that some mushafs (or manuscripts) are not the same as today's official Quran does not necessarily mean that the present one does not contain the actual revealed words.
Like I said before, one explanation is that many of the manuscripts possessed by the close companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, especially people of deeper knowledge such 'Ali and ibn Abbas, contained their own explanations, commentary, and/or interpretation of the verses. In other words, in their own mushafs they not only have the Quran as sent down to the Prophet, but also their own commentary and explanations.It is similar to the Qurans of today whereby when you read the English you see brackets with explanations or elaborations or clarifications within them. Just like the translated Qurans today are actually translations of the interpretation of the Quran, not literal translations as that is impossible, their versions were elaborations and interpretations of the Quran. But because of their individual method of inputting commentary, it would be easy for an outside reader to become confused between what was commentary and what were the actual revealed words.
After I googled this quote, I learned that the author of this article has perhaps intentionally changed the wording of the quote while translating it to Engish, so as to make it very different from it's actual meaning. The words used by Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" in the original quote were "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated). Therefore, the actual meaning of Umar's words is:
"Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Quran [its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."
I've already addressed those points. I don't have to repeat it again. Also, why would Muslims burn their own Quran if they believe it was the word of Allah?
@ annatar: I had most of this reply typed out in my computer months ago. But, I was just procrastinating to finish it off and post it. So, please forgive me for being so late. Secondly, I didn't see you post in this forum for quite a while. And maybe you won't ever see this post (but I hope you do), and in case if you don't see it, I've sent you a PM to tell you that I finally replied to the article (which you linked). I said that I would reply and I should keep my word, at least.
I didn't reply to every single sentence in the article, btw, but only the ones which I think are the most important to be addressed. The article is too long anyways.
My Refutations of the Turun Durusn Article
Quote:The first original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, bones and similar things. All of them were burnt!
Yes, the verses were being written on scraps of leather and similar things. But also know that the Quran was being transmitted in an oral process and through memorization, not only through writing. After the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, ordered for the Quran to be copied from the various different materials on to a common material which was in the shape of sheets and tied with strings.
The statement that "all of them were burnt" does not prove or indicate that the Quran has been changed. Why? Because they were destroyed after he completed the official manuscript of the Quran. There was no need to keep the loose materials anymore since all the verses of the Quran were safely gathered by Abu Bakr [/i]before[/i] the burning took place. That's why, it doesn't matter if the earlier copies of the Quran were burned or not.
Quote:The second original of the Quran verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They were burnt, too!
I never heard about that before, but if this is true, then again, that's not a problem because Abu Bakr didn't write the Quran, he only compiled it, from various other manuscripts. After doing that, Uthman began the job of putting it together into a complete Quran by consulting with Qaris (those who memorized the Quran). That's why it doesn't matter if the compilation was burned or not. If Uthman faithfully copied from Abu Bakr's compilation, then it's more reasonable to think that the Muslims would certainly not burn the original one unless if there was a way to reproduce it.
Quote:The third original one consisted of yazmas (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world!
That is either a lie or a misinformation because the manuscripts during the time of Uthman do exist which you can see in the link in my first post in this thread. There were other personal collections of the portions of the Quran that people had with them. So, Uthman appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Quran in order to preserve the original text of the Quran (or the actual revealed words).
Quote:When the Prophet passed away, there was no-one other than only four people to have memorized the whole of the Quran; Ebu'd-Derda, Muaz Ibn Cebel, Zeyd Ibn Sabit and Ebu Zeyd." (Buhari.)
There is a context to that hadith which needs to be clarified and here is the explanation from the same book that the author used (Al-Ittiqan).
"The saying of Anas (RA) does not prove that except these four no other companion had memorized the whole of Quran and that his saying is the ultimate truth because here his words merely imply that Anas (RA) did not know anyone except these four to have memorized the whole of the Quran. And while the companions had spread in different cities, how could it have been possible for Anas (RA) to know (about each one of them)? It would be possible only if Anas (RA) had met each of them individually and asked him if he had collected the whole of Quran during the Prophet's (PBUH) lifetime and if each of them had replied in negative. This is obviously out of question and if this statement is taken only to be according to the knowledge of Anas (RA) then it does not mean that his statement is actually true." - Al-Ittiqan 1/170, Section 20
Quote:The number of the living people who had the verses in their memories in Abu Bakr's time was controversial. As can be seen in three of Buhari's hadiths, there were, at most, only seven people who had memorized all of the verses of the Quran. Even in Muhammad's time, few people had been able to do that.
Again, that is not true because memorization of the Quran was a widespread phenomenon during that time, as well as today. Many of the memorizers were also being killed in battlefields.
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari: "Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra (those who know the Quran by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Quran" (Sahih Bukhari, 4603).
Another reason why memorization of the Quran was widespread is because the Quran was being revealed over a period of 23 years, each verse supporting each other, and by the death of the Prophet, Islam engulfed the Arabian peninsula, with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in the mosque all throughout these areas, and that within a few short years after the death of the Prophet, Islam engulfed Persia, the Roman Empire, and North Africa with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in their prayers.
Quote:On the one hand, it was claimed that identical copies of the Quran were made, but on the other hand, when asked why it was necessary to make new copies, it was said that it had to be done due to the differences of dialects.
Firstly, that's not an acceptable claim. It was necessary to make new copies to strengthen the authenticity of the original one by drawing from a larger pool of sources.
Also, there were seven different modes of recitation that existed during Muhammad's time and they are known as the seven ahrufs (or modes of expression). He allowed his followers to recite any of those modes of expression they preferred because this would make it easier for them to read the Quran and especially to memorize the Quran: "This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you" (Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 582).
Quote:However, Dr. Suphi e's-Salih, says in his work called Mebahis Fi Ulumi'l-Kuran (Beirut 1979), on pages 80, 84, 85, that this claim is far from being convincing. According Dr. Suphi, at that time, Arabic did not have signs and punctuation marks as to spell the same words to be pronounced in different ways. Back then, apart from the letters to write, the letters with no signs had no dots, either.
The earliest manuscripts didn't have vowel dots on the letters because they were written in the Kufi script, and secondly, there wasn't even any need for the vowel dots at the time. Why? Because the Arabs had the freedom to recite the Quran according to their own dialect, which varied amongst the Arab tribes, and that's why it was not necessary to put any of the signs and dots on the vowel letters to aid in the pronunciation. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Quran because they could read it without the dots.
Some people argue that the present copy of the Quran that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Quran that was present at the Prophet's time. But they fail to realize that the word "Quran" means a "recitation." Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Quran is what is important irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels or not.
Quote:In short, the Mushaf that was produced during the time of Caliph Abu Bakr could not have been written as to contain different dialects even if had been intended. In this case, the question, What were the differences between Abu Bakr's (later Hafsa's) copy and those that were produced by Othman's scribes remains unanswered.
That's an easy question, and the answer is that the main reasons for making more copies of the Quran by Uthman's scribes were to (1) to strengthen the authenticity of the original one, or Hafsa's copy, by comparing them with all the other copies; (2) to universalize the dialect of the Quran by writing it in the Kufi script so that Muslims can recite the Quran in any of the seven dialects (because the Kufi script has no vowel dots on the letters); and (3) to make separate copies of the Quran and then send them to other locations.
Only later, when the Quran was being distributed to the non-Arabs in other parts of the world, it became necessary for the vowel signs to be added in the Quran since otherwise non-Arabs would be confused on how to pronounce the words correctly.
Quote:Hammad Ibn Zeberkan used to recite the word “iyyahu” in “Repentance” (Al Tawba), verse 114, as “ebahu” and the word “izzettin” in “Sad” as “gırratin”. The differences in all these words are confined to some letters; in the former pair of words, the letter “ya” is changed into “ba”, and in the latter pair of words, the letter “ayın” is changed into “gayın”. Let’s give no significance to the changes of these letter.
I don't know who is Hammad Ibn Zeberkan. But 3 things come to mind:
(1) I did not find this information anywhere else on the internet; (2) The author doesn't give a citation for this; and (3) It only says that he "recited" them like like that which does not necessarily prove that the letters are different.
Quote:Instead of some words existing in the Quran available, Abdullah Ibn Abbas used to recite the “synonyms” of them. Enes Ibn Malik recited the word “akvamu” in the sixth verse of “The Mantled One” as “asvabu”. Ibn Omar recited the word “fes’av” in the tenth verse of “Friday” as “femzü”, and Ibn Abbas recited the word “kel’ıhni” in the fifth verse of “The Disaster” as “k’essavfı”. Likewise, Ibn Abbas preferred to recite the word “sayhaten” as “zeyfeten”. Enes Ibn Malik recited the word “halelna” in the second verse of “Comfort” instead of “vada’na”.
Same thing as above: No reference, cannot find this information anywhere else, and a difference in recitation does not necessarily indicate a change in words or letters. Also, these difference may have been limited to their personal manuscripts only, in which they can add commentaries and/or synonyms into the Quran. I will explain this more thoroughly in the next two comments.
Quote:The changes in these cases are not changes of letters but changes of words. This means the claim that even one letter of the Quran has not been changed since the time of the Prophet is not true.
I don't know whether or not every single letter in the Quran has been unchanged. But again, I didn't see any proof that such differences in letters have been carried down to the Quran that we have today. These differences may have been limited to some of the early manuscripts only. Also, we know that there were manuscripts which had additional sentences, and these additions are only meant to be interpretations and meanings of the original text of the Quran which means that the additions are not a part of the Quran.
Quote:Sources refer to different mushafs. When the examples given are compared, the contents of some mushafs are not the same as those in today's official Quran.
The fact that some mushafs (or manuscripts) are not the same as today's official Quran does not necessarily mean that the present one does not contain the actual revealed words.
Like I said before, one explanation is that many of the manuscripts possessed by the close companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, especially people of deeper knowledge such 'Ali and ibn Abbas, contained their own explanations, commentary, and/or interpretation of the verses. In other words, in their own mushafs they not only have the Quran as sent down to the Prophet, but also their own commentary and explanations.It is similar to the Qurans of today whereby when you read the English you see brackets with explanations or elaborations or clarifications within them. Just like the translated Qurans today are actually translations of the interpretation of the Quran, not literal translations as that is impossible, their versions were elaborations and interpretations of the Quran. But because of their individual method of inputting commentary, it would be easy for an outside reader to become confused between what was commentary and what were the actual revealed words.
Quote:What Ibn Omar says is also very interesting; None of you should say that he has the whole Quran. Does he who says so know what the whole of the Quran is? It's certain that most of the Quran has been destroyed. (See Suyuti, el itkan, 2/32)
After I googled this quote, I learned that the author of this article has perhaps intentionally changed the wording of the quote while translating it to Engish, so as to make it very different from it's actual meaning. The words used by Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" in the original quote were "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated). Therefore, the actual meaning of Umar's words is:
"Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Quran [its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."
Quote:Both the first and the second original copies of the Quran were burnt by the Muslims. There is no doubt that this was done to conceal the truth. And the original copies that were made during the time of Othman and sent to certain central zones cannot be found anywhere in the world.
I've already addressed those points. I don't have to repeat it again. Also, why would Muslims burn their own Quran if they believe it was the word of Allah?
@ annatar: I had most of this reply typed out in my computer months ago. But, I was just procrastinating to finish it off and post it. So, please forgive me for being so late. Secondly, I didn't see you post in this forum for quite a while. And maybe you won't ever see this post (but I hope you do), and in case if you don't see it, I've sent you a PM to tell you that I finally replied to the article (which you linked). I said that I would reply and I should keep my word, at least.
