Yasir Quadhi: Problems with the Preservation of the Quran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d225z-Yn0vk
First Shabir Ally, now Yasir Quadhi: the knowledge of the problematic transmission of the Quran is now trickling down to the mainstream muslim world.

Mohamed Hijab Asks Shaykh Yassir Qadri about the preservation of the Koran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstGbZkjUcw
on June 8, 2020, Shaykh Yassir Qadri, a renowned Muslim cleric in the US, well known for his talks on the Qur'an's perfect preservation, was asked by Mohammad Hijab, a popular Muslim YouTuber to answer whether he believed the Qur'an was perfectly preserved, and whether the Qira'at and Ahruf differences (i.e. the later addition of dots above and below the letters, and the vowels) were problematic for its preservation.

Jay decided to take the roughly 25-minute section of the interview where Qadri tried to respond to this question and unpack it for the rest of us, suggesting that Qadri made quite a number of interesting admissions, some of which he may regret later on.

These are the admissions which Qadri made:

1) The subject of Ahruf and Qira'at is probably the most difficult question for modern Muslim scholars like himself to answer.

2) This question, and others posed by Western scholars caused him to go through a crisis when he was studying for his PhD at Yale University.

3) He was rescued from this crisis by returning to what he had been taught since childhood, that the Qur'an must be the 'Word of Allah' because it is self-evident.

4) It is not the place for the uneducated Muslims to question Qira'at and Ahruf, since this is a question which should be left to the experts, the Ulemma, who have been discussing it for 1,000 years.

5) Yet, even the best Muslim scholar on the subject, Ibn al-Jazari, who spent 30 years studying the Qira'at, and compiled 90 books on this subject, is not accepted by scholars today.

6) Today, "the Western level of knowledge is leaps and bounds above what it used to be just 100 years ago", and this is causing a dilemma within Muslim scholarly circles.

7) The Traditional Understanding of the Ahruf and Qira'at cannot answer the pressing questions being asked by Western Academics today in the West.

8 ) What's more, Qadri admits, "It's very clear that the standard narrative on the subject has holes in it".

9) This issue of Qira'at has troubled the Umma (believers) from the very beginning.

10) "Because of these problems, the issue of Ahruf and Qira'at should only be discussed among those who are familiar with the science", though for the past 1,000 years they have discussed it, without coming to any satisfactory conclusions.

11) Yassir Qadri admitted he had never brought this topic up himself, and that he has never lectured about this issue, though numerous times he said that to understand it, take his course.

12) He went on to say that this question should never be brought up in public, and those Muslims who did were "idiots".

13) When asked by Muhammad Hijab whether he could write on a blank piece of paper a perfect Quran today, and which Qira'at he would use, he tried desperately not to answer the question.

14) In desperation, when pushed by Hijab, he admitted that all of the different Qira'at Qur'ans (Hatun now has 37 in London) would be acceptable, because the Hadith said so, and the Qur'an promised that the Qur'an would be perfectly preserve (see Surah 15:9).

15) In the end Qadri simply fell back on his favourite mantra on the subject, reciting, "The Qur'an is the uncreated speech of Allah, the Qur'an is preserved, the Qur'an is known, the Qur'an is Mutawatir (the succession of narration), all of the Qira'at are the Qur'an, all are authentic, leave it at that. Beyond this requires background information, so take my class"

It seems to me that he is still in crisis, and Muslims everywhere should now wonder, if he is the best they have on the subject, how then are they going to be able to continue this charade that the Qur'an is perfectly preserved. If they really believe it, then they will have to do a better job than simply sides-stepping the issue.

© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020

What will it take to quote in the muslim thread

Missyajoke:
What will it take to quote in the muslim thread

You have to take that nonsense oath about Allah and muhammad bla bla bla.If you've refused it b4,you'll wait for 3 to 7 days b4 it pops up again.

Galactico4ever:
You have to take that nonsense oath about Allah and muhammad bla bla bla.If you've refused it b4,you'll wait for 3 to 7 days b4 it pops up again.

Why take an oath to post on Muslim thread, No wonder some of them posts on religion not on the Muslim thread. Na real wa

Empiree and AntiChristian, your attention is needed here.

sagenaija:
Empiree and AntiChristian, your attention is needed here.

Who is Yasir Qadri being mentioned in the post?

Yasir Qadhi is a Pakistani-American Muslim preacher calling to falsehood!

If you are accepting this from just one person then Odumeje is a rep of Jesus on Earth!
And we should believe Jesus really drank Baba Adeboye's tea too!

AntiChristian:

Who is Yasir Qadri being mentioned in the post?
Yasir Qadhi is a Pakistani-American Muslim preacher calling to falsehood!
If you are accepting this from just one person then Odumeje is a rep of Jesus on Earth!
And we should believe Jesus really drank Baba Adeboye's tea too!

Do you want to specialise in attacking individuals rather than the substance of their arguments?

Is that another escape route for you when you are unable to match their positions or even defend yours like the kissing of the black stones?

Holes & Crisis - Troubling the Muslim community since the time of Muhammad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddEvKVbB-s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QxgDvDhBl8

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Do you want to specialise in attacking individuals rather than the substance of their arguments?

Is that another escape route for you when you are unable to match their positions or even defend yours like the kissing of the black stones?

Yeah, my judgement is based on the substance of his argument!
He is essentially a misguided Muslim.

Except if you believe Odumeje is the new Apostle Paul for Christians!

Why Muhammad Hijab Removed 30 mins. of Yasir Quadhi Interview / What He's Hiding From Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8Zv1sB4Aw

11 Differences on ONE PAGE of a Quran Manuscript! [More Holes in the Narrative]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXBgWbNfQF4
Muslim apologists assure us that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, right down to the letter, from the time it was revealed to Muhammad. What happens when we look at a page of an ancient Quran manuscript and find 11 textual variants on a single page? Find out as David Wood discusses some recent comments by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi and Dr. Shabir Ally, and a recent video by Dr. Dan Brubaker of Variant Quran.

Hussein01, rolams 
You need to look at this thread and educated yourself more about your religion. You may have been told a lie by your teachers.
So, the unlettered or unlearned prophet of Islam WROTE the Koran? And what did Uthman and others do? Did they just pick Mohamed's copy and reproduced more copies? Is that what your books tell you? When did the Koran become 'glorious'? 
You will be living in a world of FANTASY when you hold on to anything other than you own books reveal about your religion.

sagenaija:
Hussein01, rolams 
You need to look at this thread and educated yourself more about your religion. You may have been told a lie by your teachers.
So, the unlettered or unlearned prophet of Islam WROTE the Koran? And what did Uthman and others do? Did they just pick Mohamed's copy and reproduced more copies? Is that what your books tell you? When did the Koran become 'glorious'? 
You will be living in a world of FANTASY when you hold on to anything other than you own books reveal about your religion.

You only need not to be sentimental, try and be neutral, then study the history of the prophet, Islam and the Qur'an. You will find the truth.

Notice: Never read any article or books publish by an atheist or other religions because they won't tell you the truth. This is one of the problems some people have. They will never get to know what Islam, Qur'an and Muhammed is all about.

rolams:

You only need not to be sentimental, try and be neutral, then study the history of the prophet, Islam and the Qur'an. You will find the truth.

Notice: Never read any article or books publish by an atheist or other religions because they won't tell you the truth. This is one of the problems some people have. They will never get to know what Islam, Qur'an and Muhammed is all about.

Can you quote islamic sources that support your position for us to see?
Do the Koran and hadith support your claim?
If so, show us.

sagenaija:

Can you quote islamic sources that support your position for us to see?
Do the Koran and hadith support your claim?
If so, show us.

Q4 vs 82

Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Go and read 'ORIGIN OF THE QURAN'- OHIO UNIVERSITY

rolams:

Q4 vs 82
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
Go and read 'ORIGIN OF THE QURAN'- OHIO UNIVERSITY

What does this verse you quoted mean?
Is it addressing Moslems or some other people?

sagenaija:

What does this verse you quoted mean?
Is it addressing Moslems or some other people?

You won't know

rolams:

You won't know

I won't know what?
Is it so difficult to give a simple explanation to an enquirer to support your position on an issue?
Are you running away from something?

Thanks for exposing me to something new about the Quran.

Why didn't Allah just hand over a copy of the book to Mohammed at the time? I mean it is believed that the original copy of the Quran itself is in heaven, right?

A Simple photocopy would have saved Muslims the world over having to put up with embarrassing situations trying to explain away this monumental confusion.

Come to think of it, our own ancestors did make similar mistakes of passing down our heritage and traditions via oral transmission. I'm pretty sure no sane mind would say our culture and traditions were preserved from earliest time to present day.

Pointedly, it was some men and not Allah who eventually decided to have the Quran compiled and unified when many of its memorizers were being slaughtered in war. Smart men I must say.

Without those future thinking men, the miracle of Allah to the world would probably have been lost in it's entirety to war!

I can't deal mehn!

sagenaija:
Hussein01, rolams 
You need to look at this thread and educated yourself more about your religion. You may have been told a lie by your teachers.
So, the unlettered or unlearned prophet of Islam WROTE the Koran? And what did Uthman and others do? Did they just pick Mohamed's copy and reproduced more copies? Is that what your books tell you? When did the Koran become 'glorious'? 
You will be living in a world of FANTASY when you hold on to anything other than you own books reveal about your religion.

This is not a matter of teacher teaching student nonsense. All the so called scholar research you see on this thread are sentimental research whose objective is to question the divinity of the Glorious Quran and bersmirch Islam.

None among the caliphs ever interpolate, add to or substract from the word of the Qura.
What Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization.

Throughout the period of Muhammed(pbuh)prophethood, the whole of Holy Quran was written on various available materials such as leather, bones, shoulder blades, tree barks etc. so, during the time of Abubakar as caliph a suggestion came from Umar for compilation of Quran into a single book, considering how the memorizer had been largely slain in the battle of Riddah. After his conviction, Abubakar sent for Zaid bn. Thabit, the chief secretary to the prophet and other scribes to compiled it into a book.Utman came and constituted a council to standardize it,having considered how people were reciting it according to there different dialects which brought discrepancy in the way Quran was recited in general.

The Quran was copied into six in the original dialect of the prophet while recitation in all other dialect were prohibited.
In fact, according to Demffer(1983)two out of these Uthmanic copies exist till dat, with one in the Columbia University Libary(USA)while other is kept in Tashkent(former USSR).

What they did is uniting Muslims of all generation upon one text of reading the Holy Quran, the did not add or substract from it.

Sheunma:
Why didn't Allah just hand over a copy of the book to Mohammed at the time? I mean it is believed that the original copy of the Quran itself is in heaven, right?

A Simple photocopy would have saved Muslims the world over having to put up with embarrassing situations trying to explain away this monumental confusion.

Come to think of it, our own ancestors did make similar mistakes of passing down our heritage and traditions via oral transmission. I'm pretty sure no sane mind would say our culture and traditions were preserved from earliest time to present day.

Pointedly, it was some men and not Allah who eventually decided to have the Quran compiled and unified when many of its memorizers were being slaughtered in war. Smart men I must say.

Without those future thinking men, the miracle of Allah to the world would probably have been lost in it's entirety to war!

I can't deal mehn!

Supposed the Quran was revealed in a whole, you people would still question its divinity just to bring it on the same ground with the bible.

You claim the preservation of it was not by Allah but some future thinking men. Aren't you wonder why memorizing of it was made so easy? Or your research has not let you to the fact that those memorizers supervised and proof read it?

Allah himself preserved the Quran by making it memorization so easy for mankinds (Children of 7years memorized it), this is the almighty Allah way of preserving the Quran. Should all existing Quran gone into extinction, millions of it exist in our heads.

A photocopy of the Quran? it was revealed in piecemeal for reasons.

And nobody asks you to deal.

Hussein01:


This is not a matter of teacher teaching student nonsense. All the so called scholar research you see on this thread are sentimental research whose objective is to question the divinity of the Glorious Quran and bersmirch Islam.

None among the caliphs ever interpolate, add to or substract from the word of the Qura.
What Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization.

Throughout the period of Muhammed(pbuh)prophethood, the whole of Holy Quran was written on various available materials such as leather, bones, shoulder blades, tree barks etc. so, during the time of Abubakar as caliph a suggestion came from Umar for compilation of Quran into a single book, considering how the memorizer had been largely slain in the battle of Riddah. After his conviction, Abubakar sent for Zaid bn. Thabit, the chief secretary to the prophet and other scribes to compiled it into a book.Utman came and constituted a council to standardize it,having considered how people were reciting it according to there different dialects which brought discrepancy in the way Quran was recited in general.

The Quran was copied into six in the original dialect of the prophet while recitation in all other dialect were prohibited.
In fact, according to Demffer(1983)two out of these Uthmanic copies exist till dat, with one in the Columbia University Libary(USA)while other is kept in Tashkent(former USSR).

What they did is uniting Muslims of all generation upon one text of reading the Holy Quran, the did not add or substract from it.

If all that Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization, let me ask you this question: compilation of what and what do you mean by 'standardization'? What standard?

Also, if during the time of Mohamed the Koran was written in notes here and there and Mohamed NEVER thought it fit to compile them into a single volume, was it Allah then who authorised it's compilation? If so, how? If not, why did the followers DEVIATE from Mohamed's example when he was supposed to be the person they were to COPY? How come he was no longer an example to follow in this case?

When you say

"the (they?) did not add or substract from it"

you are not being truthful, are you? For example, did the Uthmanic Koran have the dots and markings of the Koran you have today? And you still say that they did not ADD to it? With all the different VARIANTS today you still claim that someone didn't 'sub tract' from it? If one variant says "We said ..." and another says "You said ..." you don't think something has been added or subtracted somewhere?

Truth requires that clear discrepancies be admitted where you see them. Otherwise you will only be living in self delusion.

Btw, I will address the issue of memorization of the Koran later. Just note that the reason given in the first place for compilation was because those who 'memorized' it may all die YET today you guys are claiming a different things. If they believed what you believe why would compilation be necessary in the first place?

200+ Quran Verses Missing from a Single Chapter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nouH1I4GxEw
Surah 33 of today's Quran contains 73 verses. However, according to Muhammad's wife Aisha, Surah 33 was originally recited with 200 verses. Even worse, Muhammad's companion Ubayy ibn Kab insists that Surah 33 used to be as long as Surah 2, which contains 286 verses! How can our Muslim friends claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved when hundreds of verses have been lost from a single chapter? David Wood discusses the issue.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
If all that Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization, let me ask you this question: compilation of what and what do you mean by 'standardization'? What standard?

Also, if during the time of Mohamed the Koran was written in notes here and there and Mohamed NEVER thought it fit to compile them into a single volume, was it Allah then who authorised it's compilation? If so, how? If not, why did the followers DEVIATE from Mohamed's example when he was supposed to be the person they were to COPY? How come he was no longer an example to follow in this case?

When you say you are not being truthful, are you? For example, did the Uthmanic Koran have the dots and markings of the Koran you have today? And you still say that they did not ADD to it? With all the different VARIANTS today you still claim that someone didn't 'sub tract' from it? If one variant says "We said ..." and another says "You said ..." you don't think something has been added or subtracted somewhere?

Truth requires that clear discrepancies be admitted where you see them. Otherwise you will only be living in self delusion.

Btw, I will address the issue of memorization of the Koran later. Just note that the reason given in the first place for compilation was because those who 'memorized' it may all die YET today you guys are claiming a different things. If they believed what you believe why would compilation be necessary in the first place?

If you read my comment which you quoted and still not understand what compilation and standardization mean, then you need to re-read or consult youtube there would be a video for it too...lol

The start in the revelation of the Quran marked the beginning of Muhammed (pbuh) prophethood while its end preceeded the subsequent demise of the prophet. The revelation which started when he was 40 years of age ended when he was 63, bringing us to the fact that Quran was revealed for period of 23 years.

Though there were variations in the opinions of the scholars as to wheither the prophet died 9 days after the end of revelation or not, either of the two possible situation, fact remains that the prophet died the same year the revelation ended.

Wouldn't it be illogical to have the Quran compiled into a single book when the revelation was still in process?

If Prophet Muhammad couldn't compile the Quran into a single volume by virtue of his immediate death after the end of revelation, then, what did he do apart from the Quran been revealed through him?

The arragement of verses which led to formation of chapters,as Quran was revealed in piecemeal, was done by the prophet himself, it was he who indicated in which chapter each revealed verse was to be placed. As aforesaid that the Quran was on different materials before compilation, the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged, meaning the prophet, before his demise, had the Glorious Quran but not in a single book but on different materials.

Now that you have known the role of the prophet, can you say, if making it a single book is a "CHANGE", or makes Caliph Abubakar its author?

As to wheither the compilation a divergency from the tradition of the prophet.

As stated already, that the compilation was a suggestion by Umar to Abubakar, the first caliph, who (the latter) refused to welcome the suggestion claiming he will not innovate into the religion what is not there and never to do what the prophet did not. he was succesfully conviced by Umar. Abubakar summoned Zaid bn. thabit, the chief secretary in a bid to assign him and others for the task, he also refused and abdicated his post claiming he would never deviate from the prophet and other notable companions held thesame opinion, the situation remained undecided until divine authorisation came through Ali bn Abi Talib.

As for the diatrical mark:

The Arabian skills in reading of Arabic Language before the advent of Islam and Muslims recitation of the Quran was precise even without diatrical marks with the intended meaning intact.

Diatrical marks came in the wake of the growing trend to convert to Islam by non-Arabs, who are unskilled in reading arabic language precisely without dinstinction in alphabets that share same drawing, as a result of this, error
began to appear in the reading of the Quran when non-Arabs and the Arabs whose dialect was corrupted read it. Incorrect reading would surely bring changes in original meaning . to ward this undesirable occurrence off, distinction in alphabets that share the same drawing was created mainly for the unskilled non-Arabs, the created distinction later known as DIATRICAL MARKS.

The introduction of diatrical marks was a development in Arabic Language not with the wordings of the Quran as it effected not, any interpolation into the Quran.

Other marks you see in the Quran signifies: Assimmilation, Pronunciation, Intensification, Nasalization, depolirization, stoppage, merging, hidden-condition etc. All of these to bring perfection and correctness in MODE OF RECITATION (not in words and there meaning) of the Quran so that it would be recited in clear Arabic tongue of the prophet.

Hussein01:

Though there were variations in the opinions of the scholars as to wheither the prophet died 9 days after the end

Wouldn't it be illogical to have the Quran compiled into a single book when the revelation was still in

As aforesaid that the Quran was on different materials before compilation, the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged, meaning the prophet, before his demise, had the Glorious Quran but not in a single book but on different materials.

As to wheither the compilation a divergency from the tradition of the prophet.

As stated already, that the compilation was a suggestion by Umar to Abubakar, the first caliph, who (the latter) refused to welcome the suggestion claiming he will not innovate into the religion what is not there and never to do what the prophet did not. he was succesfully conviced by Umar. Abubakar summoned Zaid bn. thabit, the chief secretary ...
... the situation remained undecided until divine authorisation came through Ali bn Abi Talib.

As for the diatrical mark:

distinction in alphabets that share the same drawing was created mainly for the unskilled non-Arabs

The introduction of diatrical marks was a development in Arabic Language

But Huasein01, according to Islam the Koran as a book already existed in heaven. If it was already a completed volume in heaven why should it take till Mohamed died to complete it. Beside Allah must KNOW that his prophet was going to die and when that would happen so couldn't he have told Mohamed exactly what to do about his (Allah's) 'critical revelation' to mankind?

What does each of those bolded portions tell you? Do i need to take them one by one?

Islamic history does not support this your claim that "the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged". If it was already "stored in a place" why was Zaid ibn Thabith saddled with the task of collecting and confirming which writings were genuine and then binding them into a single volume to become one book?

Even after the “authorized’ version came out many objections came up, including from Mohamed’s widow, to the effect that portions of known recitations by Mohammed when he was alive were missing from this new compilation. If it was already "stored in a place" as you claim why did Aisha complain that portions were missing?

[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."
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith
(Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310;
As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13

Don't you see that what you wrote here is still supporting my assertion?

Sometimes you guys just want to believe what you want to believe even when it goes against your own Islamic sources and history. That's simply amazing.

Your words on the Diacritical markings again proves my point. They were NOT there in the earliest copies of the Koran. They are NOW in today's copies. And to you that is not change?

So, there have indeed been problems, from the inception, with the preservation of the Koran.

sagenaija:

But Huasein01, according to Islam the Koran as a book already existed in heaven. If it was already a completed volume in heaven why should it take till Mohamed died to complete it. Beside Allah must KNOW that his prophet was going to die and when that would happen so couldn't he have told Mohamed exactly what to do about his (Allah's) 'critical revelation' to mankind?

What does each of those bolded portions tell you? Do i need to take them one by one?

Islamic history does not support this your claim that "the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged". If it was already "stored in a place" why was Zaid ibn Thabith saddled with the task of collecting and confirming which writings were genuine and then binding them into a single volume to become one book?

Even after the “authorized’ version came out many objections came up, including from Mohamed’s widow, to the effect that portions of known recitations by Mohammed when he was alive were missing from this new compilation. If it was already "stored in a place" as you claim why did Aisha complain that portions were missing?

[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."
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith
(Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310;
As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13

Don't you see that what you wrote here is still supporting my assertion?

Sometimes you guys just want to believe what you want to believe even when it goes against your own Islamic sources and history. That's simply amazing.

Your words on the Diacritical markings again proves my point. They were NOT there in the earliest copies of the Koran. They are NOW in today's copies. And to you that is not change?

So, there have indeed been problems, from the inception, with the preservation of the Koran.

As for the narration, it is a fabricated one on the following reasons:

1-Any Hadith or narration whose content is contrary to what is revealed in the Quran is considered unauthentic and fabricated. Allah has made it known in the Glorious Quran that the responsibility to preserve the Quran is divine. As per the narration, a portion of the Quran has lost, meaning it is not well preserved. This makes it contrary to the revelation.

2- From the Hadith Science Scholars' point of view, there is defect in both the Isnad( chain of narration) and Matn (the content) of that narration, thereby making the narration unauthentic and a weak one.
One of the scholars that clarified this is Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

That narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from ‘Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to the fact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.

In a more concise expression, the two ideas in that narration is about missing stoning verse and breastfeeding, other narrators related this from Aishat without the idea that a verse was missing (only breastfeeding) , only this narration whose chain of narration is weak and content contrary to the Quran says otherwise.

3- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. The following narrations testify to this;

It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)’, (hearing this) Amr said,

‘When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.’ (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)

b- About this ‘verse’ Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

“‘O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘I can’t do this.'” (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 714

Again, the above narration is indicative of the fact that your referred narration is fabricated. Stoning verse did not lost, it is not meant to be part of the Quran in the first place.

From another point of view, let's assume the narration is authentic and was not fabricated, we will have to say that perhaps ‘Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.

Moreover ‘Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Uthman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Uthman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting ‘Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered to be authentic.
None of my comment supports your assertion, in case you don't understand, what I did there was explaining to you the reason diatrical marks could not be consider a change or alteration in the Quran.
I can see you trying to narrow down the meaning of the word "change", you can perhaps tell me another meaning of change.
take for instance: you bought some meat, having no any modern means, you add salt to preserve it, could adding salt to meat engendered any change in it?
Diatrical and vocalization marking itself is a preservation to the Quran.

Changes could be said to have happened when you leave the meat to rot and buy another one, old and new testament of the bible is a perfect example.

As to your first paragraph, Google up why Quran was revealed in piece meal.
Second paragraph; character of a typical christians and atheists, quoting part of a whole to suit there interest you should have quoted it in a whole.

But you surely know you are hypocrite, it was you who said truth requires admitting change when there is, a statement which urged me to make you know the rationale behind the invention of diatrical and vicalisation marks, and why it can never be consider a change in the Quran but you jejely turned it to a support to your assertion. huh

Change is what happened to the bible, preservation and embellishment is what happened to the Quran. LOBATAN.

Hussein01:


As for the narration, it is a fabricated one on the following
...............
None of my comment supports your assertion, in case you don't understand, what I did there was explaining to you the reason diatrical marks could not be consider a change or alteration in the Quran.
I can see you trying to narrow down the meaning of the word "change", you can perhaps tell me another meaning of change.

But you surely know you are hypocrite, it was you who said truth requires admitting change when there is, a statement which urged me to make you know the rationale behind the invention of diatrical and vicalisation marks, and why it can never be consider a change in the Quran but you jejely turned it to a support to your assertion. huh

Change is what happened to the bible, preservation and embellishment is what happened to the Quran. LOBATAN.

A simple question for you: are the 'WEAK' hadiths rejected in Islam?

The fact that islamic scholars DIFFER in points of view about authentic, weak or fabricated should show you that Islam's inability to come up with a clear position means confusion about a book (Koran) that is meant to be clear.  It also means that ANY Moslem can pick and choose which one he wants at any point in time.

If like you said "there were variations in the opinions of the scholars" then which one do we accept and on what basis?

Still on the Koran; the Koran itself is based on the narrations of people. That is why you have VERSIONS that labelled "ACCORDING TO" so and so.

It is the CLAIM you Moslems make about the Koran that throws up the challenge. It is not me "trying to narrow down the meaning of the word 'change'". Moslems claim the Koran exists in heaven (or is it paradise?). You also claim that not a SINGLE dot or jot has been changed in the Koran therefore the one we have today is the same as the one Mohamed allegedly recited. That it is in perfect Arabic. That, you'll agree with me, is a tall claim. The onus is therefore on you to prove that no SINGLE change has taken place.

If you now attempt to redefine what "change" is then tell me why I should accept it. If you claim that no dot has been added and I show you that DOTS have been added then how am I a hypocrite? Why can Moslems not read the "UNCHANGED" Koran the way it was revealed? What are "INVENTION" of the markings for? Did Allah authorise them? Would Mohamed have approved of them?

To EMBELLISH means there is an addition; don't you get it? Who authorised that addition? What about the copy with Allah? Does he reflect the embellishment in that one or it simply does not matter?

I'm holding you to your claims!

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
(*) A simple question for you: are the 'WEAK' hadiths rejected in Islam?

Whether weak narrations are rejected or not is of no use here, what is of use to this discussion is that narration used in support of your claim is fabricated, hence, I didn't take it.

(*) The fact that islamic scholars DIFFER in points of view about authentic, weak or fabricated should show you that Islam's inability to come up with a clear position

A clear position on what?
Does difference in point of view in any way an advantage to this discussion?

(*) If like you said "there were variations in the opinions of the scholars" then which one do we accept and on what basis?
[/quote]

By opinion we mean the four existing famous schools of thought.

Difference in the opinion of these schools of thought is not differences in the fundamental of Shariah but an exploration if possible options and choosing of preference in Shariah owing to their geographical location, way of analysing references and the recipients; In Islam, marriage in compulsory but this does not encompasses everybody depending on the individual in question.


(*) Still on the Koran; the Koran itself is based on the narrations of people. That is why you have VERSIONS that labelled "ACCORDING TO" so and so.[/quote]

Narrations! This says volume about your little or not knowledge about the subject of discussion

(*) You also claim that not a SINGLE dot or jot[/]

Since the dawn of this discussion I don't remember mentioning dot and jot.

have you now gone to saying what I said not?

(*) The onus is therefore on you to prove that no SINGLE change has taken place[/b].[/quote]

The unceasing questions calling for the establishment (from you to me) that diatrical marks is not a change to the Quran is as a result of nothing but your meagre knowledge on the subject of discussion. A person who reads Arabic would surely relate.

If there had ever been a concealment of fact that diatrical marks you referred to as "jot and dots" was in the Quran right from the inception and you people later find out, then we would have to say that we are hidding something in order to prove that no change has ever happened to it. Of course we are quit learned and well informed of the invention of diatrical marks and its incorporation before we said it is not a change.

If fact remains that diatrical marks was to preserve the Quran from being wrongly recited by the unskilled non-Arabs and Arabs whose dialects were corrupted and if it was a development in the way of writing Arabic language, then it is senseless to deem it a change. having said this, to establish your claim, I challenge you to prove otherwise; (a) that invention of diatrical mark was to preserve wrong recitation from the non-Arabs (b) that placement of diatrical marks means removal of words or necessitate it


(*) If you now attempt to redefine what "change" is then tell me why I should accept it.

You are the one trying to and I'm still expecting it

(*) Why can Moslems not read the "UNCHANGED" Koran the way it was revealed?

That's because the contemporary Arabic reader are also unskilled just as the the non-Arabs were; an experience which birthed diatrical marks

(*) What are "INVENTION" of the markings for?

You shocked me, at this point you what diatrical marks for, do you have comprehensive issue?

(*) To EMBELLISH means there is an addition; don't you get it? Who authorised that addition?


"Embellish the Quran with your sweet voices" said Prophet Muhammed
painting is a form of embellishment to your room, now tell is painting your room a removal of some of the blocks that hold it? you will answer NO because it is only a beautification.